Should being a 'Holocaust Denier' be a criminal offence?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Some of you will be aware that in both German & Austria, to deny that the Holocaust took place, in fact to be a 'Holocaust Denier', is against the law and results in criminal prosecution by the state.

I find this preposterous and unthinking. How dare any state think it may legislate for an individual's opinions - regardless of how deluded, offensive and not based on fact those opinions might be.

In October of 2008, even though it is not a crime in the UK, the UK gov't considered extraditing Gerald Toben (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3604161,00.html), an Australian citizen, to Germany [after he'd landed at London's Heathrow airport, and they'd then issued an EU arrest warrant for his arrest] to stand trial there for being a 'Holocaust Denier'.

Luckily, sounder minds and wiser counsel prevailed and the 'academic' in question was not extradited - as he'd not broken any UK law. But the very prospect of the UK gov't even considering the extradition I find worrying. After all, Toben had broken no laws in the UK and all his travel documents and UK entry visa were in order.

The most famous case of being a 'Holocaust Denier' is the now discredited UK academic and Historian, Dr. David Irving (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm) - an arrogant prick, fluent German speaker and self-professed expert on the workings and history of both the Nazi party, and Germany during the Second World War. That said, all these qualifications do not stop him being delusional and ignorant in the correct use of actual historical facts - although why that in itself might or should be a crime is open to debate.

Irving's monumental arrogance prompted him to go to over to Germany to defend himself against the charge of him being a denier - an act which both saw him lose and be gaoled, and all but bankrupt himself in the process. His mistake was to step foot on German soil where his opinions are criminal by legislation.

Let me be clear here: in no way do I support these 'deniers' or their racist and patently unsupportable [certainly by facts] views; but I am with Voltaire here: "Sir, I may find what you say repugnant, but I shall defend to the death your right to hold them."


The question before this house therefore is:

"Can it be proper to make being a so-called 'Holocaust Denier' a criminal offence? Should it be permissible to prosecute and gaol people merely for their opinions [regardless of how objectionable or repugnant we might find them] - or, are we, ironically, merely reverting to Nazi tactics in prosecuting those whose opinions with which [today] we disagree? Can it ever be right to place state-sanctioned limits on one's freedom of expression? "


Over to you.

[MattShizzle]

No it shouldn't. The way we do that here in the US is best - you are perfectly free to go around saying the holocaust never happened. The rest of us will consider you to be a white trash bigot, an idiot, or both and you can forget about ever getting a professional type of job.

[Jobar]

No- although I can understand how the German government might feel called on to make it a criminal offense, to help prevent any sort of revival of fascism. I have no doubt there are many Germans who would very much like to think their fathers and grandfathers didn't really do those monstrous things; I have a certain respect for the ones who say "yes, they did- and it is wrong, indeed illegal, to deny this."

But I still think it's not a good way to go about the matter.

[columbus]

but I am with Voltaire here: "Sir, I may find what you say repugnant, but I shall defend to the death your right to hold them."


I think you'll find, if you investigate thoroughly, that if Voltaire ever said such a thing it was not recorded;)



The question before this house therefore is:

"Can it be proper to make being a so-called 'Holocaust Denier' a criminal offence? Should it be permissible to prosecute and gaol people merely for their opinions [regardless of how objectionable or repugnant we might find them] - or, are we, ironically, merely reverting to Nazi tactics in prosecuting those whose opinions with which [today] we disagree? Can it ever be right to place state-sanctioned limits on one's freedom of expression? "


Over to you.Absolutely not. Saying anything you want to, in a peaceable way, is a crucial function for democracy to work.

I think a good deal of the Holocaust stories are "overstated". But whether it was 8 million, 6 million, or "only" 1 million, something profoundly evil happened in Europe back in the 40's. Similarly evil things have happened around the globe and down the centuries, and will continue if we don't keep them in mind. So it is important that we keep talking about them and that means everybody saying what they think is true. If the German(or any) government can make Holocaust Denying illegal, they can just as easily make Holocaust Claiming illegal.

Fuck that.

Tom

[Free in Freeport]

No.

The batshit insane have as much right to spout their stupidity as the rest of us. If we had to outlaw holocaust denying, we'd have to outlaw religion too. How well would that go over?

[columbus]

Of course, if you try to talk about the Genocide of the Americas you'll run into a brick wall higher and thicker than all the holocaust deniers could put up. Try to convince the Euro-Americans that the death and destruction their culture is founded on is worse than "The Holocaust" and they won't prosecute you or anything, they'll just ignore you. They'll half smile/half grimace and go back to talking about the evil Third Riech.

Tom

[DanB]

Of course, if you try to talk about the Genocide of the Americas you'll run into a brick wall higher and thicker than all the holocaust deniers could put up. Try to convince the Euro-Americans that the death and destruction their culture is founded on is worse than "The Holocaust" and they won't prosecute you or anything, they'll just ignore you. They'll half smile/half grimace and go back to talking about the evil Third Riech.

Or they might not. They might actually engage in a conversation about the subject.

I wonder if, being German-American, would tend to affect the response?

Of course, we all know, the bigger the demographic, the more monolithic it is.

[trendkill]

I would be strongly against banning Holocaust denial in my country, but then again I'm not German. the Holocaust didn't happen here; there isn't a generation of Americans from whose culture that particular horror arose, and might again if every measure wasn't taken to prevent it. I'm not sure I'd be so uncompromising about it if I lived in Germany or Austria.

[DMB]

France has also made Holocaust denial a crime, and I think it's a big mistake. There was a push to make it a Europe-wide crime.

What did for Irving was a libel case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/22/irving.humanities) that he lost. An American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, wrote a book (published by Penguin) that explained why his Holocaust denial and defence of Hitler was wrong and he sued her and Penguin.

Of course you can't arrange it so that all Holocaust deniers make the mistake of going for an expensive libel case. In a way it reminds me of Hitler's own big mistake of declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbor.

[DMB]

I've just seen this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/spaniards-outraged-favourable-franco-biography

After 12 years' work and more than €6.5m (£5.7m) in taxpayers' money, the first volumes of the encyclopaedia were unveiled last week only for readers to discover that the dictator's biography had been written by Professor Luis Suárez, an 86-year-old Franco apologist who is better known as a medievalist.

The entry describes how Franco "became famous for the cold courage which he showed in the field" while a young officer in Africa, and goes on to say that his brutal years in power saw him "set up a regime that was authoritarian, but not totalitarian."

But Suárez failed to mention the tens of thousands of people killed during the Francoist era and refused to describe him as a dictator, arguing he had been authoritarian rather than totalitarian...

...Suárez is an acquaintance of the Franco family and a senior figure in the Brotherhood of the Valley of the Fallen. The group, which takes its name from the controversial underground basilica where the dictator was buried in 1975, is actively opposed to the so-called "historical memory" movement in Spain, which has recently been searching for, and digging up, the mass graves of the victims of Francoist death squads.

Because Franco was in power in Spain so relatively recently, there is still much to uncover about the fascist atrocities of his era. Of course, as with Germany, direct memories will go as people who were involved in some way die. I know a Frenchman who has just retired from work. He is French by nationality but his parents were Spanish republicans who fled from Spain after the Civil War. There are many people in that part of France with Spanish names and I assume that in most cases they or their parents or grandparents were refugees who managed to cross the Pyrenees.

[Monad]

France has also made Holocaust denial a crime, and I think it's a big mistake. There was a push to make it a Europe-wide crime.

What did for Irving was a libel case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/22/irving.humanities) that he lost. An American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, wrote a book (published by Penguin) that explained why his Holocaust denial and defence of Hitler was wrong and he sued her and Penguin.

Of course you can't arrange it so that all Holocaust deniers make the mistake of going for an expensive libel case. In a way it reminds me of Hitler's own big mistake of declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbor.

So he wanted the right to spout his shit but denied others the right to call him on it. Typical fascist.

[Berthold]

One thing is: In Germany and Austria Nazi sympathisers are, though (I'm glad to say) a minority, not "a few lunatic oddballs". :(

[Ray Moscow]

The notion runs counter to the principles of free speech, but one can understand why Germany in particular felt it necessary.

Personally I think ideas need to be argued down rather than made illegal.

[neilstone40]

Yep, the more ridiculous the statement sometimes the more it has to be heard.

Sometimes by suppressing people's right to say truly stupid and ill informed stuff lends it more credence than it deserves.

[Roehm]

No, but we must remember what this sort of infectious talk is doing. I hate to say it, but i meet someone who denies it almost on a monthly basis, and it seems even from the grave his tactics are still being implemented.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” - Adolf Hitler

[cnorman18]

One more post, which some may find surprising, before my account is deleted at my own request:

I agree with the consensus here. Holocaust deniers ought to be derided, ostracized, publicly debunked and humiliated -- but not considered criminals.

I'd also point out that holocaust denial is not a minority opinion in most Arab/Musliim nations. It is generally accepted as factually correct, as are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Blood Libel, and various other antisemitic myths. If one doesn't know that, one is not really particularly knowledgable about the issue.

[DMB]

Most of us do know that, and deplore it.

[columbus]

Most of us do know that, and deplore it.

I realize that too. But I do not see it as particularly more important than the Zionist belief that the Original Testament is a title deed to Palestinian people's homes.

That is the real problem here in the 21st century.

The Zionist belief that certain people are owed the homes of other people is the problem. And the belief that such aggressors are morally able to use attack helicopters and tanks and armored bulldozers and

[columbus]

Most of us do know that, and deplore it.

I realize that too. But I do not see it as particularly more important than the Zionist belief that the Original Testament is a title deed to Palestinian people's homes.

That is the real problem here in the 21st century.

The Zionist belief that certain people are owed the homes of other people is the problem. And the belief that such aggressors are morally able to use attack helicopters and tanks and armored bulldozers and fighter jets and blockades is the problem.

And, unsurprisingly, the USA is supporting that sort of immorality. The US government, including Obama, will tell me that we can't afford taking care of kids here, but we must send billions of dollars in military aid to Israel.

Ask "Why are school lunch programs being cut?" and the answer will be "What part of BROKE don't you understand?" Ask why we should be spending billions on supporting Israel and the answer will be "We're a super-power and we must take care of our friends". :dunno:

I used to blame this crap on Bush, but now Obama is in the driver's seat and he isn't doing anything different.

Tom

[Ozymandias]

I know someone who now has a criminal record because he called someone a "fascist". It was an argument in the street (about the chaining of a bike to railings) and he lost his temper. It turned out that the guy he insulted was a Jew and also a lawyer, and he got taken to court.

It seems a little ironic that he was prosecuted for calling the lawyer something that the lawyer then proved true by his actions.

[neilstone40]

I know someone who now has a criminal record because he called someone a "fascist". It was an argument in the street (about the chaining of a bike to railings) and he lost his temper. It turned out that the guy he insulted was a Jew and also a lawyer, and he got taken to court.

It seems a little ironic that he was prosecuted for calling the lawyer something that the lawyer then proved true by his actions.

It would have been interesting whether the court would have convicted him had the lawyer not been Jewish. Whether they believed you can only truly insult someone by calling them a fascist if they're Jewish (or another culture/religion/nationality who have suffered directly as a result of fascism).

Surely if that's the case, they would have to have proved that there had been knowledge of his 'victim's' religion beforehand? Short of wearing Hassidic type dress or something equally 'suggestive of belief' there would be no way of knowing...even a yarmulke wouldn't be enough as lots of other cultures wear them.

When it comes to religion and the law, there is a sad tendency to overreact to protect the precious sensibilities of the religious.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I think it should be made illegal for those so detached from reality to hold any kind of position of authority over school curricula and textbooks.

I can think of other similar laws I'll be enacting when the revolutions comes.

[Firemerlin]

"Can it be proper to make being a so-called 'Holocaust Denier' a criminal offence? Should it be permissible to prosecute and gaol people merely for their opinions [regardless of how objectionable or repugnant we might find them] - or, are we, ironically, merely reverting to Nazi tactics in prosecuting those whose opinions with which [today] we disagree? Can it ever be right to place state-sanctioned limits on one's freedom of expression?"

I don't like anyone telling me what to think. It would be hypocritical for me to support a law that does so.

That being said, this doesn't seem to be a case of black and white with no area of grey. On one side, we can leave "Holocaust Deniers" alone, dismissing them as delusional crackpots because it is well within their right as humans to think whatever they want to think. On the other side, we can throw them in prison, make them disappear, because their delusions are too dangerous. Sometimes delusion can spread like sickness amongst the ignorant and impressionable and so it seems prudent to keep an eye on such people, especially in the central Europe area where these events are still in memory, not just distant history.

I would also point out that Hitler rose to power in no small part because the rest of the world chose to ignore him as harmless even after he wrote Mein Kampf. It only takes one overlooked, charismatic madman to spread lies and propaganda, leading to millions of deaths.

I could never condone such a law but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

No, but we must remember what this sort of infectious talk is doing. I hate to say it, but i meet someone who denies it almost on a monthly basis, and it seems even from the grave his tactics are still being implemented.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” - Adolf Hitler

As the Forest Gump Bush jnr administration did when it pointedly never made mention of Saddam without referring/linking him to 9/11.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I agree with the consensus here. Holocaust deniers ought to be derided, ostracized, publicly debunked and humiliated -- but not considered criminals.

I'd also point out that holocaust denial is not a minority opinion in most Arab/Musliim nations. It is generally accepted as factually correct, as are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Blood Libel, and various other antisemitic myths. If one doesn't know that, one is not really particularly knowledgable about the issue.

And in some countries - e.g. Iran - it's elevated to the point/status of national policy (rather like the cult of personality anti-Americanism in North Korea).

[DMB]

BTW Wikipedia has an informative article on the subject

Laws against Holocaust denial

[Rie]

Off the top of my head I would have to say that it was a matter of practicality to deny ever being part of the most miserable example of humanity ever to exist. And by miserable I mean undeniably so much less than humanity has ever acceded to.

I always ask myself if it could have happened in any other country ? I have a German friend who emigrated to OZ and whinges about the fact that there are too many English speaking people in the bloody mother country.

The german nation's shame will never die apparently.

[Noumenon]

I can think of other similar laws I'll be enacting when the revolutions comes.
Anyone in particular who'll be up against the wall?

I could never condone such a law but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.
I agree. In effect the anti-HD law makes one example of offensive ignorance (possibly willful) a crime. Ignorance of the law is rightly no defence, but plain ignorance of history seems hard to justify as a basis for criminality alone. This seems to be a case of ends being perceived to justify means, and the horror of the Haulocaust makes it easy for the majority to accept; but, history being written by the winners, it's not hard to imagine a world where the haulocaust asserters come under fire for challenging accepted fact.

Probably such a hypothetical state would punish dissenters far more harshly than merely a fine and a jail spell, but Opinion Policing seems to have been a feature of all repressive social systems and incorporating it into the benign ones seems like a dangerous wedge. It sets a kind of reverse precedent for anti-defamation laws that stand in support of something considered good - "criticise our lovely faith and suffer" - and we've barely got past that position being the default, let alone opening the discussion doors wide. Where might it stop, when meat really is murder?

The US gets plenty of criticism, but freedom of speech really is an amazing right and when you deny it to the worst of people you rob it of its power. The Leftover Baptist Church* are foul scum of the worst kind, but the only reason the world knows they are is because they are allowed to prove it. Drive them out of the light and you don't know what they're up to.

* Thank you, thank you...

[cnorman18]

I can think of other similar laws I'll be enacting when the revolutions comes.
Anyone in particular who'll be up against the wall?

I could never condone such a law but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.
I agree. In effect the anti-HD law makes one example of offensive ignorance (possibly willful) a crime. Ignorance of the law is rightly no defence, but plain ignorance of history seems hard to justify as a basis for criminality alone. This seems to be a case of ends being perceived to justify means, and the horror of the Haulocaust makes it easy for the majority to accept; but, history being written by the winners, it's not hard to imagine a world where the haulocaust asserters come under fire for challenging accepted fact.

Probably such a hypothetical state would punish dissenters far more harshly than merely a fine and a jail spell, but Opinion Policing seems to have been a feature of all repressive social systems and incorporating it into the benign ones seems like a dangerous wedge. It sets a kind of reverse precedent for anti-defamation laws that stand in support of something considered good - "criticise our lovely faith and suffer" - and we've barely got past that position being the default, let alone opening the discussion doors wide. Where might it stop, when meat really is murder?

The US gets plenty of criticism, but freedom of speech really is an amazing right and when you deny it to the worst of people you rob it of its power. The Leftover Baptist Church* are foul scum of the worst kind, but the only reason the world knows they are is because they are allowed to prove it. Drive them out of the light and you don't know what they're up to.

* Thank you, thank you...

Very well said indeed. Thanks.

[dancer_rnb]

history being written by the winners, it's not hard to imagine a world where the haulocaust asserters come under fire for challenging accepted fact.


Turkey. Armenians.

[Peanut]

Only if climate-change denial, oil-spill denial and nuclear-danger denial are also criminal offenses.

History doesn't change according to who talks about some aspects and hides other aspects. Every nation has dark years in its past as well as bright ones. Whether everyone admits the dark parts or not makes no difference to the past.

But denying threats that loom in the near future and can cause enormous damage, potentially irremediable harm, an unpredictable number of deaths and extinctions, possibly total... well, that could yet be prevented, maybe.

[Rome]

No it shouldn't. The way we do that here in the US is best - you are perfectly free to go around saying the holocaust never happened. The rest of us will consider you to be a white trash bigot, an idiot, or both and you can forget about ever getting a professional type of job.

This works. It's a lovely system.

[cnorman18]

No it shouldn't. The way we do that here in the US is best - you are perfectly free to go around saying the holocaust never happened. The rest of us will consider you to be a white trash bigot, an idiot, or both and you can forget about ever getting a professional type of job.

This works. It's a lovely system.

Works for me. Trouble is, in the Arab world, it works the other way round. If you DON'T think the Jews are corrupt, evil schemers who are behind most of the world's ills -- well, you might have bigger problems than not being able to find work. If you happen in fact to BE a Jew, you might have a problem with continuing to breathe.

[Rome]

It's clear that Holocaust denial isn't the real problem in the Arab world, though.

[cnorman18]

It's clear that Holocaust denial isn't the real problem in the Arab world, though.

Agreed; it is only a symptom, though it is a severe one that ought not be ignored or dismissed, as it very often is.

[Rome]

Because it's a symptom, the true target should be the disease itself, like poverty, poor education, and oppression in general.

[cnorman18]

Because it's a symptom, the true target should be the disease itself, like poverty, poor education, and oppression in general.

No argument there. Antisemitism has often been used by authoritarian despots to deflect attention from their own corruption and venality, and to justify their oppression of their own people. Arafat didn't invent the technique: it goes back to ancient Persia in the literature, and to the Middle Ages, at the latest, in history.

[Rome]

Yep. If you gave the Arab world air-conditioned homes and TVs, you'd see them suddenly stop caring about what the Jews are doing, except the extra crazy ones, because there are always some.

[cnorman18]

Yep. If you gave the Arab world air-conditioned homes and TVs, you'd see them suddenly stop caring about what the Jews are doing, except the extra crazy ones, because there are always some.

I don't think that's something that can be depended upon. It probably wouldn't hurt -- but let's not forget what country was the most educated, the most technologically advanced, the most cultured, and the most intellectually, philosophically, and religiously learned and sophisticated in the world in 1933. It was Germany.

[Rome]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

[cnorman18]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

Then, considering the state of the US and European economies, I suppose we Jews had best not stop watching our backs. Do you seriously propose that prosperity is a cure-all for antisemitism?

I haven't seen much made on THIS forum of how beloved Ron Paul is to antisemites, but it's a fact nonetheless -- and he hasn't bothered to disavow their support with any great emphasis. And then there's Glenn Beck. Food for thought.

[MattShizzle]

I believe most people here are with me in considering Glenn Beck and Ron Paul to be twatwaffles.

[cnorman18]

I believe most people here are with me in considering Glenn Beck and Ron Paul to be twatwaffles.

Don't know the term, but it certainly sounds appropriate from this side of the Atlantic...

[Rome]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

Then, considering the state of the US and European economies, I suppose we Jews had best not stop watching our backs. Do you seriously propose that prosperity is a cure-all for antisemitism?

I haven't seen much made on THIS forum of how beloved Ron Paul is to antisemites, but it's a fact nonetheless -- and he hasn't bothered to disavow their support with any great emphasis. And then there's Glenn Beck. Food for thought.
Why do you think people are so pissed? Why do people feel like they are the victims of injustice in the world? It's because there is a lack of prosperity. Would you really think that something wrong was with the world if your life was comfortable? Probably not. Only big crybabies look for trouble at that point, but normal people get mad when they are poor.

[cnorman18]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

Then, considering the state of the US and European economies, I suppose we Jews had best not stop watching our backs. Do you seriously propose that prosperity is a cure-all for antisemitism?

I haven't seen much made on THIS forum of how beloved Ron Paul is to antisemites, but it's a fact nonetheless -- and he hasn't bothered to disavow their support with any great emphasis. And then there's Glenn Beck. Food for thought.
Why do you think people are so pissed? Why do people feel like they are the victims of injustice in the world? It's because there is a lack of prosperity. Would you really think that something wrong was with the world if your life was comfortable? Probably not. Only big crybabies look for trouble at that point, but normal people get mad when they are poor.

Then there should be no wealthy bigots....

The urge to find simple solutions to ancient and intractable problems is another common human trait. Tell me -- how does it happen that the object of this bigoted hatred, which is allegedly caused by poverty and limited to the poor, happens to be directed so very often at the Jews in century after century, even when the Jews were among the poorest of the poor themselves, as in Eastern Europe and Russia? Have you a nice, neat, and astonishingly facile explanation for that, too?

[MattShizzle]

I believe most people here are with me in considering Glenn Beck and Ron Paul to be twatwaffles.

Don't know the term, but it certainly sounds appropriate from this side of the Atlantic...

I'm on the same side of the Atlantic as you, just closer to it - Pennsylvania.

[Rome]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

Then, considering the state of the US and European economies, I suppose we Jews had best not stop watching our backs. Do you seriously propose that prosperity is a cure-all for antisemitism?

I haven't seen much made on THIS forum of how beloved Ron Paul is to antisemites, but it's a fact nonetheless -- and he hasn't bothered to disavow their support with any great emphasis. And then there's Glenn Beck. Food for thought.
Why do you think people are so pissed? Why do people feel like they are the victims of injustice in the world? It's because there is a lack of prosperity. Would you really think that something wrong was with the world if your life was comfortable? Probably not. Only big crybabies look for trouble at that point, but normal people get mad when they are poor.

Then there should be no wealthy bigots....

The urge to find simple solutions to ancient and intractable problems is another common human trait. Tell me -- how does it happen that the object of this bigoted hatred, which is allegedly caused by poverty and limited to the poor, happens to be directed so very often at the Jews in century after century, even when the Jews were among the poorest of the poor themselves, as in Eastern Europe and Russia? Have you a nice, neat, and astonishingly facile explanation for that, too?
Yes, people are unreasonable when they are pissed and believe virtually anything. This should all be obvious.

[cnorman18]

It was also an economic nightmare, hence the rise of the Nazis. Take out economic woe, and people tend to get a lot nicer. After all, the same ancient Hebrew culture of insanity is present in the Bible and Christian doctrine, but improved livelihoods mean a lot more to folks than what their parents taught them to believe. The West is proof of that.

Then, considering the state of the US and European economies, I suppose we Jews had best not stop watching our backs. Do you seriously propose that prosperity is a cure-all for antisemitism?

I haven't seen much made on THIS forum of how beloved Ron Paul is to antisemites, but it's a fact nonetheless -- and he hasn't bothered to disavow their support with any great emphasis. And then there's Glenn Beck. Food for thought.
Why do you think people are so pissed? Why do people feel like they are the victims of injustice in the world? It's because there is a lack of prosperity. Would you really think that something wrong was with the world if your life was comfortable? Probably not. Only big crybabies look for trouble at that point, but normal people get mad when they are poor.

Then there should be no wealthy bigots....

The urge to find simple solutions to ancient and intractable problems is another common human trait. Tell me -- how does it happen that the object of this bigoted hatred, which is allegedly caused by poverty and limited to the poor, happens to be directed so very often at the Jews in century after century, even when the Jews were among the poorest of the poor themselves, as in Eastern Europe and Russia? Have you a nice, neat, and astonishingly facile explanation for that, too?
Yes, people are unreasonable when they are pissed and believe virtually anything. This should all be obvious.

You didn't answer either the explicit question -- Why the Jews? -- or the implicit one -- Whence come wealthy bigots, then?

Neither is "obvious"...

[Rome]

You're not suggesting that I form a valid argument in favor of antisemitic perspectives, are you? That's just not possible.

[cnorman18]

You're not suggesting that I form a valid argument in favor of antisemitic perspectives, are you? That's just not possible.

"In favor of"? Where did THAT come from?

Two very simple and straightforward questions. Let me rephrase them yet again for clarity:

First: If poverty is the cause of bigotry, why are there wealthy people who are still bigots?

(I might also ask why there are poor people who are NOT bigots, but let's stick to the questions already asked.)

Second: Even if poverty were the sole and simple cause of hatred, why is that hatred so often directed at Jews? We seem to be the first group at which others direct their hatred, in a variety of nations, cultures, and times, century after century. Why does that happen, even in times and places where the Jews themselves are among the poorest people around? NOT "why is that RIGHT," mind, but why does it happen?

[Rome]

Why the Jews so often and specifically? It's circumstantial. The Jews have always just been there on that bookshelf of scapegoats. They are one of the first groups attacked probably because they are one of the first groups period in history. The Jews go back thousands of years. They predate Germans, Spaniards, Italians, and other races and nationalities.

They are also widespread, a minority that has been everywhere, unlike other minorities which tend to be exclusive to a particular place, like Armenians in Turkey and Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

[cnorman18]

Why the Jews so often and specifically? It's circumstantial. The Jews have always just been there on that bookshelf of scapegoats. They are one of the first groups attacked probably because they are one of the first groups period in history. The Jews go back thousands of years. They predate Germans, Spaniards, Italians, and other races and nationalities.

They are also widespread, a minority that has been everywhere, unlike other minorities which tend to be exclusive to a particular place, like Armenians in Turkey and Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

Okay. Funny, though; Shakespeare used a bigoted Jewish stereotype in The Merchant of Venice when he'd never seen a Jew in his life. (The Jews were expelled from England in 1290 and did not return until several decades after the Bard's death; and as far as we know, he never left the country.)

Oh, well, let it go. It's as good a reason as any. We were just there.

What about the other question? If poverty is the sole and simple cause of bigotry, why are there wealthy people who are bigoted -- the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia comes to mind -- and why are there poor people who are not?

[Rome]

You seem like you're mad at me because I acknowledge that discrimination and prejudice are typically the result of righteous indignation, whether or not the source of that indignation is rationally attributed to its source. Many people have been poor and stupid at some point and think it's because of the Jews. I never said they were on to something, only that that's what they think.

[cnorman18]

You seem like you're mad at me because I acknowledge that discrimination and prejudice are typically the result of righteous indignation, whether or not the source of that indignation is rationally attributed to its source. Many people have been poor and stupid at some point and think it's because of the Jews. I never said they were on to something, only that that's what they think.

Wait a minute! I'm not mad at you. I just don't agree that prejudice and bigotry are tied to poverty.

The rich can be, and are, just as bigoted and hate-filled as the poor; one of the most damaging books in the history of antisemitism was The International Jew, and that was distributed worldwide by Henry Ford -- no pauper, he. The Ivy League colleges once had quotas limiting the number of Jews who could attend, and allowed no blacks at all; and very few of the trustees of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, &c., were on welfare, I would think.

Very many poor people are NOT prejudiced; in fact, in my experience, the only factor that reduces (but does not eliminate) prejudice and bigotry is education. That often correlates to income, but certainly not always, and I have known very many unschooled and poor people who were not prejudiced at all, and very many well-educated and comfortably middle-class whites who had no other word for African-Americans than "nigger." I just don't think it's that simple.

And I CERTAINLY never said or indicated in any way that you said, or thought, that there was any rational reason for antisemitism. I honestly don't know where you're getting that. I wanted an explanation for the prejudice against Jews being so prevalent in the West for much more than a thousand years; I wasn't expecting reasons for it that make objective good sense. That's ludicrous. But then, just because we were there isn't much of an explanation either, if you see what I mean.

Want my take? Most of the West is overwhelmingly Christian; the Christian Church formally taught that the Jews were collectively responsible for the murder of Christ, that we drank Christian blood at Passover, and were condemned to wander, homeless and humililated, as punishment for deicide -- for much more than a thousand years, too. Coincidence? I think not.

See? That's a reason. It has nothing to do with poverty. It has to do with specifically antisemitic bigotry being carefully and institutionally taught and enforced, by both the religious and civil authorities. Does that mean I think it is a good and rational and praiseworthy reason?

I'm not angry at you at all; but you seem to think that we're all supposed to nod in agreement at everything you say, like you are the professor and we are the humble students. Perhaps you are not used to being questioned or disagreed with for some reason. If you think THIS debate is rancorous, you aren't going to last long here.

I don't agree with you; that doesn't mean that I'm angry. It just means I don't agree with you.

[Rome]

That is all incidental. Anti-Semitism only exists en masse because of poverty and ignorance, and this is evidenced by the fact that educated, well-off societies typically reject notions of prejudice, and the more educated and the better off they are, the more likely this is. This is why almost all forms of prejudice in Western culture have become minority opinions. One interesting note about the Arab world is that anti-Semitism is not the only prejudicial view. Pretty much every other kind of prejudice abounds. The fact that some poor people have better sense and that wealthy people don't matters little in the large run. There will always be outliers in population, but we all know that the real problem of things like anti-Semitism come from poverty and ignorance, and when you fix the population, you fix the real problem. The outliers just have to die out.

And just because I'm confident in what I say, that's not a reason to b skeptical. If what I say is true, then I've good reason to be confident about it.

[cnorman18]

That is all incidental. Anti-Semitism only exists en masse because of poverty and ignorance, and this is evidenced by the fact that educated, well-off societies typically reject notions of prejudice, and the more educated and the better off they are, the more likely this is. This is why almost all forms of prejudice in Western culture have become minority opinions. One interesting note about the Arab world is that anti-Semitism is not the only prejudicial view. Pretty much every other kind of prejudice abounds. The fact that some poor people have better sense and that wealthy people don't matters little in the large run. There will always be outliers in population, but we all know that the real problem of things like anti-Semitism come from poverty and ignorance, and when you fix the population, you fix the real problem. The outliers just have to die out.

Uh-huh. So the fact that antisemitism was (and in the Arab world, still is) carefully and systematically promoted and taught by both the religiious and civil authorities for generation after generation has nothing whatever to do with it. That's incidental. Right. Got it.

And just because I'm confident in what I say, that's not a reason to b skeptical. If what I say is true, then I've good reason to be confident about it.
I'm not skeptical because of your "confidence." I'm skeptical because I don't think your reasoning holds a lot of water. Ignoring a patently obvious factor like institutional and cultural antisemitism in favor of your simplistic economic theory is pretty hard to swallow, for starters.

And there's also a line, and not a very fine one, between "confidence" and "arrogance." Assuming that disagreement necessarily equals ill will, and that ill will fully explains disagreement, is a pretty loud alarm bell for the latter. You seem to recognize no one's reasoning but your own, and dismiss my disagreement as being due to my irritation at your smugness and not to my OWN reasoning.

I DO find it annoying; but that's not why I think you're wrong. I'd think you were wrong even if you presented your ideas with a bit of respect for the thinking of others, and perhaps a touch of "now I might be wrong" or "this is just my opinion" common humility.

[Rome]

Yeah, and who bought into it all?: people shut off from a real education who lived in poverty. Ironically, everything you cite confirms my thesis. Historically, anti-Semitism easily permeated societies with poor and ignorant people, and then people forgot their anger with the Jews when their lives either got better, they knew better, or both. It's documented. It's simple history. Germany in 1933 was not an example of prosperity or educational achievement. Its extreme circumstances paved the way for extreme ideology.

I only thought you were mad because of the way you were responding. You seemed to be taking it personally that poverty and ignorance make prejudice widespread, in all honesty. I know that's not the case now, though.

Until you prove me wrong, I see no reason to think I am wrong. I am open to evidence for anything, but everything you say fits into my model rather well.

[DMB]

There was another reason why Jews were hated in mediaeval Europe apart from the RCC's labelling of them as "Christ killers" and that was usury. Usury, which, despite later spins, simply meant lending money for interest, was then as much forbidden by the church as it is by modern Islam. So no Christian was supposed to do it. It was therefore one of the few openings available to non-Christians, for which read "Jews". Moneylenders are usually unpopular, and if people don't want to repay loans they sometimes turn on the lenders. As late as the 19th century, moneylenders were referred to as "jews", regardless of ethnicity.

[Amz_ED]

Let me be clear here: in no way do I support these 'deniers' or their racist and patently unsupportable [certainly by facts] views; but I am with Voltaire here: "Sir, I may find what you say repugnant, but I shall defend to the death your right to hold them."



I totally agree. :)

[cnorman18]

There was another reason why Jews were hated in mediaeval Europe apart from the RCC's labelling of them as "Christ killers" and that was usury. Usury, which, despite later spins, simply meant lending money for interest, was then as much forbidden by the church as it is by modern Islam. So no Christian was supposed to do it. It was therefore one of the few openings available to non-Christians, for which read "Jews". Moneylenders are usually unpopular, and if people don't want to repay loans they sometimes turn on the lenders. As late as the 19th century, moneylenders were referred to as "jews", regardless of ethnicity.

This is quite true; and from the Jewish side, bear in mind that Jews were forbidden to own land, so we could not be farmers (in Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye owned a cow, not a farm); we could not join the Guilds, and so be skilled craftsmen -- masons, carpenters, smiths, painters; and in most places, we were not even permitted to live among Christians in Christian towns or villages; we were confined to ghettos, Jewish parts of the cities that were often walled and the gates locked at night; or we lived in shtetls, as in Fiddler, separate villages which were relatively distant from other, Christian, towns.

How were we to make a living? Moneylending was one option, and we took it; we were also merchants, buying and selling small items. We were independent small craftsmen -- workers in jewelry, clothing (Tevye's son-in-law was a tailor), dry goods, herbs and remedies. We were physicians, and good ones; our medicine was based on science and not on superstition. And, especially in the Netherlands, we were diamond-cutters; Jews discovered the secret of cutting and polishing the hardest stones there were, and we kept it secret, so our people had a way to make a living at it, for centuries. Amsterdam is still the center of the diamond-cutting trade, and it is still dominated by Jews. In New York, the "Diamond District" is a Jewish neighborhood.

And we still do all those things today. Traditions die hard. You will have noticed how many Jewish names contain the words "gold" and "silver" -- Goldberg, Silverstein, Goldman, and so on. Those were not taken to indicate the family's wealth; that would be foolish. We were despised enough already -- and most Jews in the Middle Ages were subsistence-level poor, not rich. Those names were taken to indicate the family's trade, just as Smith and Weaver and Cooper are among Gentiles. Diamond is also a common Jewish name. Farmer is not.

Jews invented the "letter of credit": one could deposit one's gold ducats or florins with a Jew in one town, then travel to another and receive the same weight in gold from that Jew's cousin or uncle -- and so one only had to carry a piece of paper, and not bags of lucre which could (and in those days, would) be stolen by brigands. A small fee was charged for the service, of course; it was the beginning of modern banking. At one time, Jews did indeed dominate the banking industry; but no more, not even in Europe.

We provided whatever services were needed and that we were permitted to provide. People have to eat.

[cnorman18]

Yeah, and who bought into it all?: people shut off from a real education who lived in poverty. Ironically, everything you cite confirms my thesis. Historically, anti-Semitism easily permeated societies with poor and ignorant people, and then people forgot their anger with the Jews when their lives either got better, they knew better, or both. It's documented. It's simple history. Germany in 1933 was not an example of prosperity or educational achievement. Its extreme circumstances paved the way for extreme ideology.

I only thought you were mad because of the way you were responding. You seemed to be taking it personally that poverty and ignorance make prejudice widespread, in all honesty. I know that's not the case now, though.

Until you prove me wrong, I see no reason to think I am wrong. I am open to evidence for anything, but everything you say fits into my model rather well.

Whatever you say, Professor. I HAVE provided evidence, but you have waved it away without comment. We'll get back to that in a moment. In the meantime, here are a few more detailed points:

Antisemitism was pervasive in the Middle Ages, from the bottom of society to the top -- the clergy and nobles were perhaps the most prejudiced of all. Education? No one but the priests knew how to read, and they were the ones promoting the "Christ-killer" myth.

Antisemitism is MUCH more pervasive in Europe than in the United States -- and are not the poor in America the poorest and most disadvantaged in the Western world? That has been proven to me in another thread. Is it not commonly acknowledged that American students are more ignorant than any in the industrialized world? Strange that Jew-hatred should be so much more rare in the US than in Europe, or in fact than anywhere we have ever lived in all our long history. We are freer, less hated, more successful, and more accepted in society than anywhere on Earth, other than Israel, here in the United States. If the poor in the US are poorer, and less educated, ought they not hate Jews MUCH more than the Europeans? Study the lists of antisemitic incidents worldwide. France, Italy, Germany, the UK, even the Netherlands are all ahead of the US on that scoreboard, as well as on the scoreboard of effective social safety nets and quality education.

Moreover, there are MORE JEWS in the US than in Europe; half the world's Jews live in Israel, the other half here, and a small fraction live elsewhere. There are few Jews left in Europe -- of course, two-thirds of them were killed in the 30s and 40s. So the excuse that "we are THERE" doesn't hold very well. By your reasoning, there should be much more antisemitism in the US than in Europe. That rather obviously isn't the case.

There is, of course, much more that doesn't fit your theory -- things I've already mentioned and that you, oddly, have not. Yale, Harvard, Princeton? Wealthy bigots? Poor people (like here) that are NOT bigots? "That is all incidental."

See, I don't disagree because of your attitude, as supercilious and condescending as it is; I disagree with you because of your arguments. You don't really have many, and you don't really have any answers to my objections and rebuttals; you have -- assertions. You seem to be saying, "My theories explain everything, except when they don't, and those are just exceptions that mean nothing." Where I come from, that is called "handwaving."

I think I'm done here. If you ever want to actually address my arguments and account for these facts, let me know. If you're just going to repeat that your theory is best and explains everything and nothing else has any meaning or validity, I don't think I'll bother to play.

[trendkill]

Are you seriously claiming that the Great Depression had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis? Was it just a coincidence?

[cnorman18]

Are you seriously claiming that the Great Depression had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis? Was it just a coincidence?

Where did I say THAT?

Honestly, this is getting old. Saying one thing around here is immediately taken as negating something else, when that was not even implied.

My very problem with Rome is that he says that poverty is the cause of bigotry, and that there are no other causes. Of COURSE poverty is ONE contributor to prejudice, but saying that it is the SOLE and SIMPLE cause of it is sophomore-level simpleminded thinking. Of COURSE the Depression was one of the reasons the Nazis rose to power; but we're talking about bigotry anyway, not Naziism; and I don't think the Depression led directly to antisemitism, either, nor that there was no other cause for it.

[trendkill]

Fair enough, I didn't read the entire exchange so I didn't get the full absurdity of Rome's "people were poor and wanted someone to blame and Jews happened to be handy, therefore antisemitism" argument. Especially in your last post, it seems like you're trying to build a powerful case that poverty doesn't cause discrimination against Jews.

[Rome]

Are you seriously claiming that the Great Depression had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis? Was it just a coincidence?

My very problem with Rome is that he says that poverty is the cause of bigotry, and that there are no other causes.
Wrongo. I never said that. I simply have said it's the most significant and is what makes whole societies so predisposed to hate. It's easy to be angry at other groups when your life is less than convenient. I did say that there will always be some who hate the Jews, despite having books and butter, but comfortable living environments and better/actual schools would remove the trend of anti-Semitism from the Arab world. Some Arabs really take their religious fanaticism to the extent that it's a purely religious issue for them, but at its heart, it's just the fact that Arabs don't typically have comfortable lives. People are just less extreme when they are generally happy with their lives and don't feel like their group was cheated by another group.

Although, some Arabs would be correct in saying the Jews cheated them, given the current conflict in Israel-Palestine. Anyone would be correct in saying that the formation of Israel necessitated the unfair seizing of home and land from its inhabitants, the Palestinians. Of course, this blame can only be attributed to Israeli Jews who took the land. Jews in other countries, as well as the generation of Israelis who can't help the fact that they were born in Israel, can't reasonably be blamed. It's like blaming me for the formation of the United States, which necessitated the stealing of land and home from the Native Americans. I can't help that my white ancestors took the land, nor am I entitled to anything for the fraction of Native blood that I carry.

[Barefoot Bree]

This seems like a good place to drop in this link to the latest Skeptoid, on the Zionist Conspiracy (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4271). While focusing on the "Protocols of Zion" stupidity, Dunning also goes into a bit of the history of the distrust, fear, and prejudice against Jews through history. Good stuff. (The link is to the script; you can also listen to the podcast.)

Some critics of Zionism frequently broaden the application of the word Zionist to include any people anywhere who express support for Israel. Suffice it to say that antisemitism is not your everyday bigotry. Its roots run deep, it is cross cultural, and it's been institutionalized as an official national policy by some of the world's greatest superpowers. Nazi Germany is the only most obvious example of antisemitism as policy, but it's hardly the only one. 500 years before Christ, in the time of ancient Persia, Xerxes ordered all Jews in his kingdom to be killed. Various Roman emperors and Greek kings ordered the Jews to be exterminated. While the Christians prosecuted their Crusades against Muslims and Jews, the Muslims were forcing Christians and Jews to either convert or be killed. In the 1300s, Jews were widely burned at the stake throughout Europe for "causing" the plague. In the 1400s, the Spanish Inquisition burned some 30,000 Jews for refusing to leave their country. But this list could go on and on ad nauseum. Jews have always been blamed for something, and were always at the receiving end of the genocide. There are scant examples in history of Jews doing the same to anyone else.


(Well, scant examples outside the Bible, anyway, which most people here agree are, ah, not to be taken literally.)

[Rome]

Historians do agree that the Jews had brief period of power and dominion in Canaan, and they most obviously built their kingdom the same way that anyone did in that period of time: on murder, pillage, and rape. It would certainly explain why the Bible seems to think all of that was justified. I think the only ones who didn't do it in that region were the Persians under Cyrus the Great, but the Persians were known to be less benign once he died.

[Barefoot Bree]

^^ True, but has little bearing on current or recent history.

[Rome]

I would think it does since the kingdom that the Jews had 2500 years ago, which they acquired via crimes against humanity, is the main justification for the formation of Israel today.

I was actually discussing this with a friend in boot camp, when a theist jumped in noted that Israel belongs to the Jews because "God gave it to them." People in this country, in this Army, actually buy that the Jews deserve Israel because they had a kingdom there 2500 years ago. That's probably the main reason why the U.S. wrongfully supported the creation of Israel.

[cnorman18]

Historians do agree that the Jews had brief period of power and dominion in Canaan, and they most obviously built their kingdom the same way that anyone did in that period of time: on murder, pillage, and rape. It would certainly explain why the Bible seems to think all of that was justified. I think the only ones who didn't do it in that region were the Persians under Cyrus the Great, but the Persians were known to be less benign once he died.

Correction is necessary here. Only those who read the Bible literally agree on the "murder, pillage and rape" allegation.

Historians and archaeologists agree that the "conquest of Canaan" as depicted in the Hebrew Bible -- never happened.

This is from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs site (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality) (note my added emphasis):


The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled....

....In the 19th century ce, the "Age of Reason," scholars began subjecting the biblical texts to linguistic, textual, and literary analysis, noting inconsistencies and interrupted rhythms, comparing styles, and placing the text within the archaeological, historical and geographical background. There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century bce, some three centuries after David's time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century bce at the earliest)....

The saga of the Israelites, as told in the Bible, was designed as a morality tale to prove the importance of faith in the One God. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.

The historical evidence to back up these events is sparse, and, in some cases, contradictory. In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value.

The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades in the hills of Menasseh, Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, on the west bank of the River Jordan, indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology. Their conclusions were published in "From Nomadism to Monarchy," edited by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Nadav Na'aman.

Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions.

The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.

It is generally accepted among scholars today that there is genuine historical material in the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David; but even these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend and fact, in as much as it can ever be known. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later.

Apart from the lists, the account appears to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting. The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later, the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine....


I have been saying these things for more than a decade on various forums (though this particular quote is new to me). The Bible is not history. It is literature -- usually with a political or sectarian agenda; it is not a single document, but a collection of documents which very often contradict each other. Note the remark above about how Judges directly contradicts Joshua; I have never seen this fact noted by anyone who complained about the Biblical "massacre narratives."

The Bible ought not be read at face value for ANY reason; for real history, real science, or even to learn the real teachings of the Jewish religion. It isn't that kind of book, and even a little study of the ACTUAL historical and cultural issues involved will make that perfectly clear in very short order.

[Barefoot Bree]

I agree with you, Charles - I just wish more of the world at large did, too.

I was caught by one bit that you highlighted:

The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin.

Can anyone point me towards research or even just speculation on this suggested extra-Judaic origin of the Exodus story?

[Rome]

I didn't mean for posts to imply that the Bible is actually a valid source of history. What I was essentially saying is that if you accept that the Jews are entitled to Israel, you have to accept that it came to be so because they murdered, raped, and pillaged, and that's just to show the irony in the essential concession that legitimate ownership comes through stealing, when one uses the Bible to justify it.

I think one of the most noteworthy historical discrepancies is the whole story of Exodus because no Egyptian records mention the Jews being in Egypt and enslaved. They aren't a part of ancient Egyptian society, according to the Egyptians.

[cnorman18]

I agree with you, Charles - I just wish more of the world at large did, too.

I was caught by one bit that you highlighted:

The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin.

Can anyone point me towards research or even just speculation on this suggested extra-Judaic origin of the Exodus story?

Oral legends, especially ones that predate their being written down by millenia, are -- shall we say -- hard to trace; but the FACTUAL origins of some of those legends are right out front, not in literary or anthropological studies, but in geophysical studies. Check out The Parting of the Sea by Barbara Sivertsen. (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8883.html) Floods, volcanoes, and plagues that actually happened are reflected in the tales of the Exodus. DOES NOT mean that the Bible is literally true -- far from it -- but that some of the elements of the tales therein are the residue of real memories of real events experience by real people. By what route did they end up in the literature of the Jewish people? No one knows.

[Barefoot Bree]

I agree with you, Charles - I just wish more of the world at large did, too.

I was caught by one bit that you highlighted:

The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin.Can anyone point me towards research or even just speculation on this suggested extra-Judaic origin of the Exodus story?

Oral legends, especially ones that predate their being written down by millenia, are -- shall we say -- hard to trace; but the FACTUAL origins of some of those legends are right out front, not in literary or anthropological studies, but in geophysical studies. Check out The Parting of the Sea by Barbara Sivertsen. (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8883.html) Floods, volcanoes, and plagues that actually happened are reflected in the tales of the Exodus. DOES NOT mean that the Bible is literally true -- far from it -- but that some of the elements of the tales therein are the residue of real memories of real events experience by real people. By what route did they end up in the literature of the Jewish people? No one knows.

No, no, no! That's not good enough! I demand answers! I DEMAND that somebody invent a time machine right now so we can go back and discover the Truth (tm)! *stomps foot and pouts*

[cnorman18]

I didn't mean for posts to imply that the Bible is actually a valid source of history. What I was essentially saying is that if you accept that the Jews are entitled to Israel, you have to accept that it came to be so because they murdered, raped, and pillaged, and that's just to show the irony in the essential concession that legitimate ownership comes through stealing, when one uses the Bible to justify it.

I disagree, on several grounds.

First, the founders of Israel -- the first Jewish immigrants from Europe -- were almost entirely secular socialists who had no concern for the Jewish religion at all.

Second, the connection between the Jews and Israel is rather often described -- by Jews, mind -- as cultural; whether or not there was a Conquest of Canaan by violent means is trivial next to the rather well-established fact that the Jews did once live there, from whatever origins, and were forcibly evicted by the Romans (though not all were; there have been Jews in Israel since Old Testament times through the present day). "God gave us this land" is not something you hear often from Jews -- more often, those words are found in the mouths of fundamentalist Christians. Cultural: We have prayed for rain in its season in Israel in the daily service, and said "Next Year in Jerusalem" at the end of the Passover seder (which is celebrated by religious and secular Jews alike), for centuries on end. We have paintings of Jerusalem in our homes, prize art and craft objects from Israel, and travel there as often as we can. Like it or not, Israel is a part of Jewish culture and Jewish heritage, whether one is religious or not, reads the Bible literally or not, and whether Israel began with a violent campaign of conquest or not; and, as has been noted, it rather obviously did not so begin.

Third, there were other reasons for choosing Israel as a home for the refugee Jews, besides the fact of the cultural connection and the fact of the indigenous Jews who still lived there; there were demographic reasons, as well. The land was very largely unpopulated, especially in the areas settled by Jews, and there was more land for sale there than the Jews could afford to buy.

Maybe you'd like to take a look at the ongoing debate between Columbus and myself in the Exclusive Engagements forum on these very topics. You can't participate -- it's a one-on-one debate -- but you are welcome to comment in the Peanut Gallery in the public debate forum. In any case, the issue of the present-day nation of Israel and the ancient history of the Exodus are two entirely separate subjects for all but the most literalistic of fundamentalists, of whatever religion.

I think one of the most noteworthy historical discrepancies is the whole story of Exodus because no Egyptian records mention the Jews being in Egypt and enslaved. They aren't a part of ancient Egyptian society, according to the Egyptians.

I wouldn't make TOO much of that. The catastrophic eruption/explosion of the volcanic island of Thera absolutely and inarguably did happen, and there's no trace of THAT in Egyptian records, either. There is internal evidence in the Bible, again, that the stories have their roots in real memories; the Hebrews were forced to make bricks, for instance. That was an Egyptian practice; in Palestine, most building other than the temporary or personal was done in stone. Stone was hard come by in Egypt, and its use was restricted to enormous public projects, like the Pyramids. Again, there's no evidence that the biblical Exodus ever happened -- but to say that there were never Semites from Palestine in Egypt is going rather a bit far.

The Exodus, as described in the Bible, clearly did not happen. What MIGHT have happened is that a very small group of Semites fled, or left, Egypt at about the time of the eruption -- and possibly another group at a later time as well. There IS archaeological evidence for these possibilities; check out the book referenced above in my post to Bree. Stories of these events might very well have been passed down, conflated into a single story, and enhanced and exaggerated into the account we have today over the course of the millenium or so before anyone wrote them down. A good deal of research has been done on the formation and evolution of oral history tales -- see the book, again.

Two things are clear to scholars who have looked into the matter here: (1) As I said: The Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, did not happen. (2) The Exodus tales are not pure, consciously fabricated fiction, either. They are ancient literature -- have I mentioned that before? -- and as such, they are what they are; the ancients did not distinguish between objective reporting, myth, folktale, and creative fiction as we do today. They appreciated a good story, obviously -- they have passed down so many -- but, as has been observed elsewhere, the idea that they all looked at those stories in the same way is a little odd.

[cnorman18]

I agree with you, Charles - I just wish more of the world at large did, too.

I was caught by one bit that you highlighted:

The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin.Can anyone point me towards research or even just speculation on this suggested extra-Judaic origin of the Exodus story?

Oral legends, especially ones that predate their being written down by millenia, are -- shall we say -- hard to trace; but the FACTUAL origins of some of those legends are right out front, not in literary or anthropological studies, but in geophysical studies. Check out The Parting of the Sea by Barbara Sivertsen. (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8883.html) Floods, volcanoes, and plagues that actually happened are reflected in the tales of the Exodus. DOES NOT mean that the Bible is literally true -- far from it -- but that some of the elements of the tales therein are the residue of real memories of real events experience by real people. By what route did they end up in the literature of the Jewish people? No one knows.

No, no, no! That's not good enough! I demand answers! I DEMAND that somebody invent a time machine right now so we can go back and discover the Truth (tm)! *stomps foot and pouts*

Hey, I'm ready. If you find one, PM me. I've always thought, since long before I became a Jew, that if there was one moment in history I'd like to go back to and see personally, it would be the theophany at Sinai.

I mean, did God really do the rock-star thing, with the fireworks and smoke generators and the horn section and the heavily amped percussion, or did Moses just come down with the rocks and say, "What? You guys missed all that?"