The Holocaust-denying Bishop

[Sean]

There's an interesting interview (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606323,00.html) out with the Catholic Bishop, Richard Williamson, whose excommunication over Holocaust denial was just repealed by the Pope. It's no coincidence that his name happens to be "Dick" - the guy seriously sounds like an ignorant dick to me, trying to justify anti-semitism with quotes from scripture and such:

SPIEGEL: Your position on Judaism is consistently anti-Semitic.

Williamson: St. Paul put it this way: The Jews are beloved for the sake of Our Father, but our enemies for the sake of the gospel.

Way to go, Bishop! :rolleyes:

[BeautifulBurnout]

I was pretty stunned when this happened. My understanding is that he hasn't retained his Bishop status, although I may be wrong.

I realise the Catholic Church is concerned about factionalisation, but they shouldn't be giving any kind of platform to anti-semitism. Not good. :(

[myrrh]

To deny the Holocaust is pretty stupid all around.

However, the parts on calling him anti-Semitic doesn't jive with me. Why is he called anti-Semitic when he is following what the gospels say? To say this, then all Christians are anti-Semitic- which sounds ever dumber since Jesus was a Jew! The Jews denied the Jesus was the Messiah, there is no arguing this. Therefore, when you come down to it, they are enemies to the gospel, just like Paul said.

I have serious issues with the word anti-Semitic because it is used today as a term for anyone who criticizes anything Jewish or Israeli.

As a side note, I don't believe that Christianity today is the religion taught by Jesus. Rather it is the doctrine created by Paul. Nor do I advocate what Paul says anywhere in the New Testament, as he went against all the Disciples with his thoughts and ideas. A fact which is interesting, since who would know more about what Jesus taught then the actual people who were with him while he preached. However, from the perspective of a Catholic Bishop, who uses the gospel as his code of belief, then there is no denying that Williamson is correct with his belief in this regard (not the belief of denying the Holocaust).

[//\/\/]

"As a side note, I don't believe that Christianity today is the religion taught by Jesus. Rather it is the doctrine created by Paul."

Very much in agreement with that.

[Deckard]

"If I realize that I have made an error, I will apologize."

The question is, just what will it take for him to realise he's made an error?

[//\/\/]

The fact that he hasn't realized his error speaks volumes... ...for his ignorance and arrogance.

[Strangelet]

I have serious issues with the word anti-Semitic because it is used today as a term for anyone who criticizes anything Jewish or Israeli.


I agree when it comes to israel's foreign policy, or jewish americans hijacking my own country's foreign policy. I *strongly* disagree that it isn't disgustingly hateful to point to an ethnic group and claim my religion sayz you're evil. i don't know how you could be more anti semitic.

[bryantm3]

their priorities are out of place. i'm not saying that less important issues aren't valid, but honestly, we need to focus on more pressing issues affecting our own species before we start fretting about canines.

[//\/\/]

I have serious issues with the word anti-Semitic because it is used today as a term for anyone who criticizes anything Jewish or Israeli.

but in the context of this debate, holocaust denial is an anti-semitic tool...

[Sean]

To deny the Holocaust is pretty stupid all around.

However, the parts on calling him anti-Semitic doesn't jive with me. Why is he called anti-Semitic when he is following what the gospels say?It strikes me that he's not actually "following what the gospels say" as much as he is trying to use the gospel to justify his anti-semitic views. That's why he's called anti-semitic.

I have serious issues with the word anti-Semitic because it is used today as a term for anyone who criticizes anything Jewish or Israeli. I'm curious why you have a particular problem with the overuse of the charge of anti-semitism. I would say that there are many terms being overused these days - sexist, racist, homophobe - all applied to people far too freely over issues that often aren't actually rooted in sexism, racism, or homophobia. Do you feel that labels like these are over-used as well, or do you mainly just feel that way about "anti-semitism"?

[myrrh]

I want to reply to this, but I have to fly to Brussels, and will be back in a few days.

[Strangelet]

I want to reply to this, but I have to fly to Brussels, and will be back in a few days.

nice. go get a leffe blonde on tap.

oh wait....

:D

[myrrh]

It strikes me that he's not actually "following what the gospels say" as much as he is trying to use the gospel to justify his anti-semitic views. That's why he's called anti-semitic.

I'm curious why you have a particular problem with the overuse of the charge of anti-semitism. I would say that there are many terms being overused these days - sexist, racist, homophobe - all applied to people far too freely over issues that often aren't actually rooted in sexism, racism, or homophobia. Do you feel that labels like these are over-used as well, or do you mainly just feel that way about "anti-semitism"?


To be honest, I didn't think that he was using the gospel like you say, from just reading that article. However, now that you mentioned it can be taken to appear that way. Or we can read into it that way. If he is doing this, then I agree with you.

I have a problem with the overuse of a lot words, like you say. The particular reason for my dislike of term anti-semitic is that it is now used solely for the Jews and Israel. When in fact, the Semitic people consist of much larger category then just Jews.

And then there is another issue, that being that Jews are the only people who are classified as a race by their religion. Therefor, if one was to criticize Judaism, then are often called anti-semitic. When in reality, they may have nothing wrong with people who are Semitic. This leads into what Strangelet said:

"I *strongly* disagree that it isn't disgustingly hateful to point to an ethnic group and claim my religion sayz you're evil. i don't know how you could be more anti semitic."

If there is a religion that says such a thing, then I agree with you. However, if a religion says "because these people do x, y, z... they are evil". I have no issues with this. But we can't use this logic against Jews because, like I said, they are the only group of people who are classified as an ethnic group based upon their belief, instead of their origins.

[bryantm3]

their priorities are out of place. i'm not saying that less important issues aren't valid, but honestly, we need to focus on more pressing issues affecting our own species before we start fretting about canines.

=p
someone's a smartass.

[Sean]

I have a problem with the overuse of a lot words, like you say. The particular reason for my dislike of term anti-semitic is that it is now used solely for the Jews and Israel. When in fact, the Semitic people consist of much larger category then just Jews.That actually bugs me too.

[Deckard]

I don't have a problem with the "semitic==Jewish" thing to be honest.

The word "anti-semitism" has been firmly established in its Jewish sense for so long now - and for obvious reasons - that I'm happy to accept it as just another word having evolved to something else, if only as a dominant meaning.

IN my experience, when anyone talks about anti-Semitism and someone decides to make the point that Semitism refers to an ethnicity broader than just Jewish, for some reason it always sounds like a tactic to downplay anti-Jewish sentiment. Sometimes it becomes obvious that's exactly what it is. Other times, it's not.

On the other hand, I do completely agree with the way the charge of "anti-Semitism" (or variations thereof, like sarcastically interjecting with "it's the joooooooooz") is a pathetic, cowardly way to respond to criticism of Israel, whether it's government foreign policy or even the fact and manner of its very inception.

Sure, sexist, racist, and homophobe are also over-used, but I think few issues have that combination of being as highly charged and current as Israel/Palestine AND having something as appalling as the Holocaust underpinning it. That's what makes the charge all the more potent and frustrating, and all the more cowardly when deliberately used inappropriately to 'win' an argument.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

GRRREEEEEAAAAT.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1881152,00.html

I'm all po, I'm gonna be in purgatory forever.

[Strangelet]

That actually bugs me too.


Yeah, an exception for me is "americans". I know that people from north, central, south america bristle at people from the united states monopolizing the the word for themselves. And i'm really sympathetic. Its just that they also have a really cool country name too. So they can be called things like canadians, bolivians, brazillians, etc. Are we expected to be known as united-statesians? Seriously, throw us a bone.

[Strangelet]

I know you guys think i'm some scummy tin foil hat anti semite the way I occasionally carry on about the israeli agenda in american politics but just look at this crap.


New York Jewish leaders like New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman aren’t too happy about the pressure the secretary of state has been putting on Israel and say she shouldn’t be too quick to help Hamas.
"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS News. (http://wcbstv.com/national/hillary.clinton.israel.2.945238.html) "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."

So, what are they so upset about? Well, not only will Clinton soon announce that the States will give the Palestinians $900 million (http://www.wowowow.com/post/hillary-clinton-try-revive-middle-east-peace-efforts-us-give-900m-gaza-218307) in aid, but this week she has reportedly been chiding Israel for not getting humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip fast enough. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066821.html) that senior Clinton aides say the issue will be highly contested on the secretary’s trip to Israel next Tuesday.
http://www.wowowow.com/post/hillary-clinton-angry-jewish-israel-gaza-222225 (http://www.wowowow.com/post/hillary-clinton-angry-jewish-israel-gaza-222225)

To reemphasize, Hillary is guilty of making sure the palestinians get their aid, not of criticizing the recent war, or any of the deaths. Just getting the stupid aid to the survivors.

Janie, you talked about the parallels between the IRA and hamas. I think its a good parallel. Because the IRA had rich irish americans in new england where channeling political and financial support to the IRA, so are extremist jewish americans towards Israel, except they are a lot more powerful, coming in the form of AEI, richard perle, paul wolfowitz, david frumm, and AIPAC. And in either case, its extremely debatable whether the general irish and israeli nationals benefited, or even agreed with their american cause makers.

[Sean]

I just read an article about this story about Clinton too. Seems kind of strange - even malicious - to be angry over the idea of getting aid to the civilian population that's suffered the effects of war.

And to bring it back to the Holocaust-denying Bishop, he's just apologized to those he may have offended - an offering that came up short in the eyes of the Vatican (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51Q2J720090227) and pretty much everyone he's offended with his denial of gas chambers and the 6 million deaths estimate.

British Bishop Richard Williamson, who was ordered to leave Argentina and is now in his homeland, on Thursday issued a statement in which he said, "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize."

Chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson's statement "does not seem to respect the conditions" set forth by the Vatican on February 4, when it ordered him to "in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions" regarding the Holocaust.

Williamson told Swedish television in an interview broadcast on January 21, "I believe there were no gas chambers." He said no more than 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, rather than the 6 million accepted by most historians.

In his statement on Thursday, Williamson said, "I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."

So he doesn't recant his statements or say that he's learned differently since he made them - just that he's sorry if his statements offended anyone. Pretty weak.

[Strangelet]

So he doesn't recant his statements or say that he's learned differently since he made them - just that he's sorry if his statements offended anyone. Pretty weak.

I read a book of musical history recently that talked about the early 20th century. It really opened my eyes to just how ugly anti-semitism got and what horrors ensued. I mean obviously I knew about the atrocities from junior high history class. But you put it in your mind that these were just the actions of some crazy military and political leaders getting some boon from a scape goat game. Nope. When you read about the actual culture of europe (viz. music, for example) at the time, the hate gets appallingly deep and dyed in the wool.

Which is why its so important to to keep ass clowns like this guy in check.

[Strangelet]

wondering what uk dirts think about this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYqig45n1VQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Fbritish-mp-george-galloway-barred-from-entering-canada%2F&feature=player_embedded


At face value, I see a lot wrong with this, and find it indicative of what I've been talking about, regarding the ridiculously hypersenstitive and overbearing influence of the jewish lobby. But then this guy does kind of seem shady ???

[Strangelet]

then there's this. just search "freeman" on andrew sullivan (http://www.theatlantic.com/fs/esearch.php?words=freeman&source=sullivan&searchbutton.x=0&searchbutton.y=0&searchbutton=GO) and you'll have a whole narrative of a smear campaign against a minor government position candidate who openly criticized israel.


There are a couple of things worth noting about this minor, yet major, Washington spat. The first is that the MSM has barely covered it as a news story, and the entire debate occurred in the blogosphere. I don't know why. But that would be a very useful line of inquiry for a media journalist.
The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am.



The blackballing of Freeman is also about the intimidation of Blair. My concern remains that many of the same people that led us into the groupthink that gave us the worst intelligence blunder in American history are now dictating who gets to review intelligence for the next historic analysis: on Iran. I realized my mistake and have tried to adjust to allow for it. Others have dug in more deeply.



This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. Even when the horrifying Gaza assault was going on, it became evidence of anti-Semitism to find the civilian casualties morally repellent and the siege itself counter-productive. This kind of intimidation must end.


and from evil, vile, horrible freeman himself

Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess. Israel and the Palestinians, in particular, are caught up in an endless cycle of reprisal and retaliation that guarantees the perpetuation of conflict in which levels of mutual atrocities continue to escalate. As a result, each generation of Israelis and Palestinians has accumulated new reasons to loathe the behavior of the other, and each generation of Arabs has detested Israel with more passion than its predecessor. This is not how peace is made. Here, too, a break with the past and a change in course are clearly in order.


so there you have it. us "anti-semites" are gaining in numbers and voice.

[Strangelet]

wow. i don't know much about this galloway guy, but holy fuck this is impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk&feature=related

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Impressive, yes, but I would not be shocked if nothing comes of it.

Come on, it's from 2005.

[BeautifulBurnout]

George Galloway rocks. I may not agree with everything he says, but he has the cojones to take people to task, that's for sure. He ripped the US Senate Committee a new asshole that day.

BTW - is there any reason why this is on the holocaust-denying Bishop thread? Just askin' :)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

...BTW - is there any reason why this is on the holocaust-denying Bishop thread? Just askin' :)


You cannot be serious.

[Strangelet]

BTW - is there any reason why this is on the holocaust-denying Bishop thread? Just askin' :)

I kind of thought it was distasteful to start a Jewz are ruling our Asses!!! :mad::mad::mad: !!! thread, or anything that could be construed as such. But then having this conversation tie in to a holocaust denying bishop is just as unsavory, innit? feel free to move it to another thread entitled something like "Rex's desperate attempt to show its possible/necessary to criticize Israel outside of hate and racism."

[BeautifulBurnout]

Soz chaps - saw the link to Galloway without reading the previous post and thought it was uniquely about Galloway's barring from Canada without making the connection.

I agree that, in general, it is really difficult to criticise Israel or, for that matter, the Jewish lobby without being accused of being anti-semitic. So we might as well keep it under the same topic heading I guess.

I think what I find quite bizarre is that it is perfectly acceptable for US, British or Canadian citizens to go and fight for the IDF with nary and eyebrow raised - like this Weinstein guy from Canada - yet any Brit/American/Canadian who went to Afghanistan in 2001 is arrested as a traitor and a terrorist. Double standards abound. Ah well.

[Strangelet]

I think what I find quite bizarre is that it is perfectly acceptable for US, British or Canadian citizens to go and fight for the IDF with nary and eyebrow raised - like this Weinstein guy from Canada - yet any Brit/American/Canadian who went to Afghanistan in 2001 is arrested as a traitor and a terrorist. Double standards abound. Ah well.

yes exactly. And as chilling as it is, and a destructive to the free market of ideas as it is, I don't think Canada's move comes from a nefarious right wing conspiracy, as much as it does from their religion of tolerance. I love Canada, but placing tolerance above critical thinking is something that unfortunately tends to happen up there.

[Strangelet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkgMBqJ3deY

Galloway speaking at columbia on monday.... so, like, the very thing the canadian government deemed a threat to their national security. :rolleyes:. ending quote "its time for the united states to act in the interest of the united states."