Palin's 'Blood Libel'

Sarah Palin has a video out this morning that addresses the criticism she’s received in the wake of the Arizona shootings, sort of. It’s an odd piece of self-defense, chock full of God, American exceptionalism and claims of victimhood.  Media Matters sums it up:  “Violent rhetoric doesn’t inspire violence — but criticism of violent rhetoric does.”

Beyond the bizarre logic is the pointed use of the term “blood libel” which refers to a hoax and lie used to justify sustained and brutal violence against Jews.   Anthea Butler at Religion Dispatches fills us in:

Blood libel, a term rooted in medieval Christianity, started as a rumor that Jews were killing Christian babies, and using their blood to mix into matzoh. The blood libel, refuted first by Pope Innocent IV through a series of papal bulls, has nonetheless persisted throughout history as a way for Christians at times to scapegoat Jews. Palin, by calling the media’s alleged persecution of her a “blood libel” plays into this evil history by inference. But does she understand how this comment of blood libel appears anti-Semitic? Not only is Rep. Giffords Jewish, but accusing the media of “blood libel” could be seen as playing into anti-Semitic memes that Jews control the media.

Continue Reading →

Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’

Sarah Palin has a video out this morning that addresses the criticism she’s received in the wake of the Arizona shootings, sort of. It’s an odd piece of self-defense, chock full of God, American exceptionalism and claims of victimhood.  Media Matters sums it up:  “Violent rhetoric doesn’t inspire violence — but criticism of violent rhetoric does.”

Beyond the bizarre logic is the pointed use of the term “blood libel” which refers to a hoax and lie used to justify sustained and brutal violence against Jews.   Anthea Butler at Religion Dispatches fills us in:

Blood libel, a term rooted in medieval Christianity, started as a rumor that Jews were killing Christian babies, and using their blood to mix into matzoh. The blood libel, refuted first by Pope Innocent IV through a series of papal bulls, has nonetheless persisted throughout history as a way for Christians at times to scapegoat Jews. Palin, by calling the media’s alleged persecution of her a “blood libel” plays into this evil history by inference. But does she understand how this comment of blood libel appears anti-Semitic? Not only is Rep. Giffords Jewish, but accusing the media of “blood libel” could be seen as playing into anti-Semitic memes that Jews control the media.

Continue Reading →

Republicans Have Found Their Culprit

Trent Franks (R-AZ) made a fantastic assignation of blame today when speaking with Candy Crowley on CNN.  The “culture of death” killed six people in Arizona, in the form of a lunatic young man:

But sometimes you can see central elements, and that central element is this unhinged lunatic that had no respect for human life was willing to make some grand statement, I don’t know if he even knows what grand statement he was willing to make to take the lives of his fellow human lives to do it. And there is the problem, a lack of respect for innocent human life. It’s a lack of respect for the constitution, for freedom.

Isn’t this the same language Republicans have been using for the past four decades regarding abortion? The narrative Franks again seamlessly employs to explain the murder of a pro-immigration representative in increasingly violent Arizona is a loss of our moral compass, a move from God, a betrayal of a certain interpretation of the constitution, as demonstrated by a lone killer. Because Franks and his Republican allies are right with God (the authority on innocent life, the constitution and freedom) they are exempt from blame; we, a society which has lost it’s way, however, are not.

I think Franks might be right but not in the way he thinks he is. Continue Reading →