Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:48 AM

"It was in Roman interests that people fear them. It was not in Roman interests that people hate them. A story that Pilate only executed Jesus because he was manipulated by the Jewish elite and bullied by the Jewish mob would stir up less hatred of Rome than a story that Pilate planned it and brought it about entirely on his own. It would also put more distance, in Roman eyes, between the Christians and those troublesome Jews. It had to be the politically more savvy way to go."

No, the Romans would have stressed that this is what happens to those that act against Roman authority. Roman rule was hated and resented plenty and apart from the consul in Damscus, who generally tried to placate the Jewish elite to stop them from revolting, the Romans didn't do much to patch things up.
Gerry, show me a source or any piece of evidence that in those first years of Christianity the Romans saw them as anything more than another Jewish sect.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:30 AM

OK - I admit to being a little thick to get the point across. I'll let you decide if it was intentional or not;-) But it has done the job of getting you to clarify your stance. I think!

You now make it crystal clear - I believe that stanza of LotD presents an anti-Jewish belief if it says that ANY of the Jews OF THE DAY brought about the crucifixion of Jesus.


So you mean that anything that says that any Jews of the day brought about the crucifixion of Jesus is anti-Jewish. I note that you use the phrase brought about the crucifixion. By that I take it that you mean they didn't actualy hammer the nails in. That they CAUSED it rather than actualy did it? If so then every Christian teaching in my knowledge can also be construed as anti-Jewish. Should the teachings of 2000 years be modified because they are anti-Jewish? Maybe the world would be a better place if they were but, tell you what though, it ain't gonna happen!

Besides - You only addressed one part of my last post. Should the Coventry Carol be done away with as well?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:16 AM

I believe that stanza of LotD presents an anti-Jewish belief if it says that ANY of the Jews OF THE DAY brought about the crucifixion of Jesus.

WILL YOU BLOODY LISTEN, GERRY?

Carter was NOT referring to any Jews at all- the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the mob, not any of the Jews. Nor was he talking about Romans. He was talking about HYPOCRITES. Of all nations, of all ethnicities, of all sexes (but especially clergymen), of all ages, of all epochs.

Carter himself probably took the Bible not as a historical record in any very important way, but as a largely METAPHORICAL record of the background and teachings of someone he respected. The historical "fact" of whether "Jesus" (if he existed) was executed by a,b or c is utterly irrelevant to LotD, which is a song about love and joy, not blame. Your boneheaded niggling about antisemitism is as stupid as the commissioner who recently reprimanded a colleague for referring to a "black hole"- which he said was a racist comment.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:51 AM

300

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:34 AM

Bloody hell, Dave, have you read anything I've written in this thread in the last few days?

09 Jul 08 - 03:10 AM

The song (the one stanza, anyway) says (on my reading) that the people who objected to the (perceived) desecration of the sabbath (and those people would have to be some or all of the Jews of the time) killed Jesus.

08 Jul 08 - 09:45 AM

I agree that Carter & the gospels were both referring to Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, and not to Jews of today or of the intervening years.

07 Jul 08 - 08:58 PM

I did take the position that "the holy people" meant "the Jewish people," but I have elsewhere in this thread noted that there is still a problem if "the holy people" is interpreted as the priests, or as the Pharisees, or as the Jewish religious or political or legal authorities of the day.

06 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

I understand that most of the contributors to this thread disagree with my contention that the holy people refers to some or all of the Jews of Jesus' time (although why anyone among Jesus' contemporaries other than some of Jesus' fellow Jews would object to Jesus dancing on the sabbath is beyond me).

04 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

2. "holy people" is a reference to, if not the entire Jewish people of the time, then to a segment thereof - maybe the Pharisees, maybe the Sanhedrin, maybe the priests, maybe some other Jewish authorities, but, in any event, definitely not to the Romans,

Evidently I have to say it once more: I believe that stanza of LotD presents an anti-Jewish belief if it says that ANY of the Jews OF THE DAY brought about the crucifixion of Jesus.

And if you can show me where I said that I want you to blame the descendants of the Romans, I will personally come, at my own expense, to sing Lord of the Dance at your next family celebration (provided only that it isn't a Bar Mitzvah).

CarolC, that part of the Christian Bible is central to the question about LotD. If I believed that some or all of the Jews of the time worked to bring about the death of Jesus, I would not be here objecting to LotD - the song would only be guilty of some exercise of poetic license in putting all the blame on those Jews, rather than some on them and some on Pilate.

It was in Roman interests that people fear them. It was not in Roman interests that people hate them. A story that Pilate only executed Jesus because he was manipulated by the Jewish elite and bullied by the Jewish mob would stir up less hatred of Rome than a story that Pilate planned it and brought it about entirely on his own. It would also put more distance, in Roman eyes, between the Christians and those troublesome Jews. It had to be the politically more savvy way to go.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:22 AM

OK, Gerry. Lets try another tack. You believe that LoTD is anti-Jewish because it, in your opinion, tells us that the 'holy people', which you believe can be interpreted as the all Jewish people, from then to today, put ol' JC on the cross. Yes? Your issue with that is that it is not historicaly accurate because, in your opinion, it was the Romans who put him to death? OK. So what you want us to do is blame the decendants of the Romans instead. Is that it? Well, I know he wasn't born Roman but I guess the most influential Roman at present is the Pope. What should we do then? Rewrite the song so it puts the blame fairly and squarely on Herr Ratzingers shoulders? Sort of works for me. Jobs for the boys and all that...

Anyway. What about songs that blame the Jews for something else? The 'Coventry Carol' tells us that -

'Herod the king, in his raging
Charged he hath this day
His men of might, in his own sight
All children young to slay'

Now, Herod was King of the Jews was he not. With support from Rome if I understand correctly. Upon hearing that another King of the Jews had been born he ordered that every child born at a certain time should be slaughtered. Presumably by his own men? Jews themselves?

I would submit therefore that the Coventry Carol is far more likely to stir anti-Jewish feeling than the Lord of the Dance. Yet it is biblicaly more accurate so, do we ban that or not?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Ken Hunt
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:10 AM

I am responsible for Sydney Carter's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and I interviewed him. I read a fair amount of his writings from the 1960s onwards and I still read him. Sydney was no stranger to people misunderstanding his words or twisting what he said. Even if he had a grave he wouldn't be spinning in it: he would be relishing the polemics of the debate, the absurdities, the misrepresentations, the fact that his song is keeping people thinking and guessing. He'd been through it with religious factions and "Friday Morning".

Sydney was brought up as a Christian ("I could not believe half the things I was supposed to") but that was only the starting point of what was beautifully summarised as his "questing theology" in his Guardian obituary. What nobody here seems to have picked up upon is that the song's underlying image also refers to Hinduism. The Lord of the Dance is Lord Shiva, the Cosmic Dancer. He did this knowingly. He had a figure of Lord Shiva at home. He worked with images. And "Lord of the Dance" is a series of images.

As he writes in Green Print for Song (1974, 86) in his commentary on the song that is kicking up the sawdust so, "Scriptures and creeds may come to seem incredible, but faith will still go dancing on." (Carter, Green Print, 86).

I can't speak for Sydney's social conditioning as a child. Growing up in London he would certainly have come across the casual racism of the day. As an adult, he soaked up faith, religion and philosophy. He kept looking. He was no racist. Quite the opposite. Ken Hunt

PS Dave Polshaw's clarification of 4 July 2008 about anti-semitic and anti-Jewish is spot on. The two terms are most definitely not synonymous. Just because the words are misused in day-to-day speech does not make them the same. Unaware and oblivious are not synonymous either. Oh, and what's this Jewish language people are talking about?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:08 PM

It started out as a question about the LotD, but if I recall correctly, someone in this thread has said that Christians should disregard the part of the New Testament that specifies that some Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, which goes beyond any questions about the LotD.

If passing out literature (passing out literature before the invention of the printing press?) about the Roman authorities executing people would have the effect of instigating popular uprisings, I would think that the Roman authorities would have rethought the expediency of using crucifixion as a means of executing people. It seems to me that it would become very expensive if they had to put down popular uprisings every time they carried out a crucifixion that the local populace felt was unjust (which I would expect was rather often). The Romans may have been brutal, but they weren't stupid. There was a reason that they used crucifixion as a means of executing people. They did it for the purpose of controlling the masses.

My point is that the speculative version of events proposed using the fictional character, Remark, doesn't make any sense.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:21 PM

CarolC, I'm well aware that once we question the historicity of one religious document, we invite questioning the historicity of all the others, and I don't see doing so as a problem. This thread was provoked by someone's question as to whether LotD is anti-semitic, and the historicity or otherwise of the narrative in the book of Exodus will not shed any light on that question. The gospel passages implicating Jewish groups in the death of Jesus are the only scriptural passages whose historicity is directly relevant to the question raised about LotD (although I suppose that if you could prove that Moses never existed, that would make it even easier to believe that Mark got his facts wrong).

Volgadon, I believe there are serious inconsistencies in the gospels. I'll get around to that. You mention Pilate's track record. It is not clear to me whether you are referring to his record of tyrannical brutality, a record which does not show through in the gospel accounts. And may I remind you that we do not have the writings of Jesus, only the writings of those who came along years after the events, and with their own circumstances and motivations.

Jack, my claim that the stanza expresses an antisemitic view does not hinge on antisemites believing that Jews are the holy people. Here's what I wrote earlier: "The song (the one stanza, anyway) says (on my reading) that the people who objected to the (perceived) desecration of the sabbath (and those people would have to be some or all of the Jews of the time) killed Jesus. That stanza presents an antisemitic belief, and the question of whether antisemites believe that the Jews are or were the holy people doesn't enter into it."

Concerning your other point, I hold that the gospel writers were making a compromise. They couldn't very well refrain from saying that Jesus was Messiah, Lord, and King as without saying that there'd be no reason to write a gospel at all. But they could try to get that central point across while minimizing offense to Roman sensibilities by shifting as much blame as possible from the Romans to the Jewish mob and authorities, and by attributing to Jesus the words that Volgadon quotes (Render unto Caesar, my kingdom is not of this world, ...).

As for censorship, that's a straw man. I have never, never, never, never, never, never, never aspired to have song or gospels censored. I have only expressed the hope that the day will come when the antisemitic aspects will be as clear to everyone else as they are to me; when that day comes, no one will talk about censoring the song, because no one will want to sing it.

CarolC, if you pass out literature in Kashmir, alleging atrocities committed by the Indian army; if you pass out literature in Darfur, alleging atrocities committed by Janjaweed militia; if you pass out literature in the West Bank, alleging atrocities by the Israeli authorities; do you think these activities would suppress rebellion against India, against the militia, against Israel, or incite it? Do you think the Indian, the Janjaweed, the Israeli leaders would welcome your efforts, or prefer to see you go away?

When you tell your people about the horrible things some other people are (allegedly) doing to you, it may scare them off, but I think it's at least as likely to harden their resolve to resist.

I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your argument. The Romans crucified Jesus because they saw him as a threat to their rule, and as with all punishment they hoped this would have a deterrent effect on others. The story spread on its own, as the Romans wanted. Contemporary accounts, if there were any, have not come down to us. Many years later, some people who weren't actually there at the time wrote up an account of what happened. Their write-up reflects the times in which they lived. If this doesn't seem responsive to your points, it's for want of understanding (on my part), not for want of trying.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Haruo
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:02 PM

Please, Dave, Morris Peroffspring. Let's not inject noninclusive language into this by calling them Morris Men. (And Persons contains that suspect "sons", while "Perchildren" sounds ageist. ;-)

Haruo

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:55 PM

Dave, I think you have it right this time. It does indirectly legitimatize Morris dancing.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM

I think this should be banned as well. Absolutely outrageous in it's suggestions that Morris Men drink!

:D

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: oggie
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:25 PM

"BTW I was under a misapprehension that Carter was Anglican- in fact he was a Quaker. It doesn't change the fact that he would probably have torn his face off and thrown it in the corner if he'd read this discussion."

Your original thought was correct. He was an Anglican who found himself more at home with the Quaker affirmation of the presence of God in all human beings and it's lack of ritual. He was however buried according to the rites of the Church of England. He was a man who thought that religious "truth" was more important than the label you gave to the church you attended.

Steve

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:45 PM

Dave, to say that, for instance, scriptures are best understood symbolically and subjected to interpretation is a far cry from saying they should be ignored.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:29 AM

Good point, CarolC.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:05 AM

One of the problems with questioning the accuracy of the Gospels because of conflicts with historical accounts (something I don't mind doing myself, but I'm not selective about which religious doctrines I'm willing to question), is that it leaves open the possibility of questioning the Jewish version of events also, and not just Genesis.

There is no historical documentation for the existence of Moses, or even of the Hebrews having been enslaved in Egypt or of the Exodus. We have no way of historically verifying whether or not the Jewish religion came into being in the way their holy books describe, or if it was entirely invented by people who wanted to start a cult following.

It seems to me that no religion is in any position to question any other religion when it comes to being able to verify their version of events historically.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:51 AM

I forgot to add that those Messianic Jews you mentioned were executed for opposing Roman rule, advocating it's overthrow and replacement by the kingdom of David. Where in the writings of Jesus as we have them does it mention anything like that? Quite the opposite, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", "My kingdom is not of this world", etc.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:48 AM

Gerry, your Mark/Remark theory is silly. It's called wishful thinking. I find it as likely as the Chariots of the Gods. I could use your reasoning to justify anything. Well, you see, there might have been another writer who wrote a true, alternative account, but all traces were COMPLETELY destroyed.....

Are there any serious or irreconciable inconsistencies in the Gospels?

Those examples of Pilate's behaviour which you cited were what was being held over his head that day. Also, they threatened to tell Caesar that he had ambitions to the throne. With Pilate's track record, that story would have been swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Pilate's weakness here is of personal integrity. Anyway, here are some points to consider. I'm drawing from the 4th volume (the Roman Byzantine Period) of the History of Eretz Israel. Edited by Menachem Stern and published by the Yad Itzhak Ben-Tzvi centre, one of the most respected academic institutions in Israel. At the start of Pilate's rule, he placed banners in Jerusalem bearing depictions of human and animal figures, a big no-no. A Jewish delegation left for Caesarea, to protest, but Pilate called his army and threatened to massacre the crowd unless they all returned to their homes. Those gathered prostrated themselves saying that it was better to die than to see graven images in Jerusalem. When Pilate saw how serious they were, he gave in to their demands. Seems to me that he realised that it might spark massive unrest.
Another point that encyclopedia makes is that for the early part of his rule, there was nobody in Damascus for the people to complain to. When there was, Pilate was a little more cautious.

As for the 'impossibilities' of the trial, the Gospels make it clear that this was done very improperly.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:29 AM

Gerry,

Your argument about the song being ant-semitic, hinges on anti-Semites (Jew haters) believing that the Jews are THE HOLY PEOPLE.

Your argument about the Gospels is equally silly. On the on hand you say that The Romans (Pilate) had enough legal to kill Jesus because people were calling him the Messiah, and also that they (he) were arbitrary and evil enough to just do it for no reason. On the other you are saying that the writers of the Gospels who obviously knew the Romans much better than any of us, somehow thought that they could escape Roman punishment by blaming the Jews for making Jesus a Martyr when they would most certainly know the capital crime would have been writing the parts where they say Jesus is Lord and King.

You seem to be simply finding, newer, progressively weaker arguments as your earlier ones get picked off.

You have little hope of having the song censored for what you perceive as "anti-Semitic" material. You have NO hope of getting the Gospels censored for that reason.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:24 AM

I don't see Remark's version having the effect of inciting the population into rebellion. I see it has having the effect of suppressing rebellion. Had crucifying Jesus had the potential to incite a rebellion, the Romans would have killed him in a much less public way. Crucifixions served as a warning to others about what could happen to them if they didn't behave in the way the empire wanted them to. That story didn't need someone like Remark to tell it. The story would have spread on its own, and that's what the Romans would have wanted. Had the Romans done something like that to Jesus, it would not have been possible to suppress the knowledge of it or prevent it from spreading far and wide.

Had the Romans simply wanted to kill Jesus without the masses knowing about it, they would have simply had him assassinated and not taken credit for it.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:43 AM

So, the bible is not to be believed. OK so far? The song in question contains lines based on this biblical fantasy and in itself cannot be believed. Yes? So the song is about events that took place, or maybe didn't, in a work of fiction? What are you all arguing about then?

:D

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:24 AM

Pip, guilty on all six counts, but with the mitigating circumstance, as regards e), that when there are 30 of them and only one of me, it is hard to engage with all of the arguments put to me. If there is any particular argument you'd especially like me to engage, please name it, and I'll do my best to engage with it.

As far as trolling goes, I have begun to wonder about Len Wallace, who started this thread, but has never returned, not even to thank the rest of us for expending so much energy on his question. Perhaps we have all been well and truly trolled by Mr Wallace.

Howard, the main point of several of my recent long posts has been to build the case that involvement of Jewish entities in the death of Jesus is not a matter of historical record. The sole evidence for involvement, so far as I know, is the gospels, and I am trying to show that for all their greatness as spiritual testimony they cannot be taken seriously as historical documents. The arguments I have brought up so far are

1. taking the Bible as a whole as a true historical document commits you to the absurd positions taken by the fundamentalists - and if Genesis is not literally true, why believe that Mark is?

2. the positions taken by the gospels can't be understood without an eye for the political situation of the day, which favored trying to patch things up with the Romans,

3. the gospel description of Pilate as weak, indecisive, manipulated by the Jewish elite and bullied by the Jewish mob, is in stark contrast to the historical description of Pilate as a monster.

You know, Kolmogorov, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, started out as a history student. He found indisputable evidence that the taxation system in 13th century Moscow was very different from what all the experts thought it was, and proudly told his supervisor that he had disproved the older theory. His supervisor was not so impressed, informing Kolmogorov that one proof wasn't enough - he'd need ten to overturn the accepted beliefs. It was soon after that that Kolmogorov left history for mathematics, where one proof is enough.

But we're doing history here, not mathematics, so I must present more proof. It comes under two headings:

4. impossibilities in the gospel accounts (such as one I've already mentioned, convening the Sanhedrin on the greatest holiday in the Jewish calendar), and

5. inconsistencies between the various gospel accounts.

I'll get to these.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:33 AM

|Is a long word "antidisestablishmentarianism" ?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:08 AM

It's nowt to do with Lord of the Dance though, which doesn't mention Jews or The Jews at all.

BTW I was under a misapprehension that Carter was Anglican- in fact he was a Quaker. It doesn't change the fact that he would probably have torn his face off and thrown it in the corner if he'd read this discussion.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:52 AM

Gerry,

You are claiming that merely to say that the Jews were involved in the death of Jesus is anti-semitic. I disagree. It is simply repeating a matter of historical record (accepting that historical "fact" is rarely set in stone, and is always subject to revision). OK, the record may be partial, and if evidence emerges that Jews had absolutely nothing to do with it, that's fine by me. It may be possible to question whether it's "fact", but you will have to do more to pursuade me that it's a "lie", and I'm trying to look at it objectively, without the eye of either faith.

For the time being, that's the version that most people accept. It's not anti-semitic to repeat it, any more than it's anti-Italian. What is anti-semitic is the conclusion that some have drawn from this: that the Jews as a whole and for evermore are culpable, and that this justifies the treatment which has been meted out to the Jews over the following centuries. That I think is what you really object to, and I am 100% in agreement.

The two things are separate. The fact that an erroneous conclusion can be drawn from it does not make it anti-semitic.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:15 AM

Gerry, you've succeeded in

a) generating a lot of traffic...
b) with heated opinions and extended arguments...
c) on a non-folk topic...
d) about which most people disagree with you...
e) although you refuse to engage with their arguments...
f) and carry on posting regardless

Classic trolling. I think the rest of us would be better off ignoring you.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:10 AM

CarolC, if Remark's account had the effect of inciting the population to rebellion against Rome, you think the Romans would have encouraged its spread? you think the Romans would not have made an example of Remark and his followers in order to keep the rest of the population in line?

Jack, I don't understand your remarks. The song (the one stanza, anyway) says (on my reading) that the people who objected to the (perceived) desecration of the sabbath (and those people would have to be some or all of the Jews of the time) killed Jesus. That stanza presents an antisemitic belief, and the question of whether antisemites believe that the Jews are or were the holy people doesn't enter into it.

I don't know what is silly about suggesting that of two accounts of the martyrdom of Jesus only one was likely to survive to our time, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your second remark.

So, let's talk about Pontius Pilate. Here's what Mahlon H Smith, a Christian Bible scholar, has to say about Pilate at http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pilate_2.html

"The Pilate described by Josephus & the Roman historian Tacitus was a strong willed, inflexible military governor who was insensitive to the religious scruples of his Jewish & Samaritan subjects & relentless in suppressing any potential disturbance. This stands in sharp contrast to the impression conveyed in the Christian gospels which, for apologetic reasons, portray him as reluctant to execute Jesus. Pilate's decade long tenure (26-36 CE) testifies to both his relative effectiveness in maintaining order & to the aging emperor's lack of personal attention to administrative affairs. The ruthless slaughter of thousands of Samaritan pilgrims by Pilate's cavalry (ca. 36 CE), however, led to such a strong Palestinian protest that Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome."

I like the part about Pilate being so ruthless that even his Roman superiors thought he went too far.

The Jewish Encyclopedia - I don't know how much credibility this source will have in this discussion, but here it is, anyway - says of Pilate,

"According to Philo ("De Legatione ad Caium," ed. Mangey, ii. 590), his administration was characterized by corruption, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, and continuous executions without even the form of a trial.... Pilate appropriated funds from the sacred treasury in order to provide for the construction of an aqueduct for supplying the city of Jerusalem with water from the Pools of Solomon; and he suppressed the riots provoked by this spoliation of the Temple by sending among the crowds disguised soldiers carrying concealed daggers, who massacred a great number, not only of the rioters, but of casual spectators."

It's things like this that put me off whenever I see advertisements for the Pilates Method. I have to remind myself that it's about physical fitness and not a massacre of spectators. Anyway, it suggests to me that Pilate needed no encouragement from Jewish leaders or Jewish mobs or anyone else to send Jesus to his death. He was quite capable of doing it on his own.

Now it has been suggested in this discussion that the Romans didn't care about the religious beliefs of their subjects and that therefore Pilate would not have wanted to do Jesus in. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a different take on the issue:

"Many of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, "king of the Jews," was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, "Vespas." 4; "Claudius," xxv.; Josephus, "Ant." xx. 5, section 1; 8, section 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus ("Annales," 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate's part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this does not agree with his character, as recorded elsewhere (see Suchrer, "Gesch." Index, s.v.)."

More to come, by and by.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 09:25 PM

Gerry,

The only way your theory about the works is if Anti-Semites believe that the Jews were "The Holy People". That, on the face of it is silly.

Since Jesus' story was one of martyrdom and sacrifice in the face of persecution which inspired similar sacrifice when Christians were persecuted by the Romans, your other theory is equally silly.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 08:50 PM

I think it far more likely that the Romans would not have had a problem with Remark's account, and probably would have encouraged it's spread rather than destroying it. The Romans love making examples of people in order to keep the masses in line. Most likely that's why they used crucifixion as a method of punishment.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 08:36 PM

Phil, I haven't rejected your analysis of the song, I just haven't had time to give it the careful reading it deserves. I'm too busy brushing up on Roman history....

Jack, it is possible to hold & even propagate an antisemitic belief without being an antisemite, as I took some pains to explain above. I hold that Carter was not an antisemite, but that one stanza of a song he wrote reflects and propagates an antisemitic belief.

Greg, generalizations about occupied countries don't necessarily tell us what happened in specific cases. The evidence that Jewish groups wanted to kill Jesus (rather than, say, protect one of their own from the brutal occupiers) comes from Christian Scripture, but it is precisely the historical accuracy of portions of that scripture that is under question here. The Jews have been an unusual people in many ways down through the years, and if they did not conform to your generalizations about military occupations, it wouldn't be all that surprising.

Back to the evidence.... Well, first I hope you'll indulge me in a little "thought experiment." Imagine that there are two early Christians, let's call them Mark and Remark, who want to write up an account of the martyrdom of Jesus. It is many years after the fact, and neither of them was actually there at the time, so they both go by what they've heard at second and thrid hand. Mark has heard that the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of the capital crime of blasphemy, and that the Jewish mob demanded the death of Jesus, and that's what he writes. Remark has heard that the Jewish people and authorities closed ranks around Jesus, and did all they could to protect him from the bloodthirsty occupiers, but the Romans had the might and they let no one get in the way of their mission to murder him, so that's what Remark writes.

Mark and Remark write up their versions of the events and circulate them among their friends. Remark's version stirs his friends into an anti-Roman fury. The Romans get wind of this, and come down on Remark and his friends and their followers like a ton of bricks. They're all executed, and all copies of their gospel are burned. The Romans do such a thorough job that, to this day, no trace of the gospel of Remark has been found.

Now as I said, this is just a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting there really was a lost gospel of Remark. I suspect that if there was an early Christian with Remark's beliefs, he would have known the likely consequences of writing them up and sharing them with his friends, and he would have thought the better of it. The point of the experiment is simply that it's no surprise that the only surviving accounts of the martyrdom are the ones that shift most or all of the blame from Pilate to the priests and the Jewish mob. And since those are the only accounts that had any chance of surviving, they cannot be used as evidence in favor of the version of events they describe.

More to come.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 06:42 PM

Ravenheart - as I said this morning, I can think of good reasons to rewrite songs, but trying to avoid the risk of appearing to confirm the prejudices that a minority of people already hold isn't one of them. To put it another way, I don't believe that anyone who wasn't already antisemitic would find (and welcome) an antisemitic message in LOTD.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:41 PM

Ravenheart, the perception of the song by the wider Christian audience was discussed. As well as the perceptions of that much smaller group, those who apparently think of themselves as "the holy people" and who somehow seem to think that others, who might sing the song, might at the same time be anti-Jewish enough to blame all Jews for Jesus' death and also at the same time think of those same Jews as The Holy People.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM

Something that never really came out: 'Catters could reach however rich and nuanced an understanding of the basis for the lyrics and of the original historical circumstances, and maybe reach some kind of consensus over them (or give up trying), but that does little to affect how the song is heard in the wider cultural setting we're in.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:40 PM

I'll second it might be a good time to end this discussion. The whole thing is simply going round and round in circles.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:38 PM

the only difference between my position and Mr. Edwards' was that he says there is no link IN THE SONG between "the holy people" and those that
whipped him, stripped him and hung him up to die." And I am saying that that doesn't matter.   

"the holy people" had him charged, arrested, and brought before Pilate.

Gerry said,

"I do not accuse you or anyone here (or Sydney Carter) of antisemitism."

Since the above statement, can be taken as a withdrawal of this one,

"accuses the Jews ("The holy people") - not the Pharisees, but the Jews - of crucifying Jesus. With all due respect to Rabbi Sol, that is an antisemitic lie - indeed, it is THE antisemitic lie, the one that led to terrible suffering by Jews down the ages."

It might be a good time to end this discussion.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Greg B
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

In every occupied country, there are the occupied, the occupiers, and
somewhere in between, the collaborators. The latter, for reasons of
their own, "work the system" to their own ends. Often ruthlessly.
Often in the guise of doing good things for their people, when in
fact they're just doing the best thing for themselves.

Then there are the occupied who 'go along with the crowd' in order not
to stand out, afraid, as it were, to question authority lest the
authorities question them. They all too often find themselves on the
wrong ethical side of a situation. And...they often make convenient
pawns when the powers-that-be need a loud, angry, mob of "protesters"
to come out and declare blasphemy and generally make the establishment
afraid that civil disorder will soon erupt.

Much evidence points to such being the case in Judea, some two
millennia ago.

It wasn't a uniquely Jewish/Roman problem; we have ample examples over
the last several centuries that point to the same thing taking place.

Maybe that's one of the things that make empires intrinsically evil
and military occupations distasteful.

Similarly, in *every* organized religion we see people who rise to
the heights of organizational power for reasons which are, to one
degree or another, self-serving and cynical. These people do some
horrible things, things in direct conflict with the ideals of their
religion, in order to retain power. And THAT is not a uniquely Jewish
problem, nor is Judaism immune to the problem. They likely didn't
invent it, either.

And we know, from historical experience, that vesting religious and
civil power in the same place has always been a recipe for trouble.

In any case, troublemakers like Jesus of Nazareth tend to get caught
up in such situations, especially when the politics of hostile
occupation meet the vested interests of puppet governments and
civil and religious authority converge.

There were a lot of places in the ancient--- and modern--- world
where a character like Jesus of Nazareth would have met some sort of
bad end at the hands of authorities who disagreed on much but would
agree that people like him threatened their position and standing.

If you understand that, you then understand that "the Jews killed
Jesus" misses the bigger point--- that the nature of evil lies not
in some imaginary "devil" but rather in the really rotten things
men will do in order to hold on to whatever little snippet of
power and prestige they come upon. The nature of man, sadly, is to
turn on its own when threatened.

If Jesus had been a Roman, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a
Buddhist or a Hindu at the wrong or similar time and place, it is
likely that his own people would have killed him. That he was a
Jew, from that perspective, was just an accidental detail.

And to me, that just disarms the whole question.




his own people

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:59 AM

Gerry, on what basis do you reject those passages?

More to the point, Gerry, on what basis do you reject my analysis of the song that we're actually supposed to be discussing? Telling me that 'Jack the Sailor' disagreed with my interpretation (before I'd posted it) doesn't really answer the question.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:32 AM

Gerry, on what basis do you reject those passages? Seems a little arbitrary. I would love to hear your reasoning. There have been some very good studies made of the ILLEGALITIES of that trial, according to Jewish law and tradition. It doesn't come across as a mistake by an ignroant author/transcriber.

As for days in the opening chapter of Genesis, why must we assume that it means a 24 hour period (or less) and not a way of describing a period of time? It can be used figuratively in English as well!

If you read closely, you'll notice that there is a lot about Christ being rejected by his own.

What evidence do you have that the Romans wanted to get rid of Jesus? They rarely took an interest in local religious affairs (take a look at Acts the chapters where Paul is held captive by the Romans, for instance), unless it threatened their rule. Where in the teachings of Christ in the Gospels do we see anything like that? Do read Matthew 22:21.
You could reject that, of course, but then I would be certain that you are trying to force your preconclusions on the evidence.

WHY did the Romans want to kill Jesus? Everything begins with a motive.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 09:45 AM

Jack the Sailor says that no one is disputing that Carter was referring to a faction of the Jews. Phil Edwards says he has proved that Carter was not referring to the Jews. Perhaps the two of you could settle this amongst yourselves and report back to us, so I can know just what the status of the discussion is.

In any event. Jack, I agree that Carter & the gospels were both referring to Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, and not to Jews of today or of the intervening years. While I am grateful for small favors, I am mindful of the historical consequences of the accusation that Jewish factions brought about the death of Jesus; and while I am aware, and extremely grateful, that no one on Mudcat would dream of visiting the (alleged) sins of some Jews of yesteryear on the Jews of today, I am also mindful of the fact that not everyone is as sensible as the members and guests of Mudcat. Antisemitism did not disappear in 1945, it just took a lower profile. When I see the old accusations raising their head, I respond.

Phil, I have never accused, and do not now accuse, you or anyone else who has contributed to this thread, or Sydney Carter himself, of hating Jews. By the way, did you know that when Arlo Guthrie was studying for his Bar-Mitzvah, he took lessons from Rabbi Kahane? This was, of course, before Kahane became notorious.

Howard, I do not accuse you or anyone here (or Sydney Carter) of antisemitism. I maintain that the belief that the Jews of the day brought about the death of Jesus is an antisemitic belief, but I make a distinction between holding an antisemitic belief and being an antisemite, in the same way that I make a distinction between lusting after your neighbor's wife and being an adulterer. To be an adulterer, it's not enough to think adulterous thoughts; you have to actually act on them. It's the same way with antisemitism.

Graham, I think I've already made my opinion of the scientific accuracy of Genesis quite clear in previous messages in this thread. But as you and Howard write, what it all comes down to is the question of the accuracy of the description of the last days of Jesus in the gospels. If it's really true that Jewish factions wanted Jesus dead & did whatever they had to to achieve that end, then the gospels are simply telling the truth, and can't be called antisemitic, and belief in them can't be called antisemitic belief. If the death of Jesus was desired, planned, and enforced by the Roman authorities with no Jewish input, then the passages in the gospels that say otherwise are an antisemitic lie, and the belief in those passages, an antisemitic belief (which, as I've said above, does not make the believer an antisemite).

So, what does the evidence say? Before I get to that, I want to repeat something else I wrote earlier in this discussion, namely, that (so far as I can see) rejecting these passages in the gospels does not mean rejecting the gospels in their entirety, does not mean rejecting the divinity of Jesus, the redemption of mankind through the suffering of Jesus ... in short, does not mean the rejection of Christianity. I am convinced that Christianity, which has thrived despite the modifications it needed to make to accomodate Galileo and Darwin and such, will not be in any way weakened by a change in its attitudes towards these passages in the gospels.

Now to the evidence. First of all, to the best of my knowledge, there is no independent evidence whatsoever of the events related in the passages of the gospels that implicate Jewish groups of the day in the death of Jesus. The case in favor of the gospels begins and ends with the gospels.

The case against the historical accuracy of the passages that implicate Jews is a long and complicated story. I'll give just a taste of it now, since it's nearly midnight here. The gospels say that the trial before the Sanhedrin took place on Passover. The case against says that this is an absurdity; it was against all Jewish law and custom for the Sanhedrin to convene on a holiday, and Passover was the most important holiday in the calendar. But then the Christian apologists (and that term does not carry any negative connotations) reply that that just proves how eager the Jewish leaders were to see Jesus dead, that they would break their own most sacred laws just to see Jesus on the cross. So it tends to be a matter of, if you believe the gospel accounts, then you can turn any evidence against into evidence for, much as you can argue that hundred million year old dinosaur fossils are really only a few thousand years old but God made them look much older.

I have to leave it there for now.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Grab
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 08:01 AM

Gerry, the Bible certainly isn't 100% accurate. But the Christian religion (a religion I don't follow, incidentally) is based on it, so your argument that claims anti-Semitism in Christian teaching needs to refer back to the Bible. (It's also worth noting that Genesis which you just mentioned is as relevant to Judaism as Christianity - so how accurate is the Torah then, the document which tells us that this is the direct word of Jahweh?)

Frankly I don't care if you don't share my view of what Jesus (assuming he existed) was trying to do. But you say:-

The fact remains that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus; the Romans, and not some or any or all Jews. To attribute the crucifixion to (some of) the Jews is an anti-semitic lie, the original anti-semitic lie on which all the others are built.

As has been asked before, where is your evidence that all records of Jesus's crucifixion (namely the first four books of the New Testament) are lies?

The fact remains that those records squarely put this in the hands of the local religious authorities, a situation which matches perfectly with records of how the Romans governed their empire. And the Bible does attribute it to "some of the Jews", it attributes it to "some Jews". Note the missing "the". Any implications that the Jewish people as a race or a religion are linked with Jesus's death are clearly anti-Semitic rubbish. But that certain specific Jewish individuals were responsible - where#'s your evidence that this wasn't the case?

Graham.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 06:51 AM

Is Piriton antihistamine ?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 03:40 AM

Gerry, saying that the Jewish religious authorities were involved in the crucifixion is not the same as saying that the whole Jewish people were responsible, which is how you seemed to be interpreting it.

The only documentary evidence, or at least the best known, is the gospels, which clearly implicate the Jewish authorities, and to a lesser extent the Jewish mob, in bringing Jesus to trial and execution. Of course, the Romans carried out the actual execution, but somewhat reluctantly, and it seems to have been a political rather than judicial decision by Pilate, who decided to sacrifice one troublemaker to smooth things over with the Jewish establishment. According to this version, both Romans and Jews were responsible.

I agree the gospels should be treated with caution as a historical text. But it is plausible - Jesus was undermining Jewish authority, not Roman. If you say that it is a lie that any Jews had any involvement at all, on what basis? Do you have any alternative evidence, or is it just wishful thinking?

If the "lie" is that all Jews should be held responsible for Jesus's death and that justifies what has been done to Jews down the ages, then of course I agree. But that is not what LOTD is saying.

Anti-semitism is a wicked thing. Can't you see that it's just as offensive to accuse people of it where it doesn't exist? Crying wolf doesn't help anyone.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 03:18 AM

Who would be upset at the possible desecration of the sabbath, other than (a faction of) the Jews?

Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach party was a faction of the Jews (of Israel). I think it was a stupid and evil organisation, and that Kahane very nearly deserved his fate. I hate Kahane-ites with a passion. Does that mean I hate Jews?

The holy people, in the stanza in question, are the ones who were upset at what they viewed as the desecration of the sabbath, and, in the stanza in question, they are the ones who crucified Jesus.

No, they're not, and I'll prove it to you (well, I can dream). Each of the five verses of LOTD consists of two couplets. Each of the couplets makes a separate statement, with the second line completing or amplifying the first one, e.g.

I danced in the morning when the world was begun,
And I danced in the moon and the stars and the sun,

I came down from heaven and I danced on the earth,
At Bethlehem I had my birth.

With me so far? Now, two of the couplets have a second line beginning with 'they', and here it's obvious that 'they' refers to the previous line:

I danced for the scribe and the pharisee,
But they would not dance and they wouldn't follow me.

I danced for the fishermen, for James and John -
They came with me and the dance went on.


However, three couplets begin with 'they':

They whipped and they stripped and they hung me on high,
And left me there on a Cross to die.

They buried my body and they thought I'd gone,
But I am the dance and I still go on.

They cut me down and I leapt up high,
I am the life that will never, never die;

"They buried my body" and "They cut me down" have no grammatical antecedents: 'they' is obviously meant generically -
'I was cut down'
'somebody buried my body and people thought I'd gone'

The 'they whipped' couplet can be read the same way - in fact, it only makes sense if you read it that way (every Sunday School child knows that it was the Romans who had Jesus stripped and scourged).

There is no reason to believe that 'they' refers to 'the holy people', and no reason whatsoever to believe that 'the holy people' refers to the Jews collectively. End of story.

If what you're saying is that somebody who already believed that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion, and was already predisposed to blame the Jews collectively for any crime carried out by Jews individually, could read the words of that song in such a way as to confirm those beliefs, then you've got a point. But any such person would already be an anti-semite, and would be able to find confirmation for their beliefs from a multitude of sources. I can think of good reasons to rewrite songs, but trying to avoid the risk of appearing to confirm the prejudices that a minority of people already hold isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

Mr. Dumpty. ;-)

No one is doubting or disputing that both the Gospels and Mr. Carter was referring to "a faction" of the Jews. I believe we are all in agreement on at least that much. What is troubling is that you somehow have included yourself among that faction when he and the Gospels were referring to a specific small "faction" from that time.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:58 PM

Timo, if you are saying that my argument is just as compelling as that of the gospels, well, that's good enough for me.

Paul, in the stanza in question, the holy people said it was a shame that Jesus danced on the sabbath. I'm sorry, I can't read that as a reference to the Anglicans who didn't stand up to fascism, etc.

Grab, assuming that the Bible is an accurate representation of events, it's blindingly obvious that the universe was created in six days. This is one of many reasons why some people suspect that the Bible is not an accurate representation of events.

"Jesus's aim as a fellow-Jew was to move Judaism from empty sophistry back to an appreciation of the basic principles behind the religion." Grab, I think the revered Jewish thinkers of the time, Hillel and Shammai and that crowd, had a pretty good appreciation of the basic principles behind the religion. I'm sorry, but I don't take the gospels as a credible source on the history of Jewish religious thought.

Howard, I did take the position that "the holy people" meant "the Jewish people," but I have elsewhere in this thread noted that there is still a problem if "the holy people" is interpreted as the priests, or as the Pharisees, or as the Jewish religious or political or legal authorities of the day. You'll note that Jerry also says that interpreting it to mean the priests does not remove the difficulty. The holy people, in the stanza in question, are the ones who were upset at what they viewed as the desecration of the sabbath, and, in the stanza in question, they are the ones who crucified Jesus. Who would be upset at the possible desecration of the sabbath, other than (a faction of) the Jews?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:56 PM

In that case we start afresh, and it's my turn to choose a subject. So here's a question for you.

Does anyone else think that "Lord of the Dance" is simply too cute to be sung in Church?

I remember liking the song well enough as a child when it was played on the radio. But then, while I was still quite young (Certainly I was under ten years old) being told it was supposed to be about Jesus and saying "No! It can't be! Jesus was a teacher! Not a dancer!"

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Dave MacKenzie
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:05 PM

It wasn't the high and mighty - they had no interest in the keeping of the Sabbath, just the avoidance of disturbances in Jerusalem during Passover. The point is that the people who objected were those who had a narrow interpretation of their faith which left no room for God.

Both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism started out as Pharasaic sects - the Sadducees and Romans (and Herod) governed Jerusalem, and after Massada, life for the rest of the Jewish people carried on pretty much as before, with a few less oppressors.

Anyway, some of the contributions to this thread remind me of Humpty Dumpty as reported by C Dodgson.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM

From what Gerry and Jerry are saying, there appears to be a genuine cultural difference here. They appear to be saying that Jewish people do not believe that Jews were complicit in the execution of Jesus. The Christian tradition (whether it's history or myth is besides the point) clearly says that they were complicit.

What Gerry and Jerry also appear to be saying is that, for Jews, the obvious conclusion is that the original words blame Jews for the death of Christ. For others, that is not an obvious interpretation. It seems to hang on the Jewish use of the words "the holy people" to mean the Jewish people, although it appears that this usage is unknown to most gentiles. Whilst a Jew might assume that meaning, therefore, it seems unlikely that others would, and the risk of taking an anti-semitic meaning therefore appears small.

I'm not a historian, and I don't know if there is alternative documentary evidence to support the first point of view. As for the second, the gospels were written some time after the event and were not independent or unbiased, nor were they intended to be. So who knows the real historical truth?

Jerry, I'm sorry you and others were made to feel uncomfortable by the original lyrics. But whilst the Revels are not explicitly Christian, by celebrating the Christmas season it is probable that there will be some Christian content, and it seems to me that anyone of other faiths, whether Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, should respond accordingly, just as I would if I were to attend an event with a Jewish theme, and which might contain elements which would make me uncomfortable. It is about respect for other cultures. You say the words make you uncomfortable - it makes me uncomfortable that these words, which I genuinely believe do not carry the message you think they do, should have to be altered to something which loses the true meaning of the original.

If you were attending a Christmas service, rather than a music event with Christian overtones, would you expect the Bible readings to be altered to remove those references to Jews in the trial of Jesus? I'm sure you would not. So why feel the need to change this song?

If you are saying that the Christian story is inherently anti-semitic then the difference may be irreconcilable. However I believe that most people of goodwill, whether with faith or not, should be able to overcome such institutional differences and focus on the things which unite us, and concentrate on fighting hatred where it genuinely manifests itself. I don't think it does in LOTD.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:47 PM

Et Tu weedrummer?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:42 PM

I just found this note in the basement:-

'It was us two Italian boys - Mario and Gino. We did it. theres a statute of limitations - you can't touch us!

JC sleeps with the fishes.

Arrivederci!'