Thanks Grey, SentientMeat & tomndebb.
I apologize if I was snarky. (A word I’m not sure I understand, but I’ve only seen here. It seems to be the right one to use.)
I was clearly getting frustrated, and that is a sure sign (to me anyways) to re-evaluate my participation and investment here.
The issue of Israeli/Arab relations is a concern to any peace loving individual. Historically, the USA has taken a leading role in shaping middle eastern affairs. I never thought I’d miss Jimmy Carter, but the image of Anwar Sadat and and Menachem Begin shaking hands at Camp David is seared in my brain. As the country the whole world looks to for leadership (like it or not) it would sure be nice to have a president who had the diplomatic skills of Richard Nixon, (Detente) Carter, or even the the senior Bush. (who wasn’t a slouch in foreign affairs)
The OP cited statistics on the people who believed Jews were “responsible” for the death of Jesus. Earlier in the link, the word “blame” is used. I don’t believe I used the word “blame” in this thread, and I certainly wouldn’t use it in that context. The only people who could be blamed, IMHO, have been dead for a couple thousand years. They include, from my reading of both the bible and secular history, both Jews and Romans.
IMHO, it does us no good to assign blame. It offers us nothing that we can use to make the world a better place tomorrow. But, to use the word “responsible”, and more importantly in the context of making a historical statement, is both appropriate and true. I am fully aware of how sensitive this issue is, considering the state of affairs in the middle east right now. But nowhere in my posts did I assign blame, or make “too much of it.”
My frustration was (is) in our tendency to avoid anything that may suggest we’re being judgemental. As a society we work so hard on being inclusive, and not discriminating. That’s a noble task. But when we take that ideal too far and start to re-write history so as to not look judgemental it is inneffectual at best and a tradegy for our sense of history at worst. To deny the Jews as culpable (w/ the Romans) as a fact of history is a tragedy. Both the biblical record and the secular record support it, IMHO.
If that is true, what to do with the information? In my estimation, nothing more than you would do with any other piece of history. Mel Gibson made a movie that by most accounts is quite historically accurate. It is not, and should not, be a referendum on Jewish/Arab/Christian relations. It’s his artistic expression and he’s gone to great lengths to clarify that he is not anti-semitic. I don’t want to act naive however. This part of human history has incendiary potential, especially in these times. For Arab hardliners, this is confirmation that the Jews are bloodthirsty and killed a great prophet. Intolerant Christians will assign blame to modern day Jews who cannot be held culplable for a mob action 2000 years ago. The Jews, who logically feel assaulted on both fronts are upset and we’ve heard cries of “anti-semitism.” Hey, even in this thread there’s cries of anti-semitism and silly allegations about Mel Gibson’s father.
It appears to me that, as a country, we’re picking the low hanging fruit. The stuff that makes us feel good about ourselves, and makes us feel as if we’re inclusive. It takes a stronger people in my estimation, to stand up to the Christian, Muslim or Jew hardliners and say essentially, “Listen man, that was 2000 years ago. Assigning blame, or holding grudges will not keep our families safe, and does nothing to ensure a solid future for all of us. It certainly doesn’t help us understand each other, and our cultures, any better. Let’s be about the future, not the ancient past.” I think we’re better off by not watering down history to appease hardliners.
I don’t multi-task well, and certainly not on message boards. There are so many different themes on this subject, and sub-themes that it can very complex and get fragmented very quickly. The OP dealt with the percentage of Americans who believe that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. I assumed (incorrectly perhaps) that this was in historical terms and that they were not asking if people held modern day Jews responsible for Jesus’s death. I was incredulous then and now that only 26% held that view. (Keep in mind that in our sorry state of educational affairs, some respondents would have assigned blame to the Swiss, given the chance) My point through the thread was simple: It is reasonable that the Jews were reposnsible for Jesus death. I find nothing in the biblical record, or the secular reading that I’ve done, that disputes that.
Along the way, we’ve gotten into all kinds of sub-themes like the veracity of the bible, it’s historical value, whether the Gospel writers actually wrote the accounts,when they wrote them, and whether the Jews actaully had anything to do with Jesus death at all. We spent some time on how much broad support there was for Jesus’s death among the Jews, and the level of support in the Sanhedrin. There was talk as to whether the Sanhedrin could be considered complicit at all, given Rome’s influence. The last couple items had us disputing whether the definate article "the " was appropriate to use, as if the dynamics of that tremondous event could be summarized in a statement. I find that inconceivable.
It just seems to me that in our noble efforts to not offend we’re missing other opportunities. Why doesn’t Palestine not have a country it can call home? Why can’t we convene a series of Pan Arab/ Israeli summits and schedule them around the world to work on the issues that separate all of us? Can Egypt and some of the other moderate Arab states be given a greater voice in ME affairs? Why is the UN so inneffective? Do Rumsfeld and Wolfowitcz have too much infuence in shaping foreign policy; and; what would a greater voice for Colin Powell have for the US’s position in the world? (Wanna bet that if GWB is re-elected Powell will not stay on?)
Instead, we’re sweetening history so it goes down a little better. There’s compelling evidence that Jesus was killed by Jews. Also, that Jews were the primary instigators, and that the Jewish leadership was behind it. I think the Romans were ambivalent, but complicit. To the person who notes that, my response is “So what. What’s your point?” If you’re interested in history, cool. To the Christian, Muslim or Jew who wants to use it to stoke the flames of religious or political discontent I would suggest that it is our obligation to stand up to them and in a patient voice apply the love and tolerance that is present in the Muslim, Christian and Judaic traditions.
The hardliners seem to get all the attention, and in some circles seem to have hijacked the rich tradition of their respective religions. I’m not up for having them hijack a balanced view of history because we’re afraid of offending one of them.
Well, that’s just my ¢.02. I have to run. I’ve spent too much time here in the last few days.