Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: "Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 2:15 PM GMT
    "Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder."
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

    More here: "The effort to drag down Sarah Palin for using the term "blood libel" has backfired." http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/effort-to-drag-down-sarah-palin-for.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    jprichva saidShmuley Boteach??? Do you even know who that is? I assure you, no Jew gives a rat's ass what this blowhard "thinks".


    Seeing as I didn't think I should take your word for it:

    Shmuley Boteach
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuley_Boteach
    "Boteach was one of several individuals who received the 2007 Fatherhood award from The National Fatherhood Initiative.[6] In 2007 Boteach placed ninth on Newsweek's list of the "Top 50 Rabbis in America"[7] In 2008 Boteach was again listed on the Newsweek list at number 9, and in 2009 was listed at number 7. In late 1999, Boteach won the "Preacher of the Year" Award from The Times.[1][8]"
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 3:10 PM GMT
    jprichva saidBoteach is an attention-seeking gasbag. That's what this is about. He hasn't been in the news lately and he misses it.

    What an idiot.


    JP, just because YOU are so hyper-sensitive regarding the use of some ancient medieval term like "blood libel" doesn't mean ALL Jewish people are. There have been many even Liberal leaning Jewish non-Palin fans (Harvard's Alan Dershowitz among them) who have spoken out and said Palin's use of the term was appropriate in the context in which she used it. I suspect that this whole bruhaha has far more to do with WHO said it (Sarah Palin) than the fact that it was actually said, since it was used numerous times in the press in the past week prior to Palin saying it and we didn't hear a peep about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 3:11 PM GMT
    jprichva saidBoteach is an attention-seeking gasbag. That's what this is about. He hasn't been in the news lately and he misses it.

    What an idiot.


    Given the preponderance of evidence, methinks that idiot is you. Now speaking of attention-seeking gasbags...

    PS Curiousjockaz - jprichva is only hypersensitive insofar as he can claim feigned and bitter offense at anything anyone who disagrees with him says. Double that sentiment with respect to anything Sarah Palin says.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jprichva saidBoteach is an attention-seeking gasbag. That's what this is about. He hasn't been in the news lately and he misses it.

    What an idiot.

    Given the preponderance of evidence, methinks that idiot is you. Now speaking of attention-seeking gasbags...

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 5:55 PM GMT
    From the Rabbi's website, smuley.com:
    My column in today's Wall St Journal on Sarah Palin and Blood Libel is now the most popular on their site (so it says).
    Certainly comes across as a self-congratulating attention-getter.

    On the other hand, I found this pretty impressive:
    http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/homosexuality_debate_with_dr.brown1
    (Start at 21:50 in the introductory video)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 5:57 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidFrom the Rabbi's website, smuley.com:
    My column in today's Wall St Journal on Sarah Palin and Blood Libel is now the most popular on their site (so it says).
    Certainly comes across as a self-congratulating attention-getter.

    On the other hand, I found this pretty impressive:
    http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/homosexuality_debate_with_dr.brown1
    (Start at 21:50)



    Caesarea4 - What do you think about the blood libel controversy?

    I know Jews who are offended by it and some who don't care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 6:21 PM GMT
    Christian73> What do you think about the blood libel controversy?
    I know Jews who are offended by it and some who don't care

    I was going to follow my previous post with another but got interrupted, but I think this will (indirectly) answer your question:

    The topic here isn't the Rabbi but Palin's use of "blood libel".
    While ultimately it is the individual who pulls the trigger who is directly responsible, there is an issue of indirect responsibility.

    Let's consider the case of gay bashing. In a society where gays are constantly demonized and dehumanized, does that society carry no responsibility for acts of anti-gay violence that individuals may perpetrate?

    If a gay teen commits suicide, is he the only responsible party?

    Is it really a "blood libel" to also hold responsible the society and culture that encourages such individual actions?

    In the case of anti-Jewish blood libels, was the problem just the individuals (or mobs) that killed Jews... or the institutions that provided the underlying ideology of hate?

    The Rabbi makes the point that the wrong of the "blood libel" was not that it was directed at Jews but at innocent people (even if they happened to be Jews, or because they were Jews; if Jews really did preach killing gentile babies and using their blood for Matzahs and if Jewish individuals really did do so there would be no "libel" and the problem would be one of vigilantism in lieu of due process).

    But that begs the question of innocence. Sure, the trigger was pulled by one (troubled) individual. But are there people who are indirectly responsible by having set the stage for him?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 6:47 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said
    But that begs the question of innocence. Sure, the trigger was pulled by one (troubled) individual. But are there people who are indirectly responsible by having set the stage for him?


    I think the most rational answer would be that we may never know. Was Jodie Foster somehow indirectly responsible for John Hinkley shooting President Reagan due to her role as a teenage prostitute in "Taxi Driver"?...how about was Beatle's music indirectly responsible for the shooting of John Lennon? Who knows? The most likely culprit is plain old insanity.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 6:52 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 said Now speaking of attention-seeking gasbags..

    I'm not the one starting tendentious threads. I suspect as you point your finger at me, the other four are pointing back at the real culprit.



    I'm really surprised at you, JP. I always sort of thought you wore the "attention-seeking gasbag" label like a badge of honor icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Caesarea4 said
    But that begs the question of innocence. Sure, the trigger was pulled by one (troubled) individual. But are there people who are indirectly responsible by having set the stage for him?

    I think the most rational answer would be that we may never know. Was Jodie Foster somehow indirectly responsible for John Hinkley shooting President Reagan due to her role as a teenage prostitute in "Taxi Driver"?...how about was Beatle's music indirectly responsible for the shooting of John Lennon? Who knows? The most likely culprit is plain old insanity.

    I don't think that your examples are comprable to my points regarding thoughts that permeate society (or a sector within it).

    Blood libels were not carried out by insane individuals but by people who overdosed on the Kool-aid being served.

    I fear what we are seeing is the converse of the "I was just following orders" defense.
    The defense of "I never gave that order, it was just the doing of a crazy individual."

    I'm not saying anyone should be prosecuted or go to jail.
    But this is a warning that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
    That the leaders must teach the followers that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

    I'm sure you agree this is a better answer than "we may never know."
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 15, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    You can find at least one self loathing idiot in every religion, of every sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or color, who is more than happy to speak out against his own best interests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2011 9:26 PM GMT
    Riddler78, could you just give this a rest for christ's sake ?? none of us said Palin pulled the trigger !!! you keep saying the Libs are obsessed with Palin and your the one who keeps bringing her up, not the libs. So just let it go !!!! Palin is not to blame for that Idiot pulling the trigger, you get that now ? she is however rsponsible for making lame defenses and making things worse for herself, but she can deal with the public being even more convinced that she's a loose cannon all by herself, I'll bet she doesn't need your help.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 15, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    Right about what?

    That she can use the term because he said she could?
    Or that her excuse and playing the victim is justified ?

    please........ Because the rabbi that was giving Rick Sanchez solace says so
    Doesn't tell me sh*t

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 9:56 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said

    I fear what we are seeing is the converse of the "I was just following orders" defense.

    Please cite a single example of anyone (left or right) giving any orders to go out and shoot a politician? In fact, please cite any evidence that has been uncovered this far that the Tucson shooter was influenced by any politics and/or rhetoric


    I'm not saying anyone should be prosecuted or go to jail.
    But this is a warning that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
    That the leaders must teach the followers that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

    I'm sure you agree this is a better answer than "we may never know."


    No, actually, I don't agree that it is a "better answer", just a different perspective. I do agree that the rhetoric needs to be toned down on both sides -- not sure anyone disagrees with that.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 15, 2011 10:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Caesarea4 saidFrom the Rabbi's website, smuley.com:
    My column in today's Wall St Journal on Sarah Palin and Blood Libel is now the most popular on their site (so it says).
    Certainly comes across as a self-congratulating attention-getter.

    On the other hand, I found this pretty impressive:
    http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/homosexuality_debate_with_dr.brown1
    (Start at 21:50)



    Caesarea4 - What do you think about the blood libel controversy?

    I know Jews who are offended by it and some who don't care.


    More and more this is a whole controversy for nothing. The more info comes out about Jarred Loughner. The more the people who rushed to judgment look libelous.

    Its funny how some who would parse words, forget the 10 or 12 stories they have been telling over the last few days to makes the facts appear that Palin had something to do with the shootings.

    In the latest video Jarred rants about 2 illegal wars. Sounds like a Palinista to me.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 15, 2011 10:14 PM GMT
    I just heard on CNN that they have uncovered photos that the shooter, Jarred Loughner, took pictures of himself in a red G-string. What assumptions do you suppose will be drawn from that? Should we start blaming Victoria Secret?

    icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 6:20 AM GMT
    I fear what we are seeing is the converse of the "I was just following orders" defense:
    The defense of "I never gave that order, it was just the doing of a crazy individual."


    CuriousJockAZ> Please cite a single example of anyone (left or right) giving any orders to go out and shoot a politician?

    Did you miss the second line?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 7:37 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidI'm not saying anyone should be prosecuted or go to jail.
    But this is a warning that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
    That the leaders must teach the followers that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

    I'm sure you agree this is a better answer than "we may never know."


    This attack by Loughner should be seen in context. Given that there have been no indications that he watched or was influenced by any modern political figures other than Giffords with whom he had a personal encounter, to suggest this is a warning for anything, seems entirely inappropriate - as if saying a plane crash would be a warning to fasten your seatbelt while you drive. Interesting ideas but independent ideas.

    In context, you also have to recognize that violence in the US is on the decline despite supposedly heated rhetoric and a supposed culture of violence. It is therefore very much unclear given practically any politician of note has denounced any use of violence both now and in the past, that toning down the use of metaphors that include the words "campaigning" and "targeting" that have military/aggressive roots would do any good.

    Finally, liberals have been as violent if not more so with their rhetoric. Examples galore:
    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ (a "right wing" site)

    But what becomes more clear is not that for many this is not truly a call for civility, but merely a partisan attempt at blunting Republican momentum as they attempt to undo what has been done in the past several years.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 16, 2011 11:47 AM GMT
    Riddler........

    Malkin really?
    Did you realize that she lists a PIE thrown in Coulter's face and lewd remarks said. To her the same as death threats and having bullets shot through your head???

    Yes there are some people on the left who have made some wrong word choices but they are NO WAY NO WAY as many and as heinous as what comes from the right

    But Malkin's list did make me laugh though ..... And than for that icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 16, 2011 3:32 PM GMT
    GQjock said

    Yes there are some people on the left who have made some wrong word choices but they are NO WAY NO WAY as many and as heinous as what comes from the right



    You're kidding, right? Did you not see some of the examples Malkin cites? They are every bit as heinous as anything I have seen come from the right. There is no excuse for any of it from either side -- it's ALL inappropriate and hateful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 4:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Caesarea4 saidI'm not saying anyone should be prosecuted or go to jail.
    But this is a warning that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
    That the leaders must teach the followers that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

    I'm sure you agree this is a better answer than "we may never know."


    This attack by Loughner should be seen in context. Given that there have been no indications that he watched or was influenced by any modern political figures other than Giffords with whom he had a personal encounter, to suggest this is a warning for anything, seems entirely inappropriate - as if saying a plane crash would be a warning to fasten your seatbelt while you drive. Interesting ideas but independent ideas.

    In context, you also have to recognize that violence in the US is on the decline despite supposedly heated rhetoric and a supposed culture of violence. It is therefore very much unclear given practically any politician of note has denounced any use of violence both now and in the past, that toning down the use of metaphors that include the words "campaigning" and "targeting" that have military/aggressive roots would do any good.

    Finally, liberals have been as violent if not more so with their rhetoric. Examples galore:
    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ (a "right wing" site)

    But what becomes more clear is not that for many this is not truly a call for civility, but merely a partisan attempt at blunting Republican momentum as they attempt to undo what has been done in the past several years.


    Michelle "anchor baby" Malkin's entire existence is one big hypocrisy. But let's put that aside for now and address the silliness of her blog post and your citation of it.

    As we have said ad nauseum, you cannot find a single instance of a Democratic or liberal politician or leader (or even a pundit) that has stooped to the vitriol of Palin, or Rush or Beck.

    Even Mike Malloy - who is the most intemperate left wing talk show host - is not as mainstream to the liberals as Rush or Beck is to the right wing.

    And then there are numerous examples on Malkin's list that are simply laughable. Attempts by anti-war activists to stop a military shipment is a protest of our country's foreign policy, and no one was harmed.

    Property destruction - though illegal - is simply not in the same class of rhetoric or actions as "second amendment solutions" or "don't retreat, reload," unless you believe that inanimate objects and property are as or more valuable then human life.

    Most of the other items on Malkin's post are either satire or metaphorical and obviously so (e.g. the child in the noose on the melting ice). That is not advocating we hang children, but pointing to how climate change will impact all of our children. icon_rolleyes.gif

    PS: ANSWER for the most part is a fringe group that most of us distance ourselves from specifically because of their tactics and rhetoric. The same cannot be said for those who identify with or support the Tea Party.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 16, 2011 4:53 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    As we have said ad nauseum, you cannot find a single instance of a Democratic or liberal politician or leader (or even a pundit) that has stooped to the vitriol of Palin, or Rush or Beck.



    Really? That you believe this to be true is laughable. To try and convince anyone that there are no instances of vitriol from the left that is on the level of Palin, Rush or Beck is just silly.


    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/dem-congressman-who-called-gop-gov-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2011 5:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    As we have said ad nauseum, you cannot find a single instance of a Democratic or liberal politician or leader (or even a pundit) that has stooped to the vitriol of Palin, or Rush or Beck.



    That you believe this to be true is laughable. To try and convince anyone that there are no instances of vitriol from the left that is on the level of Palin, Rush or Beck is just silly.


    Dude - I'm talking about politicians and pundits, not the rank and file. The entire issue here is the responsibility of those in positions of power and influence to lead by example. We can probably all find horrid examples from both sides, but at the level of national influence, it's overwhelmingly on the Right.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 16, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Dude - I'm talking about politicians and pundits, not the rank and file. The entire issue here is the responsibility of those in positions of power and influence to lead by example. We can probably all find horrid examples from both sides, but at the level of national influence, it's overwhelmingly on the Right.


    You're entitled to your opinion, but "national influence" isn't really something you can gauge. So, what your saying is things that Sarah Palin says carry more weight simply because she is a national celebrity? There are many here who would argue that Sarah Palin's words have little real "national influence". Checkout some more hypocrisy from the left:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7V7qrSJSzM&feature=player_embedded