I got this article named “The Real Mandela” by Dr. Joel McDurmon in a chain mail exactly a month ago. Dr. McDurmon directs research for American Vision founded by Gary DeMar, who wants that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government (I propose to publish the Biblical Laws in a later blog). Dr. Peter Hammond, whose video ‘expose’ that McDurmon quotes is an online missionary with a mission of his own named Frontline Fellowship. This blog is about Dr. Peter Hammond, and the false witness he bears in the name of God. I chose only 10 false witnesses with due regard to God’s 10 Commandments.
False Witness 1. If anything, Mandela’s legacy is an argument in favor of the death penalty.
The point he makes is: Mandela should have been hanged. That Judge Quartus De Wet, Judge President of the Transvaal Provisional Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa had seriously erred in his judgment. At the first trial, the Judge was derisive towards the prosecution that had indicted him and compatriots for engaging in guerrilla warfare. During the trial De Wet repeatedly asserted that he was satisfied that there was no guerrilla warfare, only plans for it. The judge quashed the charges and set Mandela and his co-accused free. Mandela was immediately arrested again for over two hundred (not 156) acts of sabotage aimed at facilitating violent revolution and armed invasion of the country. By now the wrath of the government – Hendrik Verwoerd, the racist Prime Minister who spoke against admitting Jews who sought refuge from Hitler’s Holocaust and B.J. Vorster, previously member of the anti-Allies pro-Hitler group called Ossewabrandwag and Minister of Justice at the time of the trial (two years later Prime Minister) and architect of apartheid – had their combined forces brought to bear upon the judge. The sentence read: “The crime of which the accused have been convicted, (that is the main crime, the crime of conspiracy), is in essence one of high treason. Since the state sticks to that charge, which calls for death sentence, he had no option but to use his power of leniency; hence he was awarding imprisonment for life.
Rings a bell? Since the priests and the elders stick to their accusation, I commit this man to death by crucifixion. I do not believe that the court records would show whether de Wet washed his hands.
Hammond is one Christian who advocates death penalty as opposed to Christ’s promise to forgive those who follow Him. Mandela was a praying, practicing Christian.
False Witness 2. When such criminals are not disposed of, there is always a chance future political powers may be corrupt enough to release them—perhaps even into positions of power.
The “Future Political Powers” was FW De Klerk, of the National Party, which formalized the apartheid regime in 1948 tried everything in its might to continue with the heinous policies even into the late 1980s despite enormous pressure from the United Nations, recommendation of the turn-coat Dutch Reform Church, economic sanctions (which called for additional sanctions despite Reagan’s veto) and sports-field ostracization. Even hard-case conservatives like Margaret Thatcher had begun to come around to the view that Mandela had to be freed. In 1985, Harried by international pressure, President Pieter Botha linked the release to Mandela`s rejection of violence as a political weapon, which Mandela and the ANC refused to concede on the ground that if the apartheid government did not offer to eschew violence, ANC couldn’t do it either. Botha did not offer to eschew violence against those opposed to apartheid. On a more ridiculous note, Botha in 1986 offered to release Mandela on “humanitarian grounds’ if some others in Angolan and Soviet jails were similarly released! By then, Botha’s government was already trying to butter up Mandela by moving him to a more comfortable “prison” (a villa!) in attempt to soften that stand, which failed. Mandela was always willing to talk provided it was unconditional. By1990, the new President FW DeKlerk (of the same National Party) had no alternative but to release Mandela despite all his machinations in stalling of talks to make Mandela and his party agree to do something to save his face. Klerk was no less a racist than Botha or Vorster, but he happened to be the one at the helm when the sword of inevitability fell. However, I have never heard anyone accusing DeKlerk of corruption. Is Hammond’s accusing DeKlerk of corruption mean that DeKlerk took money or incentives of some kind from someone for releasing Mandela? Or is it because Mandela graciously called him “a man of integrity”?
DeKlerk had been as much a man of the Reformist Church as Peter Hammond. It was the generosity and love of peace on the part of Mandela that, despite objections from his party members, he agreed to accept the joint Nobel Prize with DeKlerk and offer the latter Vice Presidency. Two years later, probably not wanting to work under his former black prisoner, DeKlerk resigned his job and quit politics. A Rainbow nation was not the kind that former members of apartheid regime and its remnants like Dr. Hammond would have liked.
Some of the white “Rhodies” who ran away from South Africa in a hurry fearing retribution that never happened thanks to enlightened black leaders like Mandela, Bishop Tutu and Allan Boesak continue to spew venom on Mandela. Peter Hammond, brought up in Rhodesia, joined South African Army, but enlisted the Rhodesian Commandos to form his “Frontline Fellowship” is able to live in South Africa – not in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, former Rhodesia – and preach his sermon of hatred in the name of Bible and make money on the pretext of evangelism (see below) because the concept of building a multi-coloured free Rainbow Nation (a term coined by Desmond Tutu, not Mandela) came into being when Mandela became President. If it were someone from the PAC (who wanted all whites thrown into the sea) and Inthaka Freedom Party (whom the dying apartheid regime used as a tool to cause bloodshed among blacks) or the Communists that came to power, where would Hammond and his ilk be? As against the fate of whites in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, South African whites still have their land, their riches and their lives in villas while most blacks still wallow in poverty and fight among themselves (and other African immigrants) for small pickings. Oxford Dictionary of Political Biography describes Mandela’s “extra-ordinary lack of ‘ rancour’ towards the whites who put him through immense sufferings in jail”.
- False Witness 3. He (Mandela) admitted in open court—pleaded “guilty”—and remember, he was trained as a lawyer—he pleaded “guilty” to 156 acts of public violence and terrorism.
Mandela did not plead guilty, nor did his fellow prisoners, at any time. In 1962, before the Magistrate who arraigned him, he said: “Your Worship, I submit that I AM GUILTY OF NO CRIME ” .He was sentenced for five years imprisonment. Interestingly, even when as the judge was declaring Mandela guilty, the world at large found the government of South Africa guilty of endangering international peace and security. Passing Resolution No. 1761(XVII), the United Nations recognized that “the situation in South Africa was one that had led to international friction and, found the government of South Africa guilty of endangering international peace and security. As a punishment, It requested “Member states to :
(a) break off diplomatic relations with the Government of South Africa or refrain from establishing such relations;
(b) close their ports to all vessels flying the South African flag;
(c) enact legislation prohibiting their ships from entering South African ports;
(d) boycott all South African goods and refrain from exporting goods, including all arms and ammunition;
(e) refuse landing and passage facilities to all aircraft belonging to the Government of South Africa and companies registered under the laws of South Africa. “ .
In the event, Mandela’s sentence was quashed and he was set free shortly thereafter, but the punishment awarded to the apartheid regime by the conscience of the world lasted for nearly thirty years – that is, till some time after Mandela was set free.
Later in Rivonia at his first trial in the provincial division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, Mandela pleaded NOT GUILTY, and was acquitted. The police immediately arrested him on charges of 200 counts of sabotage (not 156 acts of public violence and terrorism). To these charges, Mandela and his fellow accused proclaimed:
“MY LORD, IT IS NOT I, BUT THE GOVERNMENT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE DOCK. I PLEAD NOT GUILTY. ”
- False Witness 4. Mandela was a criminal, not a political prisoner. .. Not even the Amnesty International would take his case, because they said he wasn’t a political prisoner
Amnesty International never said that Mandela was a criminal and not a political prisoner. The protest marches and demonstrations against Mandela’s trial was attended not only by blacks, but also several white men and women. He was never treated as a criminal even by the South African government. There had been a parade of international and South African high officials, eminent men of fame and position that visited Mandela in prison at times to find the state of his comfort, at other times to elicit his views on how to tide over the impasse.
The fact was that Amnesty International, which had earlier described Mandela as a “forgotten prisoner” was divided among two groups. One was of the opinion that Mandela’s case was to be taken; the other view was that since Mandela did not deny the use of violence, he did not merit the POC (Prisoner of Conscience) status. Then or now, Amnesty International takes no official position on the justification of the use of violence. It only makes a distinction between those political prisoners who do and do not use or advocate its use as concerns its internal program of action on their behalf. In the event, Amnesty International agreed to continue to work on his behalf in terms of fair trial, and against the possibility of the death penalty. It is on record that Mandela was a political prisoner was never brought into question in Amnesty International.
- False Witness 5. Mandela was a Terrorist.
As Bob Egelko, long time correspondent of Associated Press wrote, “it should be said that Mandela came to support armed struggle against the apartheid regime before his imprisonment, although he never backed terrorism or assassinations.” If Mandela was a terrorist by trying to organize a fighting force when left with no alternative against the oppressive and humiliating treatment meted out to 80% of the population by the white invaders of his land, then George Washington who fought against the British (his brethren of the same skin colour) was a terrorist, General Chiang Kai-shek, who fought the combined Western forces was a terrorist. Winston Churchill who opposed Hitler’s bloody expedition to subjugate all non-Germans was a terrorist. They were not. It was Ronald Reagan, who vetoed the UN Resolution which was overturned by the Congress, who was a terrorist. By comparing the Nicaraguan rightist rebels (“Contras”) who bombed schools and hospitals “the equivalent of our founding fathers”. Reagan degraded American war of independence.
Before embarking on sabotage as a tool, In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government that a campaign of sabotage would be launched unless the government agreed to call for a national constitutional convention.Previously, he had warned Henrik Verwoerd, Prime Minister, along the same lines, which went unheeded. .]Mandela then got permission from ANC to organize an army to fight an evil force that the whole world recognized was causing international friction and destroying peace. With that goal, he did go abroad clandestinely to gather forces with outside help – because the blacks in their hovels had no resources unlike the Boers of the previous century. He failed in his attempt to enlist enough foreign assistance to fight the enemy or to organize a trained-and-fitted rebel army, and, unlike George Washington, he had no slaves to give up their lives in exchange for false promise of freedom, Hence sabotage of government machinery was his only option. In his famous statement in Rivonia trials, he had said:
.Umkhonto (we Sizwe) was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of nonviolence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil war in which blacks and whites would fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war would mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war racial peace would be more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African [Anglo-Boer and the subsequent rebellion and fratricide among whitesBoers] War to disappear.
That was not an admission of guilt, but a statesman-like clarification of reasons for using violence under oppressive situations. Something akin to Jesus Christ sabotaging tables and scattering gambling money inside the sacred temple. Just before receiving his Nobel Prize, Mandela told Time Magazine: Chief Albert Luthuli, former ANC president and Nobel Prize winner, believed in nonviolence as a way of life. But we who were in touch with the grass-roots persuaded the chief that if we did not begin the armed struggle, then people would proceed without guidance
What did MK sabotage? Electrical pylons, government offices after working hours; goods trains (so as to avoid human casualties) Any human casualty that resulted from such sabotage was far fewer than the “collateral damage” that US drones inflicted on women, children, hospitals and schools.
Presbyterian Church of USA titled its tribute to Mandela with “How a seemingly inevitable bloody revolution was avoided”.
- False Witness 6. Mandela was a Communist.
Communism is more like a theology with its quoting of Carl Marx and Fredreich Engels(and not sticking to their sermons the same way as Christians never turn the other cheek), Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao, and, like Judo-Arabic scriptures, giving its own version of history and prophesies. If being friendly or sympathetic to communists’ ideals is a crime, then the people of Kerala (who send out most Catholic, protestant and Pentecost preachers, catholic nuns and nurses of all denominations across the world) who vote for communists every tenth year should be criminals. But the question here is whether Mandela was a member of the communist party, or, as often alleged, an office bearer of SACP.
As a youth league member of the ANC, Mandela was fiercely opposed to communism and ANC having any truck with the party. He considered communism a foreign ideology, dominated by whites and hence unsuitable for the African cause. Many communists, even blacks, condemned him for this stand. Mandela was never a member of the Communist party let alone an office bearer although he was aware that some members of the party were also in ANC; there was much attempt by communists to make him join the party when he was in jail for life. Mandela himself had stated that being a religious man (which he remained till death, a fact incidentally and obliquely admitted by Hammond in his chain-mail video) he couldn’t agree with the atheistic ideals of communism. If he only promised a communist government after victory, he would probably have received all the armaments, logistics and fighting men to help him in his fight against apartheid from Russia, China, Cuba or all of them. In the event, even Raul Castro who sent his men to Angola to fight their battle for freedom practically ignored Mandela’s request for help in building a fighting force.
He also stated in court during the Rivonia trials, “From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that Communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.”
Mandela’s statement in Court is a matter of records. It was that system – one man, one vote regardless the colour of his skin or his belief – which Mandela was fighting for. Proof of pudding lies in its taste; South Africa has a capitalist economy with private ownership of land and industry; stock Exchange and Free media.
If Mandela was ready to die as he openly stated in court, and was certain that he would be “strung up” if he read out his prepared statement in open court (which he did), there was no reason why he would deny his subscription to the ideology any more than Peter Hammond would want to deny that he was Christian (of whatever denomination – Hammond, incidentally, did not state his Chrisitan denomination as an alumnus for doctorate in Missiology in the Whitefield Seminary).
When the apartheid government couldn’t ban ANC as a party, they enacted Suppression of Communism Act, 1950. Since the act specifically stated that one of the aims of Communism was to stir up conflict between the races, one could always use that gun to shoot ANC with. This was established when, in his court, Afrikaner Judge Rumpff ruled that 156 ANC members including Mandela and the man-of-peace Chief Luthuli under trial were guilty of “Statutory communism as opposed to “what is commonly known as Communism.” In other words, Mandela was guilty of a brand of communism invented by the apartheid regime. In his historic Rivonia trials speech, Mandela had stated:
“We of the ANC have always stood for a nonracial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were…….”.
That, to the apartheid regime, was what Judge Rumpff laconically called statutory communism,
- False witness 7. Mandela wrote the book “How to be a good Communist”
To prove that Mandela was a communist, Hammond Challenges you to read this book “written by Mandela” . The only real book by that name is by Liu Shao Chi, once a close associate of Mao Ze Dong who later turned his critic in the party when Mao started the now infamous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Mandela admits that he copied passages from this book to show his communist cellmate how boring communist literature was. Though the prosecution included these pages among the thousands of pages of alleged evidence against him, the court took no notice of it. You can order a copy of “How to be a Good Communist” by Liu Shao Chi, originally published in 1939 from Amazon.com.
You will find an alleged copy of the”written manuscript” of Mandela’s book of this name sprung up in the website http://www.rhodesia.nl/goodcom.html. The contents are taken from the book by Liu Shao Chi, with a few sentences added in the beginning to give credence to the argument that it was written by Mandela. The handwritten copy of pages of this book ought to be in South African Supreme Court records; there is no way this manuscript or even its photocopy could have got into the hands of the former Rhodesian whites (“Rhodies) just after they fled or while they were fleeing to New Zealand. If indeed they did, they could have published a scanned extract of the alleged manuscript in Mandela’s handwriting in their publication. The fact is that the “How to be a Good Communist by Nelson Mandela” was inspired by a couple of lines about that book in Mandela’s Autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom”
It is a pity that even in the 21st Century, white supremacists would never give up the style of propaganda proposed by Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter VI) and perfected by Joseph Goebbels.
• False Witness 8: The crimes for which Mandela was given life imprisonment in South Africa, he would have received the death penalty in the U.S. or Britain at the time.
I searched through the internet, encyclopedia, volumes on US history of execution, and consulted a lawyer friend in the US. The Country has a history of Negro lynching and race riots, execution of 13 Black soldiers by court martial in the Houston riots of 1917, execution of individuals for murder of Sikhs and others by mistaking them for Arabs post 9/11, but none for racial or political violence in the period encompassing Mandela’s trial . As for Britain (hopefully meaning Great Britain or the United Kingdom), the last single hanging was in 1964 for murder and robbery at a time death penalty was already in the process of being abolished.. (That the convicts did not get a reprieve surprised the media and the public at that time).
- False Witness 9: Obama is a crypto-communist and friend of Terrorists
Why? Because Obama shook hands with Raul Castro in the lineup of heads of nations at the meet-and-greet occasion at Mandela’s funeral? What about Churchill and Roosevelt who not only shook hands with Joseph Stalin, but also wined and dined with him and finally gave away half of Europe to him in a platter? Where is America’s anti-communism stance when they owe trillions of dollars from Communist China that made Prime Minister Hu Jintao of China express his worry that the money might never be recovered? What about David Cameron who was so grateful to communist China that the latter rescued the London Taxi Company from going bankrupt that he led a team of a hundred businessmen to Beijing and made abject statements regarding economic cooperation? In his book Audacity of Hope, Obama praises Abraham Lincoln and his successors – both Republican and Democrat – for perfecting the style of capitalism in the United States. The “Healthcare for all” program of Obama, often mentioned as Obamacare, falls far short of the 100% medical care insurance available to the citizens of most West European countries, Australia and Japan (financed by higher tax rates than what is obtaining in the US even after the additional tax of 0.9% for the rich and 3.8% tax on capital gain exceeding US$ 250,000).
Worse, or perhaps more ridiculous still is calling Obama a friend of terrorists when it was he who authorized secret intrusion to Pakistan territory right under the nose of an army headquarters and got Osama Bin Laden captured, shot and buried in the deep sea, annihilated nearly the entire leadership of Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a record number of drone strikes despite protests and threats from “friendly” Pakistan?
- False Witness 10: Mandela legalized abortion, homosexuality and pornography.
When Dr. Hammond visited Mandela in 1995 or 1996, the Constitution of South Africa was still being written. There was no reference to pornography, nor was a law ever enacted legalizing pornography in Free South Africa. When Hammond refers to legalizing it, he must have Section 16 of the Constitution of South Africa which protects the individual’s right to freedom of expression, a virtue lauded by the entire democratic world. The constitution adds a rider in Section 28 to protect the children from any evil effects of the freedom of expression wherein it calls for : the best interests of a child are of primary importance in every matter affecting the child.
Even after Mandela retired as the President, no law has been enacted to encourage pornography, although it is left to the Courts, as it should be, to decide what constitutes pornography. Unit for Religion and Development Research, Department of Practical Theology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa wrote:
To protect children and others from sexual violence; Government of South Africa passed the Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2007) in 2007. No doubt sexual violence exists; the rich (mostly whites) dabble in pornography of all kinds – but Mandela’s legislation of freedom of Expression has nothing to do with it.
While it is technically correct that laws pertaining to LGBT rights and abortion under certain restrictive conditions were enacted while Mandela was the President, The intent of the missionary to show it as a crime on the part of Mandela is false. I do hope that when his Maker judges the missionary, he would look into the intent of the witness than the literal statement.
In 1993 the interim constitution opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These provisions were kept in the new constitution, approved in 1996, Two years later, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled in a landmark case that the law prohibiting homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private violated the Constitution.
Laws enacted in 1998 and 2000 protected South Africans from discrimination of any kind on the basis of sexual orientation. Interestingly, it was the Supreme Court (not Mandela) that asked the parliament to pass a legislation allowing same-sex marriages within one year. The court gave the government one year to pass that legislation, which the parliament enacted just in time!
The law on abortionenacted in 1996 states :
Abortions may only be performed at facilities which meet certain requirements for staffing and equipment, and which have been approved by the provincial Member of the Executive Council (MEC) responsible for health. Facilities with a 24-hour maternity service and which meet the other requirements do not require the MEC’s approval to perform abortions in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
The laws were tested in courts and hence stand legally sacrosanct. One must remember that abortion up to the third semester was legalized by the Supreme Court of United States in 1973; many civilized nations have followed suit as regards the laws regarding the rights of lesbians, gays and transsexuals. We all know how the anti-abortion law killed a dentist as well as her fetus in Ireland. Deaths due to crude abortions have come down drastically since the law came into force.In the face of thousands cases of catholic priests sworn to celibacy sodomizing children, Pope Francis’ advice to the church in this regard is by now well known.
On Dr. Peter Hammond.
One could go on and on with his lies and half-truths in his videos and website. Dr. Hammond says that Mandela had admitted that he was never tortured in jail. If he did indeed admit that (I searched through several documents and his autobiography in vain), It only shows how much Mandela was prepared to bend over backwards to avoid bitterness. He was made to sleep on cold floors, humiliated by giving clothing and food that were inferior to those given to Indians and coloureds; subjected to hard labour like quarrying hard limestones under harsh sun; letters to him from his wife (imagine police reading your wife’s letters to you and deciding what parts you could read!) were scissored out in so many places that they were difficult to read; hardened criminals were occasionally put along with him in his tiny cell to frighten or probably have him beaten up or even murdered (the last is my assumption; not Mandela’s).
Of Hammond’s version that Mandela looked up and said, “I have sensitive eyes; they didn’t give me sun glasses” one can only conclude that it was a ridiculous lie. Mandela never complained of sensitive eyes – not in any literature available to the public. He only used reading glasses . Though he loved to wear flashy clothes, sun glasses were not one item of his style statement. I looked through hundreds of Mandela photos available on the ‘Net, newspapers, tabloids etc; the only one I found him wearing sun glasses – as a young man – was with Air Force style Ray-ban like glasses with light shading at the top; clear at the bottom. In his autobiography, however, he mentions an instance where the limestones that he and fellow prisoners were to quarry gave out oppressive glare at noon and that ‘they’ (not he) asked for protective glasses and were refused.
This self-styled Christian missionary broke one of the Ten Commandments of God when, as he says in the video, that he prayed to Lord Jesus Christ that Mandela must not be given a moment of rest . The commandment says: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
I could go on about his childish presumption that the auditing of his mission was Mandela’s revenge, and nearly every such ridiculous claim; but by now the reader must be ready to come to his own conclusions.
In September 2006, this man was charged with assault when he went around with his children shooting at trick-or-treat kids on the Halloween day. That’s the way Dr. Peter Hammond trains his children on the meaning of Christ’s sermons.
Hammond gets his “facts” from toilet-wall graffities – Gandhi slept with his sisters (he had only one sister, who never lived with him) to ensure purity of the offspring; Kasturba Gandhi died of malaria and Gandhi denied her medicine (she died of pneumonia), but Gandhi himself took medicines when he caught malaria (he didn’t; maverick as he was, he cured himself with goat milk!); he was a friend of Hitler (Gandhi wrote to Hitler to desist from making war , which was never answered. As compared with this, Britain signed treaties with Hitler; the PM wrote several letters of conciliation to Hitler) and that’s why he was put in prison and so on. He has made similar comments about Martin Luther King Jr; Bishop Desmond Tutu, Dalai Lama. He accused American media of the crime of “already promoting mixing of the races” even before Martin Luther King! Hammond hated the Americans who were for integration. He wrote:”the controlled media and politicians were determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was allowed to get in their way.
A couple of websites claim that the Board of Elders of the Church of Christian Liberty, have called Hammond a “pathological liar” who, with others, has “preyed upon the people of Sudan with their claims used to milk and bilk thousands of well meaning financial contributors out of many millions of American dollars”. They claim that the Board of Elders of the Church, whose Whitefield Seminary gave him the doctorate disowned him at least at one point of time. I tried to verify this by an e-mail, but Dr. Kenneth Talbot, President of Whitefield College and Theological Seminary, replied me with a non-committal “No! Enough said”. To be fair, the website of the Church still shows Dr. Hammond as an office bearer. Hammond got his doctorate in Missiology from this seminary; it is not known where he got his honorary doctorate in Divinity.
Doctor Hammond evangelizes only Christians – by selling (or ‘reaching’) them copies of the Bible, particularly in the war-torn nations of Southern Africa. He knows that God has already decided who should be saved and who should be thrust into fire, so why waste time with Pagans?
>Peter Hammond would soon have much to say about the liberal and frank attitude of Pope Francis. Catholics had already pronounced their view on Peter Hammond as early as 1989 in National Catholic Reporter : “If you believe Christ wants a holy war to preserve apartheid, the Reverend Peter Hammond is your general, his Frontline Fellowship your army”