There was a time when it was socially acceptable, even rewarding, to spread hateful invective about Jews being directly responsible for the death of infants in order to observe their archaic, bloodthirsty rituals. There was a time when it was considered so socially acceptable that even elected officials, representatives of the people, thought nothing of making these claims in public and without fear that they would be challenged or criticised for doing so.
Incredibly, that time was just a matter of weeks ago at the European Parliament.
It has become very common for people to respond to the suggestion that Europe is becoming a less tolerant place by dismissing the very notion without thought. Europe is fairer than it has ever been, they say, just look at the emphasis that governments place on human rights and equalities legislation and the great public support that global anti-racism campaigns receive - not to mention the fantastic work done by countless NGOs. And it certainly is true that we should be more tolerant and accepting of difference than we ever have been. Yet last month, an Austrian MEP named Andreas Molzer tabled a formal question to the European Parliament entitled "Child Deaths Caused by Halal Meat" - the question went on of course to refer to both Halal and Kosher meat.
The question raised by Molzer begins by noting the "hundreds of children" that die in France of "bacterial infections caused by contaminated meat" and by wondering "to what extent the increase in E. coli contamination of minced or ground meat is linked with increasing consumption of halal or kosher meat."
There is, of course no evidence to support the ludicrous notion that Halal or Kosher meat is more susceptible to infection or is dangerous in any way but no matter, for that, it turns out, was the reason for asking the question. Mr Molzer goes on to ask whether an upcoming study can be used to examine this important issue.
Truthfully, I have no idea whether Mr Molzer fully understands just how unpleasant his question is or whether he believes there's a legitimate scientific concern to be discussed. What concerns me is the nature of the response to it - deafening silence.
Yes, I will be writing on behalf of the Conference of European Rabbis to express our displeasure and I hope that others in the community will read this and do the same but in general, the response of the media and other politicians has been extraordinary in its indifference. The fact is, it has become more acceptable than at any time in recent memory to make wild accusations and generalisations about minorities.
In the UK, the far right has all but entirely imploded as a political force - recent local elections left the BNP with just four councillors nationwide. Yet on the continent the opposite is true. In France, Holland, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Finland and even Germany - the far right are gaining in popularity and influence. Jews may no longer be their first target - the Muslim community tend to bear the brunt of their hatred - but make no mistake, they are not attacking Islam, they are attacking difference.
Recently, I joined other European religious leaders and the prime minister of Norway at a ceremony to pay tribute to those whose lives were brutally taken by Anders Breivik. Following a minute's silence, we made a commitment to respect and cherish difference so that it can never become a source of intolerance or hatred. I fear though, that it is one thing to make that commitment but quite another to have the bravery to honour it. How many of us can really say that we make reaching out to those who are different to us a priority?
In an age when society is not as tolerant as we would perhaps like to think it is, each one of us shares the responsibility to identify and challenge hatred, at home, at work, in all aspects of life, in the UK and across Europe.
Blood libel – what does it mean? | World news | guardian.co.uk
Frankly, if Halal and Kosher production are shown to be unhygienic, they should be made illegal. If they are shown to be fine, then carry on. Probably there is reason enough to ban them on animal cruelty grounds, but that's for another debate. It has nothing to do with religious prejudice - it's just common sense. It's a secular issue, and the fact that some people might be prejudiced one way or the other is irrelevant.
End of argument.
Goldschmidt is noting that the particular attack is similar to past attacks on Jews (and in fact Jews would be harmed by this attack, albeit as collateral damage). And he is right that it is just as disgusting when aimed at Muslims as it is when it is aimed at Jews.
There is something sad about the fact that an article trading on the current positive view of Jews in the West to oppose discrimination against Muslims has been taken by so many as a sign that Jews are self-centered. One could not get the point of the post more wrong than that. (I admit from the headline I came in expecting the Rabbi was doing something like that. But then I read the column with the intention of understanding his point which makes it hard to maintain such an error).
You start with Israel and I'll start here in the USA.
The use of scapegoating by government officials to try and deflect the populous from their real concerns to lightning bolt them on an innocent minority community, has an ancient tragic history. Its greatest victims were Jewish communities, but of course many others as well, more recently including minority Islamic communities as per the present case.
A secondary victim of this "Socialism of Fools" was of course the "fools" themselves whose victimization by conniving politicians and demagogues continue unabated as the populous uselessly followed a path of bigotry and fear.
But these politicians and demagogues, assuming they fear no avenging by Providence, could feel fairly secure that they had nicely had their cake and eaten it too.
However, as global interdependence has tightened, their is an amplified feedback to start expecting of "what goes around, comes around." And the harm they caused the scapegoat targets, the "mobs," and the unchecked degrading situation they had caused that needed deflection, will all start rebounding back at them as a "perfect storm."
In the new world, it will become evermore dangerous to be a villian. It would be wise of them, most of all, to start following yitwin's advice above -- to begine avoiding the harm to others as a start, and then grow to actually come to a state of mutual caring with them.
The second portion of Molzer's question dealt with the appropriate statistics and data collection. Presumably, in order to find an answer one way or another. At no point was a moral judgement made by Molzer, so I can only conclude that the "blood libel" association is simply with that of slaughtered meat (as the blood is drained).
In the end, facts are facts. Let's find them.
In this case the Rabbi seems to have the motivation right, and you are providing cover for the bigots.
THAT is the question. It is hardly a difficult fact to establish.
A truly cruel bigot would simply allow such children to suffer.
It seems likely this jibe arises from far right nonsense. Fine. But the time to show that bigotry for what it is would be after we expose it as unscientific nonsense.
Springing immediately into a super-defensive, mudslinging rage is counterproductive.
I believe ideas are either meritorious or otherwise. Your arguments border on seeking to silence others, which is not advisable- at least until those arguments have been shown for the bigoted nonsense that would therefore merit such treatment.
Outsiders are only too impressed by the similarities rather than any differences.
One example of how people are different to each other is that some people will kill and some won't.
History has shown how people of all races in this part of the world were just trying to get on with each other, but the greatest obstacle was the intervention of religion, in the form of wars and crusades.
When you remove the religious straight jacket from your mind, at first it will feel very uncomfortable, but soon your mental limbs will begin to function as normal, which they have been prevented from doing from birth. Do it now, you will soon all be happier for it, and get on better with each other, wherever you are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moriel-rothman/a-silwan-story-palestinian-child-arrested_b_1551856.html
It is this sort of "tip of the iceburg" which the world is becoming more and more aware of which is smeering the reputation of Jews.
I suggest that Jews should seperate themselves from the Zionists who are doing the heinous actions depicted in the link I posted.
Nobody can support or defend those actions to be done to human beings. And nobody should want to be associated to those either.
How can an American Jew read that story and still want to send their money to those people?
But, if they do, they should not be too surprised when humanity questions their morals.
Well, the world doesn't see it that way.
I am suggesting that delineating between the Zionists and their heinous actions in Israel, and the religion called Judaism would / could go a long way toward countering the current deteriorating reputation of Judaism as depicted in this article.
Perhaps that is too much for you to comprehend?
Just as I am disgusted by anyone who would use 9/11 as an excuse to hate muslims, I am equally disgusted by those that would use the actions of Israel to justify anti-semitism.
If you saw an orthodox jew being beaten up, what would your reaction be? That it is understandable or even acceptable because of the actions of Israel?
I thoroughly reject your idea that anyone supporting Israel "should not be too surprised when humanity questions their morals", but even if I accept that, it is a morally repugnant position because you don't really know what they believe. You are just justifying prejudice based on an assumption of what that person believes.
Second, implicit in your rhetoric is the assumption that you are perfectly entitled to slaughter animals using rituals which were it not for their religious nature would be illegal in civilised countries.
Kosher and Halal slaughter is barbaric.
And third, stop snipping bits off your boy children. It always amazes me that you imagine God to be so great, and then you have your beautiful babies arrive and decide God's design needs a little modification without anaesthetic.
The genital mutilation of newborn children would also be illegal in civilised countries were it not given license by ludicrous religious endorsement.
Put your humanity before your delight in celebrating how different you are by indulging in practices which have no place in the modern world, and maybe you'll feel more comradeship from (and with) your fellow man.