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 ChristiansDuring 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).
sourcesourceSimilarly 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.
