Palin's 'blood libel' remark has drawn marked anger from some groups. Other have ignored it, perhaps in the silent hope that she and her awkward remarks will simply go away. But this time, Palin is right. Here are Palin's actual remarks. The blood libel usage is in a paragraph beginning at 3:22, but the tape is short, and best listened to in its entirety-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0nnOtLYm_4&feature=watch_response_rev
Here are two opinions from Jews about her remark-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/oy_vey_phony_indignation_over_blood_libel_108533.html
While the simile is quite strong, Palin's use of the term is actually accurate. There is no difference between labeling all Jews as bloodthirsty Christian killers and labeling all Republicans/conservatives/gun owners as inciting violence in the form of the public shooting of a Democratic congressowman. Shmuley makes this very point in his article-
"Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder."
Shmuley further makes his point in relation to political events-
"Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
"How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
"To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral."
Palin makes an appropriate point in saying individuals are responsible for their actions. Well, they are. Sadly, we have become a nation that seeks to assign blame to corporations, groups, governments. Anything and everything except the individual. I have argued previously that assigning government responsibility for individual outcomes is a fundamental part of entitlement conception and over-spending. An individual shot that gun in Tucson, not a group, a political party or the government.
Republicans are no more responsible for Loughren than Democrats were for John Hinkley. Both these men are schizophrenics. I want our cultural and political discourse to improve. Labeling whole groups and pointing fingers does not achieve this. I believe we should reflect long and hard on what we promote in our culture. We casually accept behavior that is much more corrosive to public discussion and values than gun ownership and even ugly political discourse.
We now laugh at shows like 'Father Knows best' or 'Leave it to Beaver' or 'Andy Griffith'. They are considered chauvinistic, overly religious, prejudiced in having no black characters.
But these shows had no one walking around in revealing clothing, no bowel jokes, no penis innuendos. Honesty, helpfulness, kindness succeed every time, even while we laughed at the silliness of some character. We did not laugh at them deliberately misbehaving, or at their drunkenness. The comedy was situational, the implied values constant. We have just the opposite now- constant low brow 'humor' with situational values, in which it is OK to steal from the right person, OK to cheat for the right reasons.
We do no better at interpersonal politeness. People text while at dinner, walk into people while reading e-mail, do not greet each other with courtesy, do not dress to honor others or any situation. Businesses and individuals are extolled solely for making money, glossing over their methods and acts of charity (usually bad and none, respectively). We clap for cheating athletes who would have been thrown out of their games years before. we casually accept obesity as the consequence of inadequate physical activity and overeating.
Palin is right this time. To label a political group for the actions of a single mentally ill person is outrageous. If we are going to label anyone, it should be all of us- me, you, everyone, for our gross failures of personal accountability, restraint and public politeness and values.
Our politicians are elected by us, and they distressingly represent our values. we watch Jerry Springer but then expect our representatives to behave differently. If we want a better country, we should not demonize others. We should elevate ourselves. As an individual was responsible for the crime in Tucson, so it is individuals who can make the personal choices to improve themselves, and thereby our nation.
Ted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0nnOtLYm_4&feature=watch_response_rev
Here are two opinions from Jews about her remark-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/oy_vey_phony_indignation_over_blood_libel_108533.html
While the simile is quite strong, Palin's use of the term is actually accurate. There is no difference between labeling all Jews as bloodthirsty Christian killers and labeling all Republicans/conservatives/gun owners as inciting violence in the form of the public shooting of a Democratic congressowman. Shmuley makes this very point in his article-
"Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder."
Shmuley further makes his point in relation to political events-
"Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
"How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
"To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral."
Palin makes an appropriate point in saying individuals are responsible for their actions. Well, they are. Sadly, we have become a nation that seeks to assign blame to corporations, groups, governments. Anything and everything except the individual. I have argued previously that assigning government responsibility for individual outcomes is a fundamental part of entitlement conception and over-spending. An individual shot that gun in Tucson, not a group, a political party or the government.
Republicans are no more responsible for Loughren than Democrats were for John Hinkley. Both these men are schizophrenics. I want our cultural and political discourse to improve. Labeling whole groups and pointing fingers does not achieve this. I believe we should reflect long and hard on what we promote in our culture. We casually accept behavior that is much more corrosive to public discussion and values than gun ownership and even ugly political discourse.
We now laugh at shows like 'Father Knows best' or 'Leave it to Beaver' or 'Andy Griffith'. They are considered chauvinistic, overly religious, prejudiced in having no black characters.
But these shows had no one walking around in revealing clothing, no bowel jokes, no penis innuendos. Honesty, helpfulness, kindness succeed every time, even while we laughed at the silliness of some character. We did not laugh at them deliberately misbehaving, or at their drunkenness. The comedy was situational, the implied values constant. We have just the opposite now- constant low brow 'humor' with situational values, in which it is OK to steal from the right person, OK to cheat for the right reasons.
We do no better at interpersonal politeness. People text while at dinner, walk into people while reading e-mail, do not greet each other with courtesy, do not dress to honor others or any situation. Businesses and individuals are extolled solely for making money, glossing over their methods and acts of charity (usually bad and none, respectively). We clap for cheating athletes who would have been thrown out of their games years before. we casually accept obesity as the consequence of inadequate physical activity and overeating.
Palin is right this time. To label a political group for the actions of a single mentally ill person is outrageous. If we are going to label anyone, it should be all of us- me, you, everyone, for our gross failures of personal accountability, restraint and public politeness and values.
Our politicians are elected by us, and they distressingly represent our values. we watch Jerry Springer but then expect our representatives to behave differently. If we want a better country, we should not demonize others. We should elevate ourselves. As an individual was responsible for the crime in Tucson, so it is individuals who can make the personal choices to improve themselves, and thereby our nation.
Ted
Thanks for the links - I perused them all. I agree that Palin was right...as was Ronald Reagan when he said that "We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker." Individuals are indeed responsible for their actions.
ReplyDeleteDavid