Monday, April 6, 2009

What happened to the "Christian seders" post

Greetings to regular readers and commenters:

I've taken down the last post but one, which was my rant about Christian "seders" held during Holy Week. A friend pointed out that I was making an ethical error in not drawing a distinction between ignorance (Christians who assume that modern Jews are just like the Jews of Jesus' lifetime) and evil (the historic blood-libel against Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus). I think this happened in part because I had just sung for (and hence sat through) a Palm Sunday service that was heavy on the "Crucify him!" part of the Passion story. But this should just teach me not to agree to any church gigs at this time of year. Although I think ignorance is dangerous precisely because it can lead to evil, despite the intentions of those involved, I don't wish to accuse liberal Christians who haven't done their homework of anti-Semitism.

I realize that taking down the whole post means taking down some of your comments. I've archived the post and the comments personally. I don't mean to shut down the discussion, but I don't know any other way to handle it, given that I have neither the time nor the energy to reframe the discussion more neutrally. Thank you all for reading it and taking it seriously, and particularly for conceding me my right to be angry while still engaging my points on their merits or lack thereof.

2 comments:

mindy said...

It's okay. I will still share my hot dish with you. :)

Mockingbird said...

Your term, "historic blood-libel against Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus", seems very odd. The phrase "blood libel" refers to accusations of such things as the use of human blood as an ingredient in unleavened cakes.

The belief that all Jews bear a special guilt, not shared by any other human beings, for the death of Jesus, while libelous, is not a "blood libel." Yet that is how you seem to be using the phrase.