Re: Palin's secret message

I'd swear under oath that the Passion of the Christ arguments never mentioned 
the term blood libel in a substantive way.  Maybe the movie was labelled a blood 
libel but the argument wasn't about the offensiveness/lack of offensiveness of 
the term.

Mike F.    




________________________________
From: Karl <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 5:03:42 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Palin's secret message

I don’t recall "blood libel" being used specifically, but I don’t remember all
that well.  An archive search confirms we discussed Gibson's blood libel in
2004.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:01 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Palin's secret message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

> > > And I'll bet you not more than 1 in 10 evangelicals know the
> > > history of "blood libel" . . .
> >
> > Quite possibly.  I'm sure many of them were plugging their ears when
> > Jews and others wanted to discuss the historical significance of
> > "blood libel" during the controversy over The Passion of the Christ.
>
> You're not going to start that again are you?

Start what?  The fact is, there was a national discussion -- and a rather
intense one -- over the subject of "blood libel" just seven years ago.
Are evangelical memories really *that* short?

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot