Michael Bloomberg at an MLK event in NYC:

“My personal favorite, the person that I am going to endorse, if he chooses to run as a New Yorker, is Congressman Rangel,” Bloomberg said at an annual King Day worship service and celebration at the……

You contradicted yourself. If it’s debatable then it’s not an established historical fact.

At any rate Spengler was speaking in the VA legislature, not in church. It is inappropriate for a government representative in the state capitol to declare a controversial religious belief — particularly one that is harmful to another religion — as fact.

It’s not a contradiction, it’s one of the vagaries of history. It depends on which historical records you take your narrative from, which you give more weight to, etc.

If it is my use of “fact” that is bothering you, I checked the definition and I don’t seem to have used it inappropriately.

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

As for your statement that “it is innapropriate for a government legislature in the state capitol to declare a controversial religious belief”, I agree wholeheartedly. It is not appropriate. However, unless I have missed some clause in the Constitution that says that legislators have to check their 1st ammendment rights at the Capitol doors, I’d have to say it’s his right to say it. Just as it is the right of the people that elected him to take offense and not elect him next time. Or applaud him for it and reelect him again. Or ignore it and watch American Idol instead of voting.

aunursa on January 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM

According to the Christian scriptures. History is written by the victors. I am not aware of any record of alleged Jewish persecutions of Christians in ancient rabbinic texts.

aunursa on January 17, 2007 at 2:53 PM

The writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, support much of the biblical account.

Careful jman. You’re looking more like the kind of person you say you don’t want to be associated with.

thedecider on January 16, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Please don’t mix me up with jummy, whose comment you are referencing.

Actually jummy, the early Christians were hunted down and killed by the Pharisees. Steven was stoned for Blasphemy (Acts 7:54) and the church was scattered:

According to the Christian scriptures. History is written by the victors. I am not aware of any record of alleged Jewish persecutions of Christians in ancient rabbinic texts.

Yes there was slavery in this country. There is still slavery in some countries. There is no longer slavery here, although the country continues to ‘make up for it’ by promoting discrimination towards minorities.

Do you really believe that all white people owned black slaves? Where were you taught this?

Perchant on January 17, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Duke?

For those *few* blacks and their “Poverty Pimp” leaders who are still holding their hands out in wait for some large federal payday, I say to them “Get over it!” Really.

The folks who were wronged (and the individuals that wronged them) are long gone. Time to take responsibility for your own actions and choices in life and move on.

As for the VA state legislator in question: clumsy use of words, poor syntax, and a tin ear for politics in 2007. He won’t be around much longer once the Legacy Media frenzy kicks into high gear.

jman on January 17, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Just to reiterate. I do NOT believe that Christians can claim victimhood for any of the actions committed 2000 years ago. I was just correcting the record.

jews punnished no christians and no christians suffered by the sntencing and execution of christ. christians did not yet exist.

Actually jummy, the early Christians were hunted down and killed by the Pharisees. Steven was stoned for Blasphemy (Acts 7:54) and the church was scattered:

And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. (Acts 8:1-3)

Saul continued to hunt them down until he met Jesus on the road to Damascus

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2)

My purpose in writing this is to correct your statement that early Christians dis not suffer persecution. It is NOT to put any blame on the Jews as they are a part of God’s plan. The bible makes it clear that the Jews have a special place in God’s heart, therefore I have no right to harbour any ill will towards his people.

the sentencing of christ was something jews did to another jew. slavery and apartheid were things done by whites as a group to blacks as a group.

jummy on January 17, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Do you really believe that all white people owned black slaves? Where were you taught this?

Would it be equally racist/anti-caucasian to use the term “forgiving whites for slavery” as it would be racist/anti-semetic to use the term “forgiving Jews for killing Christ”?

Perchant on January 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM

the sentencing of christ was something jews did to another jew. slavery and apartheid were things done by whites as a group to blacks as a group.

no. it doesn’t even make for an imperfect analogy.

further, and for the final time, christians cannot assume the position of victimhood in relation to what jews did to another jew. jews punnished no christians and no christians suffered by the sntencing and execution of christ. christians did not yet exist. the idea that christians have a role in the crucifixion which is availible to be reconciled one way or the other is the construction of 8th century antisemites and its purpose was to foment the actual group persecution of jews by christians. there is nothing murky about this. “we should kill/forgive jews for killing christ” is as clearly and automaticly an expression of anti-semitism as a swastica tattoo.

this whole business of pretending there’s nothing inherantly anti-semitic about “forgiving” jews for “killing christ” is like walking around with a swastica armband and claiming it just “looks cool.”

jummy on January 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Would it be equally racist/anti-caucasian to use the term “forgiving whites for slavery” as it would be racist/anti-semetic to use the term “forgiving Jews for killing Christ”? Why wouldn’t both be equally unfair and if they are equally unfair then why wouldn’t it be considered a perfect analogy?

“I think your skin was a little too thin,”

I agree with him. I think that pretty much sums up society today regardless of one’s political leanings Left or Right.

.

Please … quit trying to write just to “sound cool”. You act as if mentioning anything related to Jews or Judaism is “bigoted” or anti-semitic. His choice of words may have been poor, but they’re not anti-semitic.

I don’t either. It was off the cuff and was used to make a point, not to inflict harm. That said, I’m sure he regrets using Christ and Jews as a comparison.

…reperations…

csdeven (et al)

what reparations? how did reparations come into this?

why can’t we just condemn unambiguous prima facie bigotry without rationalizing it?

So what?”

Exactly. Free country, free speech. End of story. The 1st Amendment wasn’t written with politically correct qualifiers in it.

This isn’t a free speech issue. Don’t misrepresent your opponent’s argument — that’s a liberal debating tactic.

Hargrove’s comments might have been appropriate in a religious setting, in which the Christian version of events is considered factual. In a government building, as a state representative, however, the VA representative’s remarks are merely his personal religious belief. And it’s particularly painful to his Jewish constituents (a) who don’t share his religious beliefs, and (b) whose ancestors suffered countless atrocities at the hands of Christians who blamed the Jews for the death of their religion’s founder.

As others have pointed out, there are many analogies that he could have used. I don’t believe that he intentionally chose to use a divisive and painful one to make his point. But that’s how it comes across.

csdeven on January 17, 2007 at 8:23 AM

This opens up more worms that it solves. Would black slave owners have to pay? After all, the 3rd biggest slave owner in South Carolina was a black man. What role is Antonio the Negro culpable? What about families who fought on both sides? What about reparations for the rapes, murders, vandalism and theft of Southern property that was until that time against the rules of war during Sherman’s March to the Sea?