Answer to a Reader

I received multipe emails in my inbox from a reader requesting answers to some questions he had about a post of mine. He couldn't tell me which post, and in my opinion the emails were written in too familiar a manner (he never asked me on my blog if he could email me and he did not use my blog name.)

I have no idea to which post he was referring, and did not appreciate the bombardment of emails. After the last one, instead of answering him--which I already had, once--a bit angrily, I might add--I decided I'd just post my email response here. Please feel free to comment. (Names have been changed to protect the guilty.)

Dear Neville,

I will respond to your points numerically: where my point-response number will correspond to your point number (so the numbers may not be in numerical order)

1) I owe you an apology as far as my CAPS accusation goes: upon reviewing your email I see that you did not type in caps, so please forgive me for that. This last missive of yours seems to be in bold, but it could be a function of the font size. No matter, I am sorry for the accusation.

3) Re: multiple emails: The protocol is first to comment on the actual post, and request permission to send an email to the author's email address. And then, to send one (1) email, and politely wait until the recipient responds. If he or she does not, it is because perhaps they choose not to. If you are not certain, you may send another polite email, reminding the recipient of your first correspondence--and that is it; no bombardment, no repetitious emails should be sent. This is common courtesy (which apparently is not so common, same as common sense).

4) There is no way for me to know whether "Neville" is your real name, or "Virgil" or "William" or " Tex," for that matter. The fact that you signed your name "Neville" means nothing to me, as I do not know you. Initially, you need to address me as Lady-Light (this is why you need to--at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum--comment on the original site, thank you)

I have listened to the MP3 files which you sent as attachments to your emails. What was your point? I agree with what Robert Spencer says about Islam. He doesn’t say much in the files you sent about the Crusades vis-à-vis the Jews. In fact, the Crusaders massacred a total of approximately 5,000 Jews in France and Germany--specifically in Lorraine, Mainz, Worms, Cologne, etc.--and in the Land of Israel, where the Jews had to retreat to synagogues in the Jewish Quarter, which were subsequently set on fire with them inside. Look it up.

You also wrote (copied here exactly as written by you):

You referred to Christianity as Shtuyot (nonsense) you then raised the Crusades as another objection but gave no grounds for either point. I suspect that both statements are based on uninformed prejudice as most statements of this type are and that you were probably expecting a gang of sympathisers to tag along and massage these prejudices for you. I take it that your ignoring me, then following up with a bullying and abrasive email is some sort of defensive mechanism?

I see, Neville, that you have discovered on your own the meaning of “shtuyot.” Good for you. I am curious, though: where did you find the translation?

Here we come to the reason why one needs to comment on the post. “You referred to Christianity as Shtuyot.” Where? In which post? In what context? “You…raised the Crusades as another objection…etc.” Not knowing what I wrote and in what context, I cannot address your question. Raised the Crusades as an objection to what? Grounds for what?

“Gang of sympathizers?’ Not at all. I write my opinion, and if a commenter disagrees, that is his or her prerogative, and his or her opinion on what I wrote, and it is exactly what discourse is all about. I also expect the comment to be respectful. Again, out of context, I cannot respond to a question.

“Prejudices?” We all have prejudices, Neville, some we are not even aware of…that is the nature of living in communities and being brought up in cultural and social groups, as opposed to being hatched out of an egg and living a hermetic life on an island in the middle of an ocean somewhere.

You wrote (again, exactly as written):

“It takes at least two protagonists to make a war; Actually, that’s not true. It only takes one: One side who can fabricate an excuse to attack the other, e.g.,

a) The Arabs, in attacking Israel over and over again and threatening to destroy them, claiming that the Jews "stole their land" and have "no right to the land" (learn your history: there was never a sovereign nation called 'Palestine,' and historical and archeological records prove that Jews lived there from thousands of years ago, and that there was always a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel), and

b) Did it take two “protagonists,” as you put it-- to start World War II? Did the U.S. attack Japan first? And were the Jews “guilty” of “attacking” the Nazis? Seems to me, it was the other way around.

c) Did the Jews or Israel ever threaten Iran? If not, then why is Iran's president Ahmadinejad threatening to destroy the State of Israel?

What were the Jews “guilty” of to deserve being massacred by the Crusaders? Being Jews? The Land of Israel was under Muslim rule at the time.

2) You asked two questions, which I could not specifically answer because I do not know to what post you are referring. However, I can answer generally, that the Church (yes, the Catholic Church) did not apologize specifically for the Crusades, although Pope John Paul II in his Request for Pardon (March 12, 2000) apologized in general for “misdeeds.” He did not apologize for the Crusades, and here is one theory why by Dr. Helen Nicholson of Cardiff University, Crusades scholar:

Some argue that the Church has not only declined to apologize for the crusades, but that it never will. Cambridge historian Jonathan Riley-Smith has argued that the Church will never apologize for the crusades because it cannot do so theologically. He notes, "The dilemma facing the Church, therefore, is clear. If contrition is to be expressed for the principle of crusading, as opposed to abuses committed during Crusades, either the Church can no longer be regarded as a reliable moral teacher or ethics are relative. Both conclusions are unacceptable, which is why no "apology" for the Crusades will ever be forthcoming..."(3)

In conclusion, in the future I would be happy to respond to a comment on the blog on which the comment is about, but I cannot do so out of context. I also expect common courtesy from my readers, which include using my blog name when commenting, and requesting to send an email to me, or sending one (and only one) rather than bombarding me with multiples (at last count, you sent thirteen).

Thank you for sending the photo of the Hubble Space Telescope, however; that was really cool (although seeing a Star of David there is somewhat of a stretch…)

Thank you,

Lady-Light

---