The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: cavegal on January 12, 2011, 11:19:50 AM
-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100071625/sarah-palin-accuses-her-critics-of-blood-libel-seriously-this-woman-is-nuts/
Sarah Palin was subjected to grossly unfair attacks by liberals after the Tucson shootings. Her reaction? To accuse them of “blood libelâ€. This raises two possibilities.
1. She’s so ignorant that she doesn’t know that “blood libel†refers to the myth that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed children.
2. She does know what it means, and blurted it out anyway.
Either way, I can’t help thinking of Barry Goldwater’s slogan when he ran for president in 1964: “In your heart, you know he’s rig
:popcorn:
read comment section.
-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100071625/sarah-palin-accuses-her-critics-of-blood-libel-seriously-this-woman-is-nuts/
:popcorn:
read comment section.
Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a journalist specialising in religion. He was once described by The Church Times as a "blood-crazed ferret".
I think this is all you need to know about the author... :mental:
-
Of course, I'm mortified to learn that some shitstain commenter on a toilet-paper periodical is ever-so-much smarter than George Will, who used it first on Monday in a column.
Yeah, right.
-
Hi Cavegal,
Actually the media is expressing a couple of fundamental falsehoods in the association of the phrase "blood libel" with specifically the Jews.
And the reference to "blood" in that phrase is not specifically referencing that "blood" of children in the historic assertions, which Jews were alleged to have drank, though that is the most notorious employ of blood libel.
Blood libel against Christians
During the first and second centuries, some Roman commentators misunderstood the ritual of the Eucharist and related teachings. While celebrating the Eucharist, Christians drink red wine in response to the words "This is the blood of Christ". Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood.
In the Mandaean scripture, the Ginza Rba, a purportedly Christian group called the "Minunei" are accused of it against the Jews: "They kill a Jewish child, they take his blood, they cook it in bread and they proffer it to them as food." (Ginza Rba 9.1).
sourcesource (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blood_libel)
Similarly Blood Libel isn't the false accusation of spilling blood, but is rather a group, collective calumny.
Our Constitution makes reference to Treason in Article 3, Section 3 and describes it thus:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The phrase here "corruption of blood" or reference to close association, is the same applied use as "blood libel" - that being, directly, the offspring, family, and even close associates of the person guilty.
"Blood Libel" is no more referencing the spilling of blood, than "corruption of blood" is referencing the tainting of blood itself. The "blood" in each case is a reference to those in intimate association.
The difference tween "Corruption of blood" and "Blood Libel" is - the former is guilty of the act, and the latter is falsely accused. Both are referencing close associates.
Sarah Palin's reference to "blood libel" seems, to me, to be appropriate and no real 'stretch' at all. What the Liberal Media is employing with Palin is just a continuation of the dishonest tactic employed by the Progressives in accusing others of racism, and specifically the Tea Parties of advocating racism and violence.
And just as with racism, they believe the right to claim victimization belongs only to minorities, who are theirs too.
We saw this same objectionable sentiment expressed last Summer, regarding Beck's rally, that blacks are the only ones with legitimate claim to "Civil Rights" because they were notoriously denied those rights, and Beck had somehow violated the domain of the Democrats and Blacks.
-
The DUmmies are just jealous that Sarah used the phrase on them before they could use it on her.
Go cry me a river, moonbat.
-
The term "Blood Libel" is more common than you think
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think
-
Governor Palin does kick ass.
-
The term "Blood Libel" is more common than you think
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think
I usually hear it with Jews, but it is common.
-
Trip - thank you for the info!!!
-
Trip - thank you for the info!!!
My pleasure, Dixie. And thank you for the recognition.
I was passed the video of Palin's speech by Thor this AM. I had not yet heard the media firestorm about that speech and its reference. However when I read what they wrote I knew it to be flat-out wrong.
-
Hi Cavegal,
Actually the media is expressing a couple of fundamental falsehoods in the association of the phrase "blood libel" with specifically the Jews.
And the reference to "blood" in that phrase is not specifically referencing that "blood" of children in the historic assertions, which Jews were alleged to have drank, though that is the most notorious employ of blood libel.
Blood libel against Christians
During the first and second centuries, some Roman commentators misunderstood the ritual of the Eucharist and related teachings. While celebrating the Eucharist, Christians drink red wine in response to the words "This is the blood of Christ". Propaganda arguing that the Christians literally drank blood was written and used to persecute Christians. Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies and this was suggested as a possible source of the blood.
In the Mandaean scripture, the Ginza Rba, a purportedly Christian group called the "Minunei" are accused of it against the Jews: "They kill a Jewish child, they take his blood, they cook it in bread and they proffer it to them as food." (Ginza Rba 9.1).
sourcesource (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blood_libel)
Similarly Blood Libel isn't the false accusation of spilling blood, but is rather a group, collective calumny.
Our Constitution makes reference to Treason in Article 3, Section 3 and describes it thus:
The phrase here "corruption of blood" or reference to close association, is the same applied use as "blood libel" - that being, directly, the offspring, family, and even close associates of the person guilty.
"Blood Libel" is no more referencing the spilling of blood, than "corruption of blood" is referencing the tainting of blood itself. The "blood" in each case is a reference to those in intimate association.
The difference tween "Corruption of blood" and "Blood Libel" is - the former is guilty of the act, and the latter is falsely accused. Both are referencing close associates.
Sarah Palin's reference to "blood libel" seems, to me, to be appropriate and no real 'stretch' at all. What the Liberal Media is employing with Palin is just a continuation of the dishonest tactic employed by the Progressives in accusing others of racism, and specifically the Tea Parties of advocating racism and violence.
And just as with racism, they believe the right to claim victimization belongs only to minorities, who are theirs too.
We saw this same objectionable sentiment expressed last Summer, regarding Beck's rally, that blacks are the only ones with legitimate claim to "Civil Rights" because they were notoriously denied those rights, and Beck had somehow violated the domain of the Democrats and Blacks.
I had to give you a high five for this information. I had no idea what "blood libel" meant until just now.
-
Outstanding post Trip.
H5.
-
Here is a Editorial post from Conservatives4Palin, which somewhat supports what I previously wrote here, while not really defining "blood libel".
"Partners In Blood" excerpt, by Sheya
I have just spoken to many of my Jewish friends. Neither myself nor any other Jew I know is offended by Governor Palin’s comments. On the contrary, based on what we know and were taught about blood libels, this is exactly what this was: a blood libel.
The term blood libel wasn’t invented to define what happened to the Jews; it’s just that what happened to Jews were blood libels, and this term fits perfectly to what happened to Governor Palin.
The left and the media attacking Governor Palin are outraged at her for her using the term. Of course, why wouldn’t they be? The chain of events is following the direction blood libels always follow, and they are just mad that they are being called out.
Reference: Conservatives4Palin (http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/01/partners-in-blood.html)
What has happened over time is that some of the strongest cases of "blood libel" are associated with Jews, giving the mistaken impression that the phrase inherently involves Jews, when it does not.
-
The term “blood libel†has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
- Alan Dershowitz
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/