Jon Rowe pointed out that Eric Alterman linked to both his page and mine in a recent article. While I appreciate the link from such a prominent figure in the media, I'm at a loss to understand why he linked to me. It's a strange snippet from Alterman. First he takes a shot at Andrew Sullivan for being bothered that British Muslims were refusing to attend a ceremony in Europe noting the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Then he links to Jon's post about Daniel Lapin, a Rabbinic neo-conservative, appearing to endorse Christian anti-semitism. And then at the end he links to my post on Nazi analogies and the history of Christian anti-semitism and calls it "the original post", as though my post had started the whole discussion off. It's as though he just did a quick article about everything he's seen lately about Jews and Nazis, without drawing much of a connection between them. But my post was merely a reference in Jon's, and Jon's post was much more on topic than mine was. Ah well, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, right? I suspect the link from Alterman is at least partially responsible for the recent increase in readership. Since moving from mblog to my own domain, Dispatches from the Culture Wars has tripled in readership and doubled in the number of incoming links. Gotta like that.
Jon also has a great post up about the Prince Charles marriage, where he points out that the marriage has nothing to do with procreation or raising children, the things that the so cons tell us are the only legitimate reasons for marriage. It's about commitment, love and companionship. And no one would dream of making an argument that such reasons for marriage are illegitimate unless the people involved are of the same sex, which I think highlights the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage position.
- Log in to post comments
I think I can explain. I was confused as well and here is my only rational explaination. Sullivan originally linked my post. And my post links to yours. That's where Alterman got the info.
When he referred to yours as "the original," I think what he meant was: He was criticizing the AntiSemitism of Mel Gibson's movie. And he saw that as a larger part of a history of Christian AntiSemitism. I think he meant that your post describes the "original" history of Christian AntiSemitism in which the passion and Donahue et al. operate (and to which Lapin was giving aid & comfort).