<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>RE: Yes, anti-Semitic, but unintended, and harmless</title></head><body> <div>The suggestion that placing IDF stormtroopers alongside Roman</div> <div>soldiers beside a crucified Jesus is "antisemitic,"   because it</div> <div>supposedly echoes the Christian libel that "the Jews crucified</div> <div>Jesus", falls victim to the exact same fallacy that it resents--</div> <div>taking a particularly vile group of Jews as standing for Jews</div> <div>in general.  Exactly like the Zionists do, invertedly.  But it is</div> <div>very clear historically that a particular group of Jews--namely</div> <div>the Roman-collaborator government of Judea and their</div> <div>followers, the "Herodians,"--were more than eager to have</div> <div>Jesus's  Messianic movement suppressed (see<i> Revolution</i></div> <div><i>in Judea </i> by Hyam Maccoby).  Moreover, Chip has it exactly</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>backward when he says that Christians came to demonize </blockquote> <div> "those Jews who refused to embrace Jesus as the Messiah."</div> <div>It was of the essence of Pauline Christianity (the creation of</div> <div>a Roman/Herodian police agent named Saul)  that Jesus's</div> <div>claim to be the foretold Davidic messianic king (the legal</div> <div>basis for his execution) should be emptied of its specifically</div> <div>Jewish nature and transformed into misty nonsense useful</div> <div>for quieting the restless Gentile masses of the Empire. </div> <div><br></div> <div>The Scottish pastor, fully consciously or not, got it exactly right.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Shane Mage<br> <br> "Thunderbolt steers all things."         <span ></span >           <span ></span >           <span ></span >           <span ></span >           <span ></span>    <br> </div> <div>Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi,<br> <br> No form of stereotyping is harmless.<br> <br> I think the response by James needs some scrutiny.<br> <br> > -----Original Message-----<br> > From: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com<br> > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of James Heartfield<br> > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 6:03 AM<br> > To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com<br> > Subject: Yes, anti-Semitic, but unintended, and harmless<br> ><br> ><br> > Max says of the Scottish clergyman.<br> ><br> > 'Yes anti-semitic. There is no separating the death of Jesus from the<br> > ancient accusation of Jewish guilt'.<br> ><br> > Which is saying that Christianity is anti-Semitic. I suppose<br> > it is, but<br> > if that is a reason for its suppression, the ensuing religious<br> > intolerance would be a greater price to pay than tolerating<br> > the implied<br> > anti-Semitism in Christianity.<br> <br> There has been much debate on this issue, but I do not believe that<br> Christianity is inherently antisemitic, although it has a long track record<br> of scapegoating Jews that traces back to the period when Rome embraced<br> Christianity and the apocalyptic Christians (who where messianic jews)</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>shifted their demonization from Rome to those Jews who refused to embrace</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Jesus as the Messiah. In the past 50 years, most forms of Christianity have<br> challenged antisemitic stereotypes. See Elaine Pagels and Rene Girard.<br> <br> > The story of Christ's crucifixion is a component of the clergyman's<br> > conceptual universe. For him to express his sympathy with the<br> > Palestinians through analogy with Christ's crucifixion is to be<br> > expected.<br> <br> Neither the Catholics nor any major Protestant denomination now officially<br> allows the linkage of the crucifixion to Jews. To do so today refutes<br> current church teachings.<br> <br> > On balance, I would ask him to take it down, more because it<br> > gives rise<br> > to unnecessary confusion than because it is wicked.<br> <br> "The Jews" did not crucify Jesus. To suggest this perpetuates a form of<br> demonization of Jews that has forged pogroms and the Nazi genocide. See<br> Norman Cohn's works.<br> <br> > But this has to be put into context. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL<br> > ANTI-SEMITIC SENTIMENT IN SCOTLAND, the UK or the USA. Anti-Semitism<br> > receives no sanction or succour from official policy, nor is it the<br> > viewpoint of any authoritative group in society.<br> <br> This is the argument of libertarians and conservatives when applied to<br> racism and sexism.<br> <br> >Jews in the<br> > UK are not<br> > noticeably worse off through discrimination (though muslims are).<br> <br> And this is an argument that equates oppression (the measurable result of<br> systematic discrimination) with prejudice, stereotyping, and bigotry. But<br> demonization and scapegoating of Jews ( or any group) is wrong. It should</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>never be defended by saying the visible consequences are minor.<br> <br> > The only times that anti-Semitism is raised as an issue here,<br> > is in the<br> > argument put by Zionists that opposition to the state of<br> > Israel, or its<br> > policies, or its settlements is a form of anti-Semitism. It isn't.<br> <br> Well, in the US, I can attest that many of us raise the issue of prejudice<br> whenever it appears; wheter it is racism, sexism, heterosexism, or<br> antisemitism. The organization for which I work has compiled a large<br> collection of material on prejudice and oppression on our web page.<br> <br> I recognize that some groups use the charge of antisemitism in a politicized<br> manner to defend the government of Israel, but that is hardly a sufficient<br> nor moral reason to abandon the term for equally expedient political<br> reasons.<br> <br> Chip Berlet<br> Political Research Associates<br> http://www.publiceye.org</blockquote> <div><br></div> </body> </html>