No form of stereotyping is harmless.
I think the response by James needs some scrutiny.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of James Heartfield
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 6:03 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Yes, anti-Semitic, but unintended, and harmless
>
>
> Max says of the Scottish clergyman.
>
> 'Yes anti-semitic. There is no separating the death of Jesus from the
> ancient accusation of Jewish guilt'.
>
> Which is saying that Christianity is anti-Semitic. I suppose
> it is, but
> if that is a reason for its suppression, the ensuing religious
> intolerance would be a greater price to pay than tolerating
> the implied
> anti-Semitism in Christianity.
There has been much debate on this issue, but I do not believe that Christianity is inherently antisemitic, although it has a long track record of scapegoating Jews that traces back to the period when Rome embraced Christianity and the apocalyptic Christians (who where messianic jews) shifted their demonization from Rome to those Jews who refused to embrace Jesus as the Messiah. In the past 50 years, most forms of Christianity have challenged antisemitic stereotypes. See Elaine Pagels and Rene Girard.
> The story of Christ's crucifixion is a component of the clergyman's
> conceptual universe. For him to express his sympathy with the
> Palestinians through analogy with Christ's crucifixion is to be
> expected.
Neither the Catholics nor any major Protestant denomination now officially allows the linkage of the crucifixion to Jews. To do so today refutes current church teachings.
> On balance, I would ask him to take it down, more because it
> gives rise
> to unnecessary confusion than because it is wicked.
"The Jews" did not crucify Jesus. To suggest this perpetuates a form of demonization of Jews that has forged pogroms and the Nazi genocide. See Norman Cohn's works.
> But this has to be put into context. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL
> ANTI-SEMITIC SENTIMENT IN SCOTLAND, the UK or the USA. Anti-Semitism
> receives no sanction or succour from official policy, nor is it the
> viewpoint of any authoritative group in society.
This is the argument of libertarians and conservatives when applied to racism and sexism.
>Jews in the
> UK are not
> noticeably worse off through discrimination (though muslims are).
And this is an argument that equates oppression (the measurable result of systematic discrimination) with prejudice, stereotyping, and bigotry. But demonization and scapegoating of Jews ( or any group) is wrong. It should never be defended by saying the visible consequences are minor.
> The only times that anti-Semitism is raised as an issue here,
> is in the
> argument put by Zionists that opposition to the state of
> Israel, or its
> policies, or its settlements is a form of anti-Semitism. It isn't.
Well, in the US, I can attest that many of us raise the issue of prejudice whenever it appears; wheter it is racism, sexism, heterosexism, or antisemitism. The organization for which I work has compiled a large collection of material on prejudice and oppression on our web page.
I recognize that some groups use the charge of antisemitism in a politicized manner to defend the government of Israel, but that is hardly a sufficient nor moral reason to abandon the term for equally expedient political reasons.
Chip Berlet Political Research Associates http://www.publiceye.org