That Sarah sure does have a way with words. Palin’s latest, not an “oops” moment but actually something she posted online, upped the righteous hackles of a lot of people and left others going, “huh?” So, what is it? In short: “blood libel” is an accusation originally and historically used as a means of inciting hatred against Jews. (Reminder: Palin has worked hard to be sure that no one doubts her evangelical Christian identity.) It has evolved to include anyone falsely accused, which is how Palin appears to have intended it when she claimed to be the victim of a blood libel following allegations that her rhetoric and politics contributed to Loughner’s twisted decision to shoot in Tucson.
The term’s origins come from the Middle Ages, when Jews were accused of using the blood of Christian children in their holiday baking (a particularly nonsensical and bizarre charge, if you know anything about Jewish dietary rules and theology in general). It came to include the charge that Jews were “Christ-killers,” based on a New Testament text with a profound anti-semitic history. (In a brief Bible Babel chapter, I discuss it and others in the context of understanding why and why not texs such as these support either side of a controversial issue.) I happened to catch a radio interview last eve (Jan. 14) with Michel Martin in which three people well-versed in the power of speech — Rev. Al Sharpton, Congressman John Lewis, and Rabbi Brad Hirschfield — counseled care in the ways that we talk both publicly and privately. Now those are wise words.
