To those who follow global politics, the name of Sarah Palin will be synonymous with controversy. Her conservative political and religious views are not what rub people up the wrong way as much as her tendency to make uninformed and ill-considered statements that cause hurt. Thus, it is no surprise to find Palin at the centre of another storm of controversy when she recently stated that efforts to connect statements by her or others to last weekend's Arizona shootings amount to a "blood libel."
In case you are wondering exactly why so many people found her use of this term offensive, the Religion Professor at Boston University, Stephen Prothero, explains exactly why in an article on religion.blogs.cnn.com.
Prothero said that there were many variations on blood libel through religious history, but the myth normally involved accusing Jews of murdering non-Jews and then drinking their blood for ritual purposes. The myth is historically linked with the Passover practices of Jews.
Sadly, blood libel has been used throughout Jewish history as a pretext for violence against Jews.
Mary C. Boys, a Union Theological Seminary professor who has undertaken a personal study of the history of blood libel, said the myth is "related to blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus and the vilification of Jews. A lot of this is peasant ignorance, but it just never died out."
It is believed by scholars that the term originated in medieval Europe. "From the 11th century onward, there was an increased virulence of Christian vilification of Jews," states Boys.
The myth of blood libel was shaped more strongly in the culture of 12th century England, when a work called the Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich stated that a boy had been ritually tortured and killed by Jews.
The myth of blood libels often allege that Jews used the blood of gentiles to make Passover matzoh, or unleavened bread, and wine.
After the allegations in the Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, the local Jews were attacked by mobs and forced to flee for their lives.
By the 14th century, ritual murder charges became common in Europe at Passover time.
The Anti-Defamation League, who work to combat anti-Semitism, criticized Palin's reference to blood libel, made in a video posted to her Facebook page Wednesday.
"We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others," said the group's national director, Abraham Foxman.
"While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused," Foxman said, "we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
Other Jewish groups also lent their weight behind criticisms of Palin's choice of words.
"It is simply inappropriate to compare current American politics with a term that was used by Christians to persecute Jews," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group. "She has every right to criticize journalists without going over the top."
Christian scholars were equally chagrined at Palin's use of the term.
"This is not language that we Christians should use when we're victims," said Boys, who is also a Catholic nun. "This is what we charged Jews with... It's improper for us as Christians, who invented it and used it against Jews with horrific consequence, to use this terminology."