American Christianity�s White-Supremacy Problem

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My family is not Anglo-Saxon, Italian and Spanish...

What did those relatives of yours left behind in Spain and Italy get up to?

• Were your Spanish relatives Falangists during the Spanish Civil War?
• Did your Italian relatives march with Mussolini?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then why bring Jews who voted for Hitler up? Most people didn't know his true views in 1933.

You seem to be under the impression that all Germans were supporters of Hitler [which by definition would include Jewish Germans who voted in 1932 and 1933].

Do you now realise how ridiculous your suppositions are?

Just to give you a very brief overview of the situation in Germany at the time. You need to remember that Germany had only become a democracy and a republic after the end of WW1 [i.e. post 1918].

However, barely fourteen years later in 1932 German democracy was in terminal decline. The country had been devastated by economic depression and hyper inflation and the various coalition governments that had been formed in those years had appeared incapable of ending the misery and many ordinary Germans had lost faith in this new democratic system. By the early 1930s the army, the large landholders, and most industrial leaders wanted some form of authoritarianism, which was the system that Germany had been accustomed to under the Kaiser. As elsewhere politics in Germany had become polarised.

The Nazi party had been gaining support from its 2.6% share of the vote in 1928 and by 1930 [only two years later] was the second largest political party in the Reichstag. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Nazis believed they were on the cusp of power following those July 1932 elections, despite the fact that the KPD [Communist Party] was also gaining support.

By the end of July 1932 and after four elections had been held that year [two presidential, Landtag and Reichstag] the party had reached the pinnacle of its electoral success in a freely held democratic process

But that is the history of your people, own it...

Most people didn't know his true views in 1933

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, it is.

No it is not. Your contention that "Anti-semitism and blood libel existed long before Catholicism, and long before the founder of Christianity even lived" is an erroneous and inaccurate statement and nothing is going to alter that fact, irrespective of how often you insist that you are correct.

The blood libel is a later medieval conception premised on certain specific texts found in the New Testament.

Anti Jewish feeling in Egypt in the late first century CE and early first century CE [and Apion was certainly anti-Judaic] had nothing to do with the Jewish religion. The account Apion presents [and which is first recorded by Posidonius in the second century BCE] is of a blood sacrifice and ritual cannibalism, the latter calumny against the Jews would later appear in the writings of John Chrysostom [347-407 CE].

That's nice, but does not change that it is literally blood libel.

The account in Apion is not a blood libel. You quite clearly have no understanding about what you are writing but are unable [or unwilling] to acknowledge your error.

Not surprised to see you carry water for anti-semites though.

How interesting. You have just called Dan Cohn-Sherbok, who is both a Jewish academic and a Reform Rabbi, an anti-Semite. Assuming of course that you are actually referring to Dan Cohn-Sherbok whose book was the subject of my comment which elicited that reply.

However, we can never be entirely sure who or what might be the topic of your stream of conscious contributions.

That you cannot grasp the analogy indicates your lack of critical thinking abilities.

Analogies have no bearing on this. We are dealing with historical facts.

[seer]

You said that after I asked the question 4 times, with the 4th time noting your multiple attempts evading the question. You make it sound like you said that before I asked the question or presented the moral example, which simply isnt true.

My original post in this line of discussion was responding to you saying this:

Source: seer

.. And I am not responsible for what others did in the past, just as you are not respobsible for what your ancestors did.

© Copyright Original Source

That is an absolute statement that simply and clearly is not true as an absolute - as you have since my response admitted.

Then tell me Jim what did your ancestors do that makes you responsible? And again you made a blanket statement. That we are responsible. Who is the we Jim? That too is an absolute statement.

[oxmixmudd]

I said already that if I personally benefited fro stolen monies, it probably would be moral to give it back to the original owner. And I never said 'never' - but in the context of this particular discussion, no I am not responsible. You said in that post:We are responsible for the legacy of what was done...That is what I was disagreeing with.

You said that after I asked the question 4 times, with the 4th time noting your multiple attempts evading the question. You make it sound like you said that before I asked the question or presented the moral example, which simply isnt true.

My original post in this line of discussion was responding to you saying this:

Source: seer

.. And I am not responsible for what others did in the past, just as you are not respobsible for what your ancestors did.

© Copyright Original Source

That is an absolute statement that simply and clearly is not true as an absolute - as you have since my response admitted.

[Gondwanaland]

No it is not "literally blood libel".

Yes, it is.

You clearly have no idea as to what you are writing about and appear to making it all up as you go along to suit your own purposes.

I suggest you do some serious background reading on this topic to inform yourself. You could start with Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew.

That's nice, but does not change that it is literally blood libel. Not surprised to see you carry water for anti-semites though.

An entirely irrelevant red herring that has no bearing whatsoever on this specific topic.

That you cannot grasp the analogy indicates your lack of critical thinking abilities.

[Cow Poke]

That's about what I figured would be the case, and wholly unsurprised to see the dishonesty by Shuny.

I'm actually disappointed - I knew Shuny could be a nut, but I didn't see him as dishonest.

[Gondwanaland]

I am a Nationalist, but that is not race specific. You could be brown, black, yellow or purple and believe that we should put the needs of our citizens first.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

That's about what I figured would be the case, and wholly unsurprised to see the dishonesty by Shuny.

[Gondwanaland]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

Where?

[seer]

Instead of trying to provide a counter to an argument I'm not making, would it not make more sense to just answer the basic question honestly and then let me move on from there? My intent in asking that question was simply to establish that it is possible to be obligated by what our ancestors have done. Whether you or i are in a situation where such an obligation exists is an issue for further discussion. But to this point you've argued we are never responsible for what our ancestors did. Clearly, that is not always the case.

I said already that if I personally benefited fro stolen monies, it probably would be moral to give it back to the original owner. And I never said 'never' - but in the context of this particular discussion, no I am not responsible. You said in that post:We are responsible for the legacy of what was done...That is what I was disagreeing with.

[oxmixmudd]

But in your example I would have directly benefited from stolen money. That is not my case, or probably yours. So it would be specific to particular a case. You can't generalize. Which you did: We are responsible for the legacy of what was done, the impact of it. No we are not all responsible for a legacy that neither we or our ancestors had any part in.

Instead of trying to provide a counter to an argument I'm not making, would it not make more sense to just answer the basic question honestly and then let me move on from there? My intent in asking that question was simply to establish that it is possible to be obligated by what our ancestors have done. Whether you or i are in a situation where such an obligation exists is an issue for further discussion. But to this point you've argued we are never responsible for what our ancestors did. Clearly, that is not always the case.

[RumTumTugger]

You would be best off either providing the actual quote, or admitting you can't. Right now, you're stooping to a new low.

I remember the discussion I remember something shuny and the anti trumpers on this board dishonestly likened it to White Nationalism so they could lie about him.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's literally blood libel. That the term itself was introduced later does not make it magically not blood libel,

No it is not "literally blood libel". You clearly have no idea as to what you are writing about and appear to making it all up as you go along to suit your own purposes.

I suggest you do some serious background reading on this topic to inform yourself. You could start with Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew.

just as transgenders have existed for a long time before the term was invented. Etc.

An entirely irrelevant red herring that has no bearing whatsoever on this specific topic.

[RumTumTugger]

I have never seen him make any such claim. That's a pretty serious charge which you need to either back up, or retract and apologize.

you forget the Anti Trumpers in teh media always adds White to "Nationalist" to lie about people who love their country.

[Cow Poke]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

You would be best off either providing the actual quote, or admitting you can't. Right now, you're stooping to a new low.