Posted on 08/21/2014 5:49:06 AM PDT by Borges
ATLANTA — An old Jewish joke goes like this: “What’s the definition of a Jewish telegram? ‘Start worrying. Details to follow.’ ”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It was a pique. Luther had made the "mistake" of studying the Bible and realized the importance of the Jewish people. Meanwhile, he was getting no support from the Catholic hierarchy for the reforms he thought that mandated. So he approached the rabbis to gain assistance with his radical ideology and they, out of their habituated suspicion of Christians, turned him down.
Luther never forgave them. What was that thingy Christ taught about that?
It was a deliberate obfuscation done by the Communists to begin calling the European collectivists “Right”. Similarly, it was an act of concealment in the US when the Progressives started to call themselves “Liberal”, which historically meant something close to libertarian in contrast to feudalism or authoritarianism.
These are not accidents. Unfortunately, they have succeeded.
I don’t knkw that it was “habituated suspicion”. I don’t think the Western European Jews believed that they had a dog in the fight between two interpretations of Christian theology.
In many cases I think it is anachronistic to judge contemporary movements by the values of their founders, although that is a factor to consider.
More the intense hatred he placed upon the Jewish people for fomenting (fermenting? :-) communism and for the ruin of the German economy in the great inflation. The former was partially correct, in that the communist ideology was incubated among Reform Jewish rabbis, yet there is a fallacy in assigning responsibility for that to all Jews in that the Orthodox regarded Reform and communism with it as aberrant.
Winston Churchill said it best...
“When you have enemies, you must have finally stood up for something...”
I may have paraphrased, but it is something I recall reading about years ago...
I was summarizing a thesis written by a Jew, Mark Nanos, in his book "The Mystery of Romans" (which is a very good analysis of Paul's writings from a Jewish perspective by the way).
And if the European economy falls apart they will exploit it.
“The article states, ‘It’s true that this is not the anti-Semitism of the 1930s, which came from the right and was rooted in longstanding Christian views that demonized the Jews.’ . . Is that true? Your comments are appreciated.”
Martin Luther’s “On Jews and Their Lies” was certainly influential in Nazi Germany, and, in fact, details the plans for the final solution with its “Seven Remedial Actions” including “work” camps for Jews and denying Jews any right to police or civil protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
The Nazis passed copies of Luther’s works out at their rallies.
“t’s true that this is not the anti-Semitism of the 1930s, which came from the right and was rooted in longstanding Christian views that demonized the Jews. Traditionally, Islam did not treat Jews this way. “
The second sentence is rather inaccurate, I agree.
Apparently, the author is unaware of Banu Qurayza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
Valorize. Thank you for a new word to add to my vocabulary.
1 : to enhance or try to enhance the price, value, or status of by organized and usually governmental action
2 : to assign value or merit to : validate
The very points I would have made!
There was certainly Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, but that was not the key point of anti-Semitism in the 1930s, it wasn’t the “root” of so-called scientific, race-based anti-Semitism, AND attributing it to “the right” is meaningless in the context.
Christians are evil anti-semites, dontcha know.
/sarcasm/
IMHO
By the standards of Europe in the 1930s, the Nazis were indeed "right wing," and that's what Europeans called them at the time. In the U.S., conservatism has (at least since the New Deal) emphasized small government, but in Europe of the 1930s, the main left-wing positions were international cooperation, pacifism and religious toleration, while the right-wing positions were nationalism, militarism and antisemitism.
Thanks to everyone who replied.
It seems to me that Jewbacca, in post 29, has the best explanation, one that fits to Deborah E. Lipstadt accusations.
The link he provided gives an overview of a dark side of Christian history.
Wikipedia is not a primary source.
Are you saying Martin Luther didn’t pen ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’?
No, I’m saying that Wikipedia is not a primary source.
I know what you mean by primary source, and I know why, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
Are not facts, facts, and truth, truth, no matter the source?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.