- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
And these people are teachers? WTF? :shock:
The Blood Libel Returns
With the revival of anti-Semitism as a global phenomenon, everything old is new again. A new Holocaust is threatened in Iran, a former top military leader and presidential candidate speaks in code of the dark power of New York money circles, and now, shockingly, the ancient blood libel against the Jews is revived in seemingly respectable quarters. After all the terrible things that have been done because of this lie, who could be so reckless as to give it new life?
Two Jewish professors, one an Israeli of Italian origin who teaches at a prestigious religious Jewish university in Israel, Bar-Illan, and is the son of a former chief rabbi of Rome, the other an Italian Jewish historian, have just revived the notorious "blood libel" that has caused the cruel murder of thousands of their co-religionists since medieval times. Professor Ariel Toaff has just this past week published a book in Italy called Pasque di Sangue, or "Bloody Passovers," reasserting that the long-discredited medieval Christian legend that Jews ritually murder Christian children, drain their bodies of blood, mingle the blood in their matzah during the Passover festival and ritually consume it, has some truth in it.
American Thinker: The Blood Libel Returns
They must be some more of them Jewish anti-semites.And these people are teachers? WTF?
They must be some more of them Jewish anti-semites.
A Prof wrote a book where he cites confessions obtained under duress as his evidence.Umm, so you don't think this is re-god-damn-diculous?
A Prof wrote a book where he cites confessions obtained under duress as his evidence.
We all know that TORTURE IS NOT A RELIABLE MEANS OF OBTAINING TRUTHFUL, USEFUL INFORMATION, right?
I mean, if torture WAS a reliable means of producing info, then there might be something to these terrible accounts provided under duress.
Based solely on the article provided, the prof's point is that there were a few Jewish wack-jobs in Europe back in the day. That's it. That's his case. He does NOT say that all Jews did it. He just says that there actually was a small group of nuts.
I don't see how it's that big of a deal outside of some very narrow academic circles whether there actually were some nut jobs in Europe centuries ago who happened to be Jewish.
Let's see what Google has to say about this legend vs. fact.Christian legend that Jews ritually murder Christian children
Full article insideMKs demand trial of blood libel writer
Knesset Members demanded Monday that the state prosecute Prof. Ariel Toaff, author of Pasque di Sangue [Passover of Blood], which suggests that there might be hard facts behind the accusations of blood libels against the Jews.
Italy's Jewish community slams blood libel book
MK Michael Melchior (Labor-Meimad), chairman of the Knesset Education Committee, said that Toaff has caused "damage to the Jewish People and to the Nation of Israel." MK Ze'ev Elkin (Kadima) suggested that the committee appeal to Bar-Ilan University to fire Toaff from his position there as a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance History.
MK Marina Solodkin (Kadima) said she thought "there are valid reasons to prosecute the author of the book," and called to "bring him to trial over historical truth and the Jewish people's reputation."
Due to the controversy, Toaff has already suspended the distribution and printing of the book, and has said that he would donate his profits from the 3,000 copies already sold to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
"As far as the ADL is concerned the damage is done. This is one of the most disastrous episodes in or battle against conspiracy theories. They are not marginal, they are flourishing," said Arieh O'Sullivan, spokesman for the ADL in Israel. "Enemies of Israel will seize on this book as a gift. They will argue that because of this 'courageous' Jew with impeccable credentials, the son of a the former chief rabbi of Rome and from Bar-Ilan, all the other conspiracy theories will be true."
Bar-Ilan University President Professor Moshe Kaveh said that he had met with Toaff and issued a press release condemning the book.
In the book, Toaff discusses the blood libel of Trent in 1475, and suggests that Jews may have murdered the young child mentioned in that story. Last week, Toaff said that he would clarify in a journal, and state that the Jews did not routinely murder Christian children for their blood.
It is the central evidence the guys used to make the case in the book that is the topic of this debate.Then I ask you what was the point of bringing it up(save for the obvious one)? Answer that one soldier.
It is the central evidence the guys used to make the case in the book that is the topic of this debate.
How did you plan on conducting a debate about the book WITHOUT discussing the evidence used to make the case presented in the book?
From your cite:
To substantiate the charges of ritual murder against the Jews, Toaff relies not on any new evidence, but on the original confessions extracted through torture from the accused Jews in Trent and elsewhere.
And do you pragmatically think that this book will kill these twenty million people?I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I value the lives of the six million murdered and the 20 million today under constant attack more than I do some professor's right to inflame.
And you think that yet another piece of silly scholarship is a threatening doomsday weapon in their 'arsenal'?Gardener said:THe mere fact we are discussing him (and I had already read the article TOT posted) means this ISN'T restricted to some academic backwater. THis is the age of communication, and it is very naive to think this won't be added to the arsenal of countless hate groups and hate sites who will point to select passages and proclaim "look, it IS true".
What if the guys are right?Gardener said:Whether or not this professor portrayed this blood libel as rare is hardly important considering the signifigance of the libel historically. What is important is that he has validated it. Do you actually think the people inflamed will stop to consider whether or not it was limited to a few Jews?
Where did I do this exactly?So you're comparing coercive interogation to medieval torture? Show me the CIA or NSA using the Iron Maiden and we'll talk.
What if the guys are right?
Where did I do this exactly?
Do you think that the case presented in the book is undermined by the fact that the evidence consists of confession obtained through torture?
To me it seems self-evident that such confessions are of dubious quality and therefore do not make solid evidence on which to build a case.
Do you agree or disagree?
Do you think this is what these guys said in their book?That Jews use the blood of Christian children to make motza?
Do you think that I have said that these guys are right?Trajan Octavian Titus said:Are you ****ing serious?
How did you plan on conducting a debate about the book WITHOUT discussing the evidence used to make the case presented in the book?Oh please, it's obvious that that is your intention.
Because its not PC its wrong and that's all the more one needs to know.Trajan Octavian Titus said:To me it seems self evident that Jews using the blood of Christian children to make motza is a crock of sh!t and anti-semetic slander regardless of where the information comes from.
Do you think this is what these guys said in their book?
Do you think that I have said that these guys are right?
How did you plan on conducting a debate about the book WITHOUT discussing the evidence used to make the case presented in the book?
Because its not PC its wrong and that's all the more one needs to know.
Why bother refuting evidence?
They said that there were some wack jobs living near Trent who were Jewish.That is exactly what they were saying, read the article.
So you don't think I've said that these guys are right?Trajan Octavian Titus said:You left it as a possiblity why else would you ask: "what if these guys are right?"?
Home Page got my attention.
And do you pragmatically think that this book will kill these twenty million people?
And you think that yet another piece of silly scholarship is a threatening doomsday weapon in their 'arsenal'?
Do you think it will be the one that will finally turn the tide in their favor?
Once again, obviously not.That would be stupid. Why are you dealing in such absolutes, or attempting to portray me as one who does? Obviously it is not *THE* "doomsday weapon", but it certainly provides validation for a notion that has certainly provided much of the componants for a damaging weapon historically.
THe blood libel has been used as one tool throughout history to persecute Jewish people. The reasons Jewish people have been persecuted are certainly much more complex than that, as the persecution is much a byproduct of group dynamics vis a vis majority vrs. minority and the resulting prejudices arising from attachment to group coupled with fear of that which is different. What the blood libel accomplishes is a galvanization of opinion whereby the natural distrust of that which is different is reinforced by the creation of perceptions where they are not just different, they are evil.
Instead of trying so hard to trivialize that which has contributed towards the persecution of a people, perhaps you might try to understand that persecution, instead. Perhaps you are unaware of the role the blood libel has played throughout history, but all your trivilization indicates to me is that you don't want to know. Whether two people were crazy and indulged in it is immaterial from the standpoint of the signifigance of the libel, itself. A couple of Salem women may have indulged in rites associated with witchcraft. Also immaterial from the standpoint of the role the libel plays is whether or not confessions were extracted by force. Do you actually think every person in the world evaluates in the same manner as you? Do you think humans are all rational beings who say "hmmm, confessions were extracted by force, therefore they might not be valid?".
So far in this conversation,I have not seen you acknowlege, much less condemn,the role the libel has played in history and is still playing today. All I have seen are your attempts at trivilization.
You made it out to be an either or choice:Obviously not. That would be stupid. Do you think there is absolutely no correlation between words and actions,though?
Do you think that these guys are trying to do such a thing?Gardener said:Between rhetorec and the creation of perceptions that damage people? Do you have no understanding of the way people process information, form opinions, propagate memes or indulge in rationalizations?
I'm not inflating this book with the potential to reawaken the kinds of nastiness that occurred before.Gardener said:Instead of trying so hard to trivialize that which has contributed towards the persecution of a people, perhaps you might try to understand that persecution, instead.
I don't think I'm smart enough to know what's for everyone else's own good.Gardener said:Do you actually think every person in the world evaluates in the same manner as you?
I notice that I seem to be the only one debating and rebutting the evidence presented in the book rather than merely saying that the book is bad, bad bad.Gardener said:Do you think humans are all rational beings who say "hmmm, confessions were extracted by force, therefore they might not be valid?".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?