Why Can't Anyone Have A Different Opinion About The Holocaust?

[Peter_J]

“He shouldn’t have even apologized. that was going too far. he has the right to believe or question anything he wants. Vatican is buckling under pressure of tyrants!”

Anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism unite at last. Story at 11.

 

[Lujack]

I started this thread so to let people understand that others can have a different opinion about the Holocaust. If someone says something, even the slightest, they are labeled an anti-semite.

Others can have a different opinion about the Holocaust. If they want to be respected, they should generally stick to the historically accepted numbers, which have a lower limit of around four million.

However, just as they are free to have their own opinion about the Holocausts, we are free to form our opinions about a person based upon the positions they hold.

People do not have to agree 100% the 6 million number unless the people are all written down by name, including the non-Jews who died in which there were plenty. Why not talk about them?

1. Bishop Williamson didn’t bother talking about the non-Jews in the Holocaust, so refutations of his “position” have no need to deal with those non-Jews who died.
2. The main centers of Holocaust remembrance, which are the camps themselves, do not deal only with the Jews killed. They do, however, devote a lot of space and time to the Jews, which is appropriate, because they were by far the largest group of victims, both proportionately and in terms of sheer numbers. Still, they do not skip over or denigrate the other victims. The same goes for the excellent Holocaust Museum in DC.

 

[GKC]

Why would I? YOU PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY CRUCIFYING HIM!

No. We did Stations tonight. That’s what crucifying means.

GKC

 

[yellowbird]

When I hear of someone denying the Holocaust and all the horrors that includes, I can never decide if he is just so VERY stupid or completly disgusting? Usually it’s a combination of the two.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That is mine.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

In theory, it’s not impossible for someone to hold the OP’s beliefs/reservations about the Holocaust in good faith, untainted by Jew-hatred. In theory, it’s not impossible that some man, somewhere, genuinely reads Hustler for the articles. In either case, though, the real-world precedents are negligible or nonexistent, and someone who claims to be the exception has earned precious little benefit of the doubt.

 

[LutheranDK]

Jews are not actually a separate race, as someone said. Most Jewish people I know belong to the Caucasian race, with many having Semitic features to one extent or another. There are also a few African and Asian Jews.

Quite simply not true. “Jew” is an ethnic term, just as much as “Danish”, “German”, etc. is.

 

[LRThunder]

Oh really?What about those women who "received"Holy Orders?Are they priests,forever?They were "ordained"by a Bishop too.If this fool ever occupies a Bishophric I’ll eat his mitre.And his crook.

Apples and oranges. Women cannot be validly ordained. Bishop Williamson’s consecration as a bishop was valid, but illicit. There is a difference.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Quite simply not true. “Jew” is an ethnic term, just as much as “Danish”, “German”, etc. is.

The term “ethnic” is not a narrow definition. From Dictionary.com:

Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

Judaism is a religion, an ethic, Semite is a commonality as it relates to people descended from Shem. As Arabs are Semites, they too are of the Judaic ethnic group, but as we well know not of the Judaic ethic as they have a distinct and separate religion but the same ancestry.

The underlying aspect is that Holocaust denial is the modus operandi of the anti-Semite.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The term “ethnic” is not a narrow definition. From Dictionary.com:

Judaism is a religion, an ethic, Semite is a commonality as it relates to people descended from Shem. As Arabs are Semites, they too are of the Judaic ethnic group, but as we well know not of the Judaic ethic as they have a distinct and separate religion but the same ancestry.

The underlying aspect is that Holocaust denial is the modus operandi of the anti-Semite.

Aren’t Palestinians Semites, or “Semites”, or Afro-Asians, too ?​

 

[Peter_J]

To be fair, the SSPX bishops have written some good stuff too. For example, have you ever read Bishop Williamson’s commentary on The Sound of Music? It’s possibly more entertaining than the movie itself.

 

[Valke2]

Aren’t Palestinians Semites, or “Semites”, or Afro-Asians, too ?​

The actual definition of semite covers a lot more than a particular set of Jews. But the invention of the term “antisemite” was grounded in the motive of putting a more scientific spin on jew hatred.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

No. We did Stations tonight. That’s what crucifying means.

GKC

Crucifying means 2,000 years ago. Jesus was crucified also, by whom? I need not go any further.

 

[GKC]

Crucifying means 2,000 years ago. Jesus was crucified also, by whom? I need not go any further.

The Romans, of course.

If crucifying means 2000 years ago, why use the image for the bishop?

And I bet a shekel you will go further.

GKC

 

[Ghoti]

Crucifying means 2,000 years ago. Jesus was crucified also, by whom? I need not go any further.

By Romans.

 

[GKC]

To be fair, the SSPX bishops have written some good stuff too. For example, have you ever read Bishop Williamson’s commentary on The Sound of Music? It’s possibly more entertaining than the movie itself.

Ah, well. At least he mentions Vincent McNabb, one of my favorite oddites of the '20s and '30s.

Actually sounds like he hadn’t read Maria’s book. That seems unlikely.

GKC

 

[Valke2]

Crucifying means 2,000 years ago. Jesus was crucified also, by whom? I need not go any further.

Do you really still carry anger against the Romans after all this time? And what does the Romans killing of Jesus have to do with holocaust denial?

 

[Peter_J]

Crucifying means 2,000 years ago. Jesus was crucified also, by whom? I need not go any further.

Like I said to Dauphin, there’s definitely such a thing as too much freedom of speech.

 

[ralphinal]

Do you really still carry anger against the Romans after all this time? And what does the Romans killing of Jesus have to do with holocaust denial?

It is a great source of shame to me that my Italian ancestors had a hand in it

 

[Valke2]

I think it was the Roman controlled media that convinced the world the Jew had anything to do with the death of Jesus.

 

[yellowbird]

It was God’s plan of salvation for mankind that Jesus was crucified. Why blame the Romans? Or the Jews? Or anyone? It was God’s will. Are you going to blame Him? I think not.