Replies

According to one Freeper who did the research on it the first literary reference to "the blood libel" concerned a Jew who was accused by a Greek in the First Century BCE of killing Greek children to use their blood in making Passover bread.

That's PRE CHRISTIAN.

The next literary reference concerned a Jew who accused Christians of killing Jewish children to use their blood in making Communion wafers.

Just so you know it has a really precise historic origin!

You can find the guy's reference by reading around through the several other threads on this topic.

I still think it's something that probably dates back before Judaism.

The idea undoubtedly draws on the original propaganda which goes "Remember, in all cases, people who are strangers ~ not of our kind ~ nor our nation ~ simply don't love their children like we do. Right? And if they don't love their own children imagine what they think of ours ~ just sheep for the slaughter".

Just so you know it has a really precise historic origin!

Yep. That's what I said in my post you replied to: "Blood libel, OTOH, has a very precise, historical definition. Blood libel historically has to do with claims of Jews, and later Christians and others, using a child's blood for their own religious beliefs. The Romans also accused Christians of using a child's blood in their communion ceremony.

But that's what I meant when I wrote the term's meaning has been deluded over time, and now often means something different. It was this contemporary use that Sarah Palin took advantage of.