American Christianity�s White-Supremacy Problem

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nonsense, you could have voted no in 1938, and over 400,000 did. And are you saying that the majority of Germans did not support the Nazi Party? Evidence...

Who knows, perhaps I would have supported Hitler,

I suspect you probably would have.

as you might have.

supported

If I was really opposed to the Nazis perhaps I would have left the country.

How? You would need papers and travel permissions. You would have had to apply for those. What reason[s] would you give to those Nazi officials for wanting to leave the Reich?

And you need to answer my question: why do you keep attacking my country when your country has a legion of it own sins?

[seer]

What you are overlooking is the fact that white Christian Americans used Christianity to maintain their supremacy over black Americans and continued to segregate and oppress black Americans and deny them equality, for a century or more after the 1860s. Prejudices towards black Americans are still prevalent among many white Christian Americans today and there have been threads on this board that could be construed to hint at some of those prejudices.

And many Christians use Christianity to further the abolition moment and the civil rights movement. And there are many Neo-Nazis in your country today that are racist. So?

Indeed the reaction that this thread has generated from some Christians does suggest to me that a nerve has been touched.

It is more simple - your shameless hypocrisy...

[seer]

They had already achieved that after 1933. There were no opposition parties. Do you really believe Hitler was overseeing a democracy?

And?

As I explained in a previous reply, the German people never"gave the Nazis full control" in free and fair democratic elections.

No they did not. The German people never overwhelmingly voted for the Nazis under free and fair democratic elections. The election of March 1933 was neither democratic nor fair.

The systematic persecution of Jews began gradually. The Nuremberg Laws were not passed until 1935 by which time the country was under total Nazi dictatorship.

Nonsense, you could have voted no in 1938, and over 400,000 did. And are you saying that the majority of Germans did not support the Nazi Party? Evidence...

Edited: Now perhaps you would like to answer that question I put to you earlier.

Given the situation prevailing in Germany at the time, would you have risked your own life and that of your family in an attempt against such a regime?

Who knows, perhaps I would have supported Hitler, as you might have. If I was really opposed to the Nazis perhaps I would have left the country. And you need to answer my question: why do you keep attacking my country when your country has a legion of it own sins?

[seer]

You are far too imprecise. The paradigm here doesn't create an ongoing permanent responsibility even if reparations have been made. In my example, if my generation paid back the stolen funds, future generations would not be liable to make additional payments if they squandered those repaid funds.

No, as I see it her stance includes the fact that they would be responsible, but is mitigated by the fact that her ancestors (unless she is over 68) did take responsibility and did attempt to make reparations. The issue here is that the US has never taken full responsibility as a nation for what it has done to its black citizens or to the Indians for that matter and has continued to perpetuate the problem in its culture to the present day.

Jim I don't know how to get this through your head - I believe in individual responsibility, period. And I am not above helping the Black population through education vouchers through two years of college, not because we collectively are responsible but simply because they need the help.

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It wasn't just about the annexation of Austria it was giving the Nazis full reign in the Reichstag.

They had already achieved that after 1933. There were no opposition parties. Do you really believe Hitler was overseeing a democracy?

And over 400,000 managed to vote against the Nazi party.

And?

And the German people gave the Nazis full control

As I explained in a previous reply, the German people never"gave the Nazis full control" in free and fair democratic elections.

afterthe persecution of the Jews started.

No they did not. The German people never overwhelmingly voted for the Nazis under free and fair democratic elections. The election of March 1933 was neither democratic nor fair.

The systematic persecution of Jews began gradually. The Nuremberg Laws were not passed until 1935 by which time the country was under total Nazi dictatorship.

Edited: Now perhaps you would like to answer that question I put to you earlier.

Given the situation prevailing in Germany at the time, would you have risked your own life and that of your family in an attempt against such a regime?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm using the logic she is using against the U.S. against her. She is not responsible for what her ancestors did.

What you are overlooking is the fact that white Christian Americans used Christianity to maintain their supremacy over black Americans and continued to segregate and oppress black Americans and deny them equality, for a century or more after the 1860s. Prejudices towards black Americans are still prevalent among many white Christian Americans today and there have been threads on this board that could be construed to hint at some of those prejudices.

Indeed the reaction that this thread has generated from some Christians does suggest to me that a nerve has been touched.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thanks for the clarification. I am still curious as to what is the driving significance of the apion claim GL is making. It would seem to me to be irrelavent one way or the other wrt christian sourced anti semitism.

He cited the Virtual Jewish Library article as evidence for his contention.

Yet that article clearly differentiates between the term "blood libel" and its origin [which is a separate sub-heading] and emphatically states in its opening sentence that "A Blood Libel is the allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christian children, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals"

The origin is then dealt with under a discussion of blood sacrifice, Jewish proscriptions regarding blood, and the misconceptions of non Jewish individuals who misinterpreted Jewish dietary and slaughtering practises as "ritual killings" [or "blood sacrifice"] which as I had already explained is a term that refers to any sacrificial killing of either an animal or a human victim for some designated reason.

However, he pointedly refuses to admit his error.

[Aside: without wishing to incur the wrath of moderators Gondwanaland and I know of one another from other internet fora]

[oxmixmudd]

I'm using the logic she is using against the U.S. against her. She is not responsible for what her ancestors did.

You are far too imprecise. The paradigm here doesn't create an ongoing permanent responsibility even if reparations have been made. In my example, if my generation paid back the stolen funds, future generations would not be liable to make additional payments if they squandered those repaid funds.

No, as I see it her stance includes the fact that they would be responsible, but is mitigated by the fact that her ancestors (unless she is over 68) did take responsibility and did attempt to make reparations. The issue here is that the US has never taken full responsibility as a nation for what it has done to its black citizens or to the Indians for that matter and has continued to perpetuate the problem in its culture to the present day.

[seer]

There you go again, making her guilty because of the sins of her ancestors. How does that work? How is she quilty and you are not? And Germany did in fact make restitution to Israel, even to individual jews affected by the holocaust, so where is there hypocrisy?

I'm using the logic she is using against the U.S. against her. She is not responsible for what her ancestors did.

[oxmixmudd]

It wasn't just about the annexation of Austria it was giving the Nazis full reign in the Reichstag. And over 400,000 managed to vote against the Nazi party. And the German people gave the Nazis full control after the persecution of the Jews started. I bet percentage wise more Americans were against slavery than Germans were against the persecution of the Jews. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to lecture us. That is called hypocrisy.

There you go again, making her guilty because of the sins of her ancestors. How does that work? How is she quilty and you are not? And Germany did in fact make restitution to Israel, even to individual jews affected by the holocaust, so where is there hypocrisy?

[oxmixmudd]

Except that it is not. The Jewish Virtual Library link that was provided makes the distinction between the blood libel and its origins that are to be found in blood sacrifices [a point I have previously made].

Jewish academic and Reform Rabbi, Dan Cohn-Sherbok writes that:

The Crusades and their aftermath thus brought into focus Christian contempt for those Jews who stubbornly clung to their ancient faith. [...] As a consequence of the passions unleashed against the Jews during the Crusades, by the twelfth century the Jewish community was charged with committing murder for ritual purposes. During the middle of the century Jews were accused specifically of killing Christian children and using their blood in the preparation of unleavened bread for Passover. The first case of ritual murder allegedly occurred in 1144 in Norwich, England.

Gavin I Langmuir [1924-2005 and a medievalist at Stanford University] wrote that:

Moreover, since the blood libel legend seemingly came later in time than the more general ritual murder, we may be able to do more than speculate when the first case of blood libel occurred. Much evidence seems to point to the events surrounding the death of William of Norwich, which took place in 1144. Many of those who have written on blood libel believe this to be the first documented instance of such an accusation. [My emphasis].

Jeremy Cohen [currently the Abraham and Edita Spiegel Family Foundation Professor of European Jewish History at Tel Aviv University] writes that:

blood in their perverse rituals, typically as an ingredient in baking unleavened bread [matzoh] for Passover, or concocting potions for curing leprosy.bloodnot eating human flesh

Thanks for the clarification. I am still curious as to what is the driving significance of the apion claim GL is making. It would seem to me to be irrelavent one way or the other wrt christian sourced anti semitism.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I told you - we are born with a bent towards sin, a predisposition to sin.

As I understand it the later Christian ideas concerning "original sin" or "the original sin" are primarily derived from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine affirmed the powerful reality of original sin and that it could only be countermanded through the power of the resurrection, while the function of baptism purged it.

Or do you not agree with that?

[seer]

The wiki article you cite refers to the plebiscite in April 1938 over the annexation of Austria that had taken place a month earlier in March. The entire thing was a publicity stunt for the rest of the world and there was only one party to vote for.

As ever the entire plebiscite was conducted with the usual Nazi intimidation as William Schirer recorded in his memoir of living in Hither's Germany, The Nightmare Years

"Greater German Reich", as Hitler now called it.

By 1938 Germany [and Austria] were under a brutal dictatorship and it took a great deal of bravery to resist that, particularly as reprisals from the regime would [and did] include family members. That so many did resist is testimony to their bravery.

So, given the situation prevailing in Germany at the time, let me ask you a personal question would you have risked your own life and that of your family in an attempt against such a regime?

Or would you have done what so many millions clearly did and kept your head down while hoping for better times?

It wasn't just about the annexation of Austria it was giving the Nazis full reign in the Reichstag. And over 400,000 managed to vote against the Nazi party. And the German people gave the Nazis full control after the persecution of the Jews started. I bet percentage wise more Americans were against slavery than Germans were against the persecution of the Jews. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to lecture us. That is called hypocrisy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The funny thing about this thread is the focus on the hypothetical media-generated concept of white supremacy in America.

I suggest you read the full article that the OP takes quotes from. You could even read Jones' book.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Although it seems fair to grant the reference to apion could be called blood libel

Except that it is not. The Jewish Virtual Library link that was provided makes the distinction between the blood libel and its origins that are to be found in blood sacrifices [a point I have previously made].

Jewish academic and Reform Rabbi, Dan Cohn-Sherbok writes that:

The Crusades and their aftermath thus brought into focus Christian contempt for those Jews who stubbornly clung to their ancient faith. [...] As a consequence of the passions unleashed against the Jews during the Crusades, by the twelfth century the Jewish community was charged with committing murder for ritual purposes. During the middle of the century Jews were accused specifically of killing Christian children and using their blood in the preparation of unleavened bread for Passover. The first case of ritual murder allegedly occurred in 1144 in Norwich, England.

Gavin I Langmuir [1924-2005 and a medievalist at Stanford University] wrote that:

Moreover, since the blood libel legend seemingly came later in time than the more general ritual murder, we may be able to do more than speculate when the first case of blood libel occurred. Much evidence seems to point to the events surrounding the death of William of Norwich, which took place in 1144. Many of those who have written on blood libel believe this to be the first documented instance of such an accusation. [My emphasis].

Jeremy Cohen [currently the Abraham and Edita Spiegel Family Foundation Professor of European Jewish History at Tel Aviv University] writes that:

blood in their perverse rituals, typically as an ingredient in baking unleavened bread [matzoh] for Passover, or concocting potions for curing leprosy.bloodnot eating human flesh