Go to WHO IS THIS GUY CALLED ARIEL?
- Add a comment
- Go to THE SPANISH INQUISITION ~ PART ONE
No, no Ariel, you make yourself perfectly clear -- unlike me.
I guess our difference comes down to one of history and semantics. In Paul Johnson's 600 page 'History of the Jews' not once does he mention heresies in Judaism; that concept is referred to solely in a Christian context. Jews have: eccentrics , blasphemers, martyrs, but few heretics.
What I'm trying to say is that marrying outside the faith, even for the orthodox does not constitute heresy, therefor the descriptor 'hatred' is not appropriate in my view. The errant son is neither excommunicated nor anathematized, so far as I know.Heresy requires preaching (eg Jesus) or writing (eg Spinoza) that is perceived as inimical to accepted beliefs. I rest my case.
posted by
ARGUS
on November 17, 2005 at 8:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Argus
Thank you for your comment. I think that I must not have made myself clear when I wrote the following ....
"And to say Kaddish over a child who has committed this heresy, and to sever all contact with them, surely denotes hatred ; if not of them, then of this form of heresy."
As I remarked elsewhere, it is possible to hate something that a person has done e.g. heresy, without hating the person. The emotions of an orthodox Jewish parent placed in such a postion, being torn between religious duty and love of the child can well be imagined. Well, for me, I prefer not to think about them.
Thanks once again for you continuing interest, and your well thought out comments.
Keeps me on my toes!
posted by
ariel70
on November 17, 2005 at 2:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, thank you for your detailed answers.
I can go along with most of your points, however you're very mistaken to believe that reciting kaddish (a prayer for the dead) -- faced with an errant son -- is a demonstration of hatred. It can be thought of as similar to disowning an offspring or cutting him/her out of the will. I had read your piece on the Shoah and admired it, therefore was surprised at your use of the term 'hatred'. I'm delighted to see you identify yourself as a zionist; I too am a zionist -- as were Churchill and Truman. ARGUS
posted by
ARGUS
on November 16, 2005 at 7:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Argus
For the sake of clarity, I have italicised you paragraphs
My 'setting up' impression was triggered by your use of the very strong words 'hatred of heretics' a la Mel Gibson. The 'heretic' Spinoza in Amsterdam (some years later) was excommunicated from the synagogue -- that's all they did to him.
My terms “ hatred of heretics” and “ adamant refusal to intermarry” are in a sense coterminus. Heresy is deviation from orthodoxy, hence marriage to a Gentile is heresy, is it not? And to say Kaddish over a child who has committed this heresy, and to sever all contact with them, surely denote hatred ; if not of them, then of this form of heresy. In any case, lack of examples of condign punishment of Jewish heretics does not disprove the existence of that hatred.
I don't agree that only a 'die-hard nazi' would write like that. There are many intolerant persons who still see the jews as Christ-killers. Some of them make movies, some may write.
Well , okay, the term “ die-hard Nazi” is perhaps a little hyperbolic, and of course I am aware that there is covert anti-Semitism in some films and books. But, if you have read my posts that I suggested, you will have seen clearly that I am completely free of any covert, or overt anti-Semitism. If there were such a creature as a Gentile Zionist, then I would fall into that category.
I give you the point that you did not portray heresy hatred and refusal to intermarry as defining attributes -- yet they were the only attributes mentioned.
My post was in no way an overall assessment of Judaism, and these were the only Jewish attributes that I mentioned for an obvious reason ; to attempt to identify the roots of later Christian hatred of heresy. This did not arise spontaneously with the severance from the Jewish Christian cult from the main body of Judaism, but was a pre-existing phenomenon.
You are also correct that the orthodox still frown on marrying outside the group; as de Gaulle was right in calling the jews elitist -- you would have to be if you are the chosen people of God!
As mentioned above, they do far more than simply frown upon it.
I think you are incorrect to say that it was not the descendants of the early jews who bore the full fury of the early papal inquisition. How about Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) and his anti-jewish decrees of 4th Lateran council, saying that jews --because of their money power -- had reversed the natural order -- the free christian had become the servant of the jewish slave & govt must restore nature by imposing adequate disabilities??
I look forward to part 2. ARGUS
The strictures against the Jews, of the Lateran Council did not lead to a war of annihilation against them ; whereas the Councils of Lombers and Avignon ( 1165 and 1209 respectively ) led first to 30 years of sporadic persecution, followed by a 15 year war of extirpation against the Albigensian heretics in France. Therefore it is accurate to state that these people, not the Jews, bore the full brunt of the Church’s hatred of heresy.
I hope that this clears up and misunderstandings of my motives in writing about this subject. And I thank for your interest in my work, and making informed and rational comments. No doubt, as other parts are posted, I shall receive a few comments of the usual irrational and biased nature.
posted by
ariel70
on November 16, 2005 at 2:26 AM
| link to this | reply
An odd thought occurred to me: here, at least when I was in the early grades of school, Ferdinand and Isabella were known primarily as the monarchs who bankrolled Columbus. It was a letdown later to learn about the Inquisition.
posted by
babe_rocks
on November 15, 2005 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Argus
Thank you for your comment, which I don't have time to deal with fully right now, but I will later, or tomorrow.
To find my views on anti-Semitism, and persecution of Jews, perhaps you would care to trawl down thro' my blog and find the poem "Shoah", and the story " Don't Say Mama". There is also a piece about the saviours of the Jews in WW11.
I have had published so far 14 poems, short stories and articles condemning any form of racial hatred and persecution, from wherever, or whomever it emanates.
I think that The Passion of the Christ was a thinly veiled piece of anti-Semitism. and was moreover little but a stalk and slash schlock horror movie under the guise of a relgious lament for the death of Christ. It is disgusting
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, thanks for your reply.
- My 'setting up' impression was triggered by your use of the very strong words 'hatred of heretics' a la Mel Gibson. The 'heretic' Spinoza in Amsterdam (some years later) was excommunicated from the synagogue -- that's all they did to him.
- I don't agree that only a 'die-hard nazi' would write like that. There are many intolerant persons who still see the jews as Christ-killers. Some of them make movies, some may write.
- I give you the point that you did not portray heresy hatred and refusal to intermarry as defining attributes -- yet they were the only attributes mentioned.
- You are also correct that the orthodox still frown on marrying outside the group; as de Gaulle was right in calling the jews elitist -- you would have to be if you are the chosen people of God!
- I think you are incorrect to say that it was not the descendants of the early jews who bore the full fury of the early papal inquisition. How about Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) and his anti-jewish decrees of 4th Lateran council, saying that jews --because of their money power -- had reversed the natural order -- the free christian had become the servant of the jewish slave & govt must restore nature by imposing adequate disabilities??
- I look forward to part 2. ARGUS
posted by
ARGUS
on November 15, 2005 at 9:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70
This one is another great work of very good and founded research on our longing for a surpreme being. All I can say is well done.
posted by
Flame-thrower
on November 15, 2005 at 9:24 AM
| link to this | reply
A&B
Thank you for your comment, and you continued support
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Frankenkitty
Thanks for dropping in. Glad you liked it.
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariala
Fail flair flar flir flair fiar fair flar .... hell!
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Tapsel
Thank you for your comment, and you continuing support.Much appreciated!
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Renigade
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is highly valued, I assure you.
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Argus
Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry that you gained the – entirely erroneous – impression that I am in some way “ setting up” the Jews for what follows. Only a die-hard Nazi would write in that fashion.
Objectivity requires that early Jewish attitudes to dissent from current orthodoxy, and their adamant refusal to inter-marry with unbelievers be mentioned ; but I did not portray these as being the defining attributes of early Judaism To this day, Orthodox Jews will say Kaddish over a son or daughter who marries outside Jewry. These are facts, and bear no trace whatever of anti-Semitism on my part.
In any case, although there were secular anti-Jewish pogroms from earliest times, it was not the descendants of these early Jews who bore the full fury of the early Roman ( Papal ) Inquisition, but Christian heretics. As my series progresses, you will see the Jews portrayed as what they were : innocent victims of a rabid Christian religious bigotry, and racial hatred. It is also made clear that the Inquisitions ( Papal and Spanish ) were a grotesque perversion of true Christianity.
posted by
ariel70
on November 15, 2005 at 4:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel--Know what I like about you?
You have the ability to utilize facts and figures to support an argument without name-calling and finger-pointing. Kudos to you. Very well done.
posted by
Renigade
on November 14, 2005 at 8:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, very interesting religious history lesson. Well written.
posted by
TAPS.
on November 14, 2005 at 6:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, excellent post and done with a fair flair (say that fast 10 times!)
posted by
Ariala
on November 14, 2005 at 4:17 PM
| link to this | reply
I whole-heartedly agree that
man has used religion as a tool for politics. There really is no way to justify mass slaughter, but governments do it and call it "honorable" for "noble cause". I see right through it. I suppose this makes me a political dissident in the US(or any Country), but I think Jesus would like me. I enjoyed your blog
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on November 14, 2005 at 4:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, pretty good history lesson -- well written as always
But it seems to me you almost set the Jews up as deserving the treatment they're about to get in Part 2. The central notions of judaism imo are: one God, and the sanctity of human life (it being in the image of God), not 'hatred of heretics' and 'refusal to intermarry'.
posted by
ARGUS
on November 14, 2005 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
I think many religions practice evangelization and this creates some of the problems.
(A)
posted by
A-and-B
on November 14, 2005 at 2:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Offbeats
Thank you for dropping in
posted by
ariel70
on November 14, 2005 at 1:37 PM
| link to this | reply
xeno
Thank you. Hope you'll like the rest
posted by
ariel70
on November 14, 2005 at 1:37 PM
| link to this | reply
keep on
i'm waiting with bated breath
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 14, 2005 at 1:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70
Excellent read with a lot of good information.. looking forward to more!!
posted by
Offy
on November 14, 2005 at 1:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche
Yep, seems like we never learn, doesn't it/
posted by
ariel70
on November 14, 2005 at 1:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Hollanda
Thank you for your comment. Glad you liked it ; and that you're doing well
posted by
ariel70
on November 14, 2005 at 1:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Hey...
The blog is doing ok thanks hun :)
VERY interesting reading there by the way...
posted by
Hollanda
on November 14, 2005 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70,
Fascinating reading, but horrifying. Would it were possible to say that we, human beings, have "evolved" beyond the need for a scapegoat, for whomever is different than ourselves, an outward projection of "sin" onto the "other", the non-believer, the outsider, the other nations. Unfortunately, too recent history says otherwise.
"Truly, Nicodemus, you must be born again of the spirit." So simple a concept, yet unfathomable to a mind so steeped in hierarchy and tradition and not the beauty and simplicity of the Spirit of peace and compassion towards strangers.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 14, 2005 at 1:21 PM
| link to this | reply