Re: Palin's secret message

Yes, it may be where I learned what it meant to.  I just don't have an 
independent recollection of it, but that would make sense.

It does raise the question though that I believe I touched on in another 
post.  Isn't it the blood libel itself that is offensive as opposed to the 
term?  Do jews really own the term such that no one else can use it?  Is the 
term only limited to false accusations against jews?

I know what my answers are to those questions, but I'm interested in whether 
there is an evidence backed argument to the  contrary.

Mike F.








-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:13 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Palin's secret message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> 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.

Uh, well, we had literally over a hundred posts in a thread on "Gibson's
Blood Libel", but in any case: yes, the debate back then was not about
*the term*, it was about *the blood libel itself*.  It is, in fact,
because of that debate that I knew what the term meant now.





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


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