THIS BLOG HAS MOVED
Please join us at snowcoveredhills.com.
New posts on snowcoveredhills.com:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a personal blog. Nothing on this blog is an official statement from any organization I am or have ever been involved with. None of the posts have been approved by anyone else, and the opinions I express belong to me, not to any of my current or former employers. If you think otherwise...well...you're an idiot.
5 comments:
I think you should read it! And that way you can give your comments on the chapters!
One of my readers has a different suggestion.
Oh, c'mon Meg! First rule of journalism is, know thy enemy. Wait. Maybe that's the first rule of war. Anyway, the point, and I do have one, is that you can't in all honesty be critical if you don't read it. It's like criticizing politicians from an election you didn't vote in. Doing the act - reading, voting - earns you the right to be critical.
And it IS a lot shorter than the Hitler book, from the looks of things.
At 426 pages, the McLaren book is actually longer than the Hitler book (272 pages without the endnotes). However, it is smaller with larger type, and appears to be a much quicker read.
I dunno. The new Newsweek just arrived.
But the Hitler book has me thinking about something: Isn't "Holocaust" a word from the Old Testament that means an offering to God that is completely burned up and destroyed? Is this not a totally inappropriate word to use to describe what the Nazis were up to? Or am I incorrectly remembering my extensive Old Testament education?
You are not incorrectly remembering your [extensive - sic] Old Testament education. Hitler's intention was to provide a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" by total annihilation of the Jewish people. This is the connection with the "holocausts" of Old Testament religion.
Dad
Post a Comment