Comments on: Blood libel

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:22 +0000

Sorry, we all seem to be jousting with ghosts today. My comment just now was in response to one by “horrible person”, which I quoted in full before it was stomped.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:36:40 +0000

“Member of the tribe”? The fucking tribe? No, no, the one with the tents. See Numbers 24. That tribe.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:43:37 +0000

Mr. Burton, both your comments actually made me laugh out loud.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:16:12 +0000

Micha, I don’t know if you noticed it, but I had a post on corporations and reparations not too long ago. My central point – the fictional nature of the corporation means that we shoud be willing to pierce the corporate veil more often than we do.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:12:03 +0000

It is almost epicurean to locate a concern for anti-Semitism on the imagination of Mel Gibson (“Mad Max”, for C*****’s sake!), when there is so much more of the disease locatable in bombs and politics that owe nothing to imagination at all.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:21:55 +0000

Defeated nobles normally were killed rather than demoted, but their wives, children, other relatives, and dependents were usually enslaved, and it seems likely that all unfree Mongols became so as the result either of military defeat or kidnapping.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:10:48 +0000

Also of note: when Paul VI made a brief visit to Israel in 1964, slipping across the Allenby Bridge and celebrating a quick mass in Nazareth without so much as a smile and a handshake (he sent a note to “Mr. Shazar, Tel Aviv” that made no recognition of either the country or its president), quite a few Israelis took offense. There are photos of protesters holding up big signs, saying (in English) “We did SO kill Him!!” A class act, under the circumstances.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:05:11 +0000

On collective Roman responsibility…. When I was eight years old, I spent several days in a very Catholic hospital in Madrid: nuns in the halls, crucifixes over every bed, the works. Having just spent much of the summer tagging along with my mother and her art historian cousin, up museums and down catacombs from Toledo to Compostela, I did know the Passion story. But I had still not grasped the subtle distinction between Romans and Roman Catholics. So, picture this eight-year-old American Jew, weak with fever, with a slaughtered Member of the Tribe dangling over his head, in a hospital run by the people who did it. I naturally assumed they were bragging, and I was terrified. Wouldn’t let the sisters come within ten feet of me without screaming for mommy.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:06:01 +0000

Micah, My article was responding to the Jews who refuse to purchase German cars, not because specific corporations may have a questionable history, but because they refuse to purchase cars built by any German company, simply because they are German. But even if they are willing to purchase German cars, just not those made by particular corporations, I don’t think that makes sense either. Why should a legal fiction be useful when making moral claims? None of the same shareholders or corporate executives were responsible for any crimes committed 60 years ago; does it really make sense to hold them responsible?

By: jack

jack — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:31:36 +0000

Theology is pointless. You’re debating about nothing. No one alive today is guilty of something done 2000 years ago. If somebody attacks you with words or otherwise, you fight back. Don’t expect philosophical abstractions to offer a defense. Otherwise, if you’re Jewish and the recipient of anti-Semitism and blame Mel Gibson or the Gospel of Matthew for that insult, you’re engaged in the same blame game that Mel Gibson and the Gospel of Matthew may or may not be a part of. The person who insulted you is at fault- yell at them. You can only know for sure that which is in front of you. It seems like everyone is getting agitated over a lot of things which haven’t happened.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:29:11 +0000

Here I had been thinking about responding to Abiola Lapite's very penetrating question, 'Is there anybody out there who really doesn't care about Gibson's film?'. But then, I thought, responding at all would evince more interest than I really had. But the topic does seem to be getting people worked up. Without getting into the vexing questions of Jews and Christians etc etc etc., might I just point ut that you are all talking about a film by Mel fucking Gibson? Would any of you give a second's thought as to whether Braveheart was a fair and accurate narrative of Scottish history, or The Patriot a valuable account of the American war of independence? Didn't think so. So, why are yiz dignifying his latest opus as you are?

By: LTH

LTH — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:33:01 +0000

Two points: (comments really need threading) 1. The idea that God is to blame for his own child’s death is nonsense. Let’s look at the whole story here – Jesus was sent to Earth to save sinners. Thus, Jesus’s existance was required because humans had turned from the path of God, and it is these people who are to blame for Jesus’s death: this is the entire point. But as we see, the God of the New Testament is a forgiving God, and all sins can be forgiven so long as they are repented. 2. The blood curse on the Jews is exactly that – they are supposed to have called this curse upon themselves, accepting collective responsibility. The very idea that this should be removed because it may not have happened is ridiculous – the entire contents of the Bible ‘may not have happened’ but Gibson was still able to make his film.

By: Trolling

Trolling — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:19:10 +0000

The trolling of this thead is caused by the irony and the strange view of religion in the post of John Quiggin. He permits himself to mock the religious beliefs of the pre Vatican II Catholics. Yet he is offended by the mockery of Judaism. And his final sentence is simply ludicrous. I also don’t believe we have, or are ever likely to obtain, sufficient evidence to attribute responsibility for the death of Jesus to any person or group. Jesus is a religious figure. To translate his existense outside religion and look for his murderers is beyond any sense of reality. Next your asking for proof for all the miracles, for the Resurrection, the virgin Mary, and the rest of Catholic beliefs. But the only thing John asks proof of is who is responsible for the death of Jesus. And since that question can’t be answered he condemns a piece of religion. Strange.

By: Rich Puchalsky

Rich Puchalsky — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:06:57 +0000

I think there’s a good case to be argued that many of the Prophets believed in collective responsibility as an actual fact even more than as a moral fact. In other words, everyone in a society suffers from the bad decisions of that society whether or not they personally approved of the bad decisions. Amos decries the attitude of the rich towards the poor, but when the day of social destruction comes, he still says that the rich and poor are going to suffer alike. The moral interest in whether or not one was personally pure or not just wasn’t as great a factor as it is now. Not that this has much to do with the topic of the post, but attitudes toward communal responsibility were mentioned…

By: Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:47:47 +0000

Like John, I don't know whether 'horrible person' was a troll or a genuine anti-Semite; either way, it was way beyond the line at which we ban.

Well, I was going to comment that John should have distinguished between the charge of Deicide and the Blood Libel, the charge that the Jews use the blood of gentile babies to bake their Passover matzot. Instead, I ended up responding to "Horrible Person". Proof positive that such trolls lower the quality of the debate. On the other hand, this movie has had the predicted effect of bringing such people out of the woodwork. Commenting on blogs is far-and-away the least harmful way they might express their hateful beliefs. So maybe it's not such a great idea to drive them away and delete their comments. Dunno ...