Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

nice. go get a leffe blonde on tap.

oh wait....

:D

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

=p
someone's a smartass.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

That actually bugs me too.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

GRRREEEEEAAAAT.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...881152,00.html

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

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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.

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.

Re: The Holocaust-denying Bishop
 

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 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.