Williamson fined $18,000 over Holocaust remarks [CN-USA]

[Yellow_Belle]

Bold is mine.

Actually, Bishop Williamson did say that he believes that there were no gas chambers. He did deny something that everyone else agrees is real. Can and should the state penalize him for saying this in another country? I have a problem with that.

We want the law to protect truth. But we don’t want laws that have such long arms that they invade the sovereignty of other nations. From what I understood this interview did not take place in Germany or am I mistaken?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The interview took place in Regensburg; it was made by a Swedish TV company. According to this Williamson tried to stop it being shown in Germany, which seems to indicate that he knew what he said was against the law in Germany. So he knew the consequences of his words. I can’t say that I have much in the way of sympathy for him. Or respect.

 

[JReducation]

OK, so I regress to a previous post where I said that the good bishop should have kept his MOUTH SHUT. It’s not like this is a major point of morality, social justice or doctrine where one has no choice but to be a martyr.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

Bold is mine.

Actually, Bishop Williamson did say that he believes that there were no gas chambers. He did deny something that everyone else agrees is real. Can and should the state penalize him for saying this in another country? I have a problem with that.

We want the law to protect truth. But we don’t want laws that have such long arms that they invade the sovereignty of other nations. From what I understood this interview did not take place in Germany or am I mistaken?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do not want the laws to protect the truth. This is a sure-fire way to enforcement of an official version of the truth.
What I would want is the laws to protect the right to say anything…

Governments all have an agenda. We just do not want to entrust the truth to governments.

I agree with you btw that even as we understand that the bishop is wrong, we should not judge him to be an anti-semitic bigot. I see his views coming more from a paranoid theology which explains the relative success of Jews as being an the working of the devil. there is a resentment at the bottom of this, as well as a shaken faith. After all, it is disconcerting to Catholic faith that the Jews, who knew the teachings of their Torah the best, rejected Jesus. Paul even had a problem with this.

Ironically, the attempts to silence these voices in effect confirm their paranoias, and as a result their beliefs are being spread now throughout the ME as being legitimate. Every court case and every fines confirms the belief that the Jews really do control the agenda.

Teh best antidote to the ranting of fools is to allow them to rant.

This is a theological problem that runs deeps within Christianity. But it is not a problem in the end for the law. It is a problem for Christian theologians to counter this paranoid theology based on resentment and fear with the good theology and truth.

 

[JReducation]

I do not want the laws to protect the truth. This is a sure-fire way to enforcement of an official version of the truth.
What I would want is the laws to protect the right to say anything…

Governments all have an agenda. We just do not want to entrust the truth to governments.

I agree with you btw that even as we understand that the bishop is wrong, we should not judge him to be an anti-semitic bigot. I see his views coming more from a paranoid theology which explains the relative success of Jews as being an the working of the devil. there is a resentment at the bottom of this, as well as a shaken faith. After all, it is disconcerting to Catholic faith that the Jews, who knew the teachings of their Torah the best, rejected Jesus. Paul even had a problem with this.

Ironically, the attempts to silence these voices in effect confirm their paranoias, and as a result their beliefs are being spread now throughout the ME as being legitimate. Every court case and every fines confirms the belief that the Jews really do control the agenda.

Teh best antidote to the ranting of fools is to allow them to rant.

This is a theological problem that runs deeps within Christianity. But it is not a problem in the end for the law. It is a problem for Christian theologians to counter this paranoid theology based on resentment and fear with the good theology and truth.

This is not a theological position. The Shoah is not a matter of theology. It’s an historical event. In any case, it is a pastoral concern for the Catholic Church. As Catholics it is the moral obligation of the laity to ensure that all forms of genocide are condemned and that human rights are protected, regardless of a person’s faith, ethnic background, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or political affiliation.

I say that this is the role of the laity, because the role of government belongs to the laity. Catholics lay people must permeat the political arena to ensrue that laws protect people. The role of the hierarchy is to define the moral and theological principals that should drive governments. But the legislative implementation of those theological and moral principals belongs to the laity in submission to the teachings of the Church. Finally, the role of men and women religious is to live the Gospel in the midst of the world for the laity to see how Christian life should be lived and make it their own. The three, laity, clergy and religious compliment each other.

I do want to see government protect truth and protect people from the abuse of free speech. Any statement that undermines human dignity has no place in the public arena.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chosen_people]

Indeed Bishop Williamson (and his defenders here) are merely carrying on that special tradition of love and understanding as expressed in the past by Father Coughlin and Father Fahey and Father Feeney (to name just a few).

 

[pnewton]

We want the law to protect truth. But we don’t want laws that have such long arms that they invade the sovereignty of other nations. From what I understood this interview did not take place in Germany or am I mistaken?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do not want the laws to protect the truth.

First, the interview did occur in Germany, even though it was for Swedish television.

I understand the need to safe guard Truth. I do not think this is best accomplished by restrictions on speech, but rather quite the opposite. When government starts trying to control speech it will be truth that loses. This has been shown time and time again (and that’s just in Germany). Let us say hypothetically (ALERT: this is only hypothetical speculation; a though experiement) that evidence came to light that the gas chambers were not used (they were deemed too expense, too slow or some other expedient reason). Then this new evidence would be forever lost, or at least slowed down. In this case a truth would be impeded by this law from coming to light.

I am not even going to go down the road of possible conspiracy or cover-up, lest it prove offensive, except to say that any law to protect the truth will only protect the truth as defined by that law. As we all know, sometimes bad laws are passed. Thus, a law could as easily protect a lie as it does the truth.

Most states already have laws that protect against speech that incites or disturbs the peace. Expanding this must be done cautiously and must not cross the line into the arena of ideas. A benevolent totalitarian government is always one leader away from, in the case of Germany, where it was before.

 

[Aramis]

GENTLEBEINGS!

Father Bishop Williamson, suspended tho’ he is, and despite his many voiced examples of prejudice, is still a Catholic Bishop.

Unless/until he’s excommunicated again, please show the due respect for the bishopric; he might be one of the worst examples of a bishop we have walking, but it’s still inappropriate to refere to him by last name alone.

Fr. Williamson, Fr. Bishop Williamson, Bishop Williamson, Most Rev. Williamson, Bp Williamson, Rev. Williamson… take your pick… but forum rules and general decency require appropriate use of proper title.

I’m not a mod here… (I am on another BBS…) but it’s just really not appropriate.

 

[pnewton]

but forum rules and general decency require appropriate use of proper title.

Where? I have been here for five years and have missed this rule. I have never seen it enforced or even mentioned by a moderator.

 

[Aramis]

Where? I have been here for five years and have missed this rule. I have never seen it enforced or even mentioned by a moderator.

It’s been enforced in the EC forums.

 

[pnewton]

It’s been enforced in the EC forums.

Again, do you know where this rule is? I know President Obama is frequently referred to by his last name and no moderator has intervened. Maybe it is an EC specific rule that was needed for a time to temper some controversy. If so, then it wouldn’t apply elsewhere.

You might want to wait and see if Aramis can find this rule. It may not be a rule.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Actually, Bishop Williamson did say that he believes that there were no gas chambers. He did deny something that everyone else agrees is real.

Not everyone agrees that Jews were gassed.

From what I understood this interview did not take place in Germany or am I mistaken?

It took place in Germany.

 

[chosen_people]

Not everyone agrees that Jews were gassed.

.

Well the Germans think the Jews were gassed but what do they know.

Some people believe that Jews kill little Christian babies to make Matzah. Some people believe that the Jews control all the money and the media and the power in the world. The same people also believe that the Jews weren’t murdered in the Shoah but are in fact hiding out at the secret Elders of Zion headquarters. We have a special name for them. Ironically, the same sort of people who don’t believe that the Jews were gassed are exactly the same sort of people that gassed the Jews. Of course not all the Jews were gassed. The Jews of Jedwabne Poland in July 1941 were not gassed but they died non the less. The Jews killed in Kielce in July 1946 were not gassed but they are no less dead. We know who killed them and what killed them. So we know why countries pass laws that protect them from people like Bishop Williamson. We also know who wants to defend his hateful lies and why.

 

[chosen_people]

A prime example of the absurd misapplication of that law. Bishop Williamson is right to question the use of gas chambers and the total death toll of Jews as the historical evidence shows that the method and figures we’re forced to accept today are likely inaccurate. For example, the estimation of 6 million Jews murdered is most definitely wrong because it is the product of simply estimating the number of Jews in Nazi controlled territory before and after the war and erroneously concluding that the difference = the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis. It completely omits the large numbers of Jews who fled Nazi controlled territory and never returned. Questioning the scope of an event is in no way equivalent to denying it.

Well yes - it’s not like the Nazi’s kept meticulous records. Maybe all these million of Jews fled to “no Jews are too many Jews” Canada. Maybe they all fled to the United States on board the St. Louis. Maybe the British rescinded the White Paper and lived up to their mandate obligations. I know I’m excited to find out that all those relatives I thought long dead are alive and well and staying with their grandchildren in Miami Beach. I think we are truly blessed that we have so many “historians” and “experts” on this forum regarding the Shoah to correct all those fallacies spread by the International Jewish conspiracy to get sympathy.

 

[Coleski]

Would this post exist if Bishop Williamson questioned the numbers of the Armenian genocide?

 

[chosen_people]

Would this post exist if Bishop Williamson questioned the numbers of the Armenian genocide?

Until now we only know that Bishop Williamson and his “supporters” question well recorded historical facts involving Jews. Now we know that he and his friends are anti-Semites but we have yet to find out whether their “historical expertise” extends to the Turkish massacre of the Armenians.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

GENTLEBEINGS!

Father Bishop Williamson, suspended tho’ he is, and despite his many voiced examples of prejudice, is still a Catholic Bishop.

Unless/until he’s excommunicated again, please show the due respect for the bishopric; he might be one of the worst examples of a bishop we have walking, but it’s still inappropriate to refere to him by last name alone.

Fr. Williamson, Fr. Bishop Williamson, Bishop Williamson, Most Rev. Williamson, Bp Williamson, Rev. Williamson… take your pick… but forum rules and general decency require appropriate use of proper title.

I’m not a mod here… (I am on another BBS…) but it’s just really not appropriate.

I took my cue from the title of the thread, but frankly, I fail to see what the fuss is about calling someone by their last name when referring to them on a public forum. How does it show a lack of respect? Were I to meet the bishop, I would have no problem addressing him by his title. THAT is general decency and proper protocol.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that we have to be careful here. The issue is not whether it was six-million or six-hundred thousand or whether it was death by gas chamber or death by hanging. The issue is that when someone tries to exterminate a population, it is morally reprehensible. Hitler killed Jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded, anyone who defied him, including Catholics. He also introduced forced abortions in Germany and other Nazi territories. The Nazi regime did some horrible thing.

When the bishop makes his statement about the numbers and about the means, it gives the impression that this makes it less grave, which is not the case. I don’t know if the bishop wanted to minimize the gravity of the matter. I’m not in his head. But that is where he goes wrong. You have to be very careful that your statements do not minimize the gravity of the matter.

As to the law, I do understand what Pnewton was saying about the law is not always going to protect truth. More often than not, the law will protect what is convenient to those in power. When I say that law must protect truth, I’m speaking about the moral duty of law. I’m not speaking about how people abuse law for their own purpose. It is unfortunate, but they do. However, we have an obligation to remind citizens and law makers of the purpose of law.

I believe that this is where this interview went wrong. It did not remind the viewer that the law was immoral, regardless of the numbers and the means to kill these people. What the interview did was put historians on trial, not the criminals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

T

his is not a theological position. The Shoah is not a matter of theology. It’s an historical event.

 

[JReducation]

Just to give an example, many times those who oppose Obama for his historic stance on the born alive acts are accused of being heinous racists…

People have to learn to be careful how they say things, even the bishop. I’ll offer two examples.

1. I’ve been posting to a liturgy thread where another poster has gone out of her way to condemn guitar music. She puts some good reasons on the table and even backs them up with some documentation. But the way that she is saying it sounds as if she is telling those who play guitars at mass that they are less Catholic than she is, because they do not use organs and chant.
2. There are people who speak about the President’s support for abortion and the first thing that comes out of their mouth is “MURDERER!”.

In both cases, you may be making a valid point. But the moment that you assault the dignity and the good name of another person, you lost your argument with those of us who have some brains. Most of us do not want to have a conversation with someone who belittles or attacks the person. We want to discuss the issue, the behavior, the choices people make or don’t make, the values at risk and so forth

I am reminded of one of my favorite Franciscans, THOMAS MOORE. Thomas always said that he was a faithful subject of the King. When he spoke he never mentioned the King. When he wrote he wrote about the sacrament of marriage and the apostolic authority of the Church. He wrote about the validity and permanence of marraige. He wrote about justice and how religoius monasteries in England had contributed to preserving and promoting English culture and how they were under attack and their property was being siezed and destroyed. He said this was illegal and immoral. But he never mentions the King by name. He was one of the most astute saints of English History.

Often, when people speak about the President’s track record on abortion, they immediately stoop to using offensive language with his name in the same sentence. This leads to a rebuttal from the other side. But the rebuttal is really a counter attack. This escalates. Eventually, both parties let their emotions drive their rhetoric. This is when we take it to the lower level. We turn it into a racial issue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Darryl1958]

People have to learn to be careful how they say things, even the bishop. I’ll offer two examples.

1. I’ve been posting to a liturgy thread where another poster has gone out of her way to condemn guitar music. She puts some good reasons on the table and even backs them up with some documentation. But the way that she is saying it sounds as if she is telling those who play guitars at mass that they are less Catholic than she is, because they do not use organs and chant.
2. There are people who speak about the President’s support for abortion and the first thing that comes out of their mouth is “MURDERER!”.

In both cases, you may be making a valid point. But the moment that you assault the dignity and the good name of another person, you lost your argument with those of us who have some brains. Most of us do not want to have a conversation with someone who belittles or attacks the person. We want to discuss the issue, the behavior, the choices people make or don’t make, the values at risk and so forth

I am reminded of one of my favorite Franciscans, THOMAS MOORE. Thomas always said that he was a faithful subject of the King. When he spoke he never mentioned the King. When he wrote he wrote about the sacrament of marriage and the apostolic authority of the Church. He wrote about the validity and permanence of marraige. He wrote about justice and how religoius monasteries in England had contributed to preserving and promoting English culture and how they were under attack and their property was being siezed and destroyed. He said this was illegal and immoral. But he never mentions the King by name. He was one of the most astute saints of English History.

Often, when people speak about the President’s track record on abortion, they immediately stoop to using offensive language with his name in the same sentence. This leads to a rebuttal from the other side. But the rebuttal is really a counter attack. This escalates. Eventually, both parties let their emotions drive their rhetoric. This is when we take it to the lower level. We turn it into a racial issue.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My point would be that it is often turned into a racial issue because that is what wins the argument. Accuse the other side of a racial attack, and all of a sudden the historic fact of where Obama stands on the unborn is not being discussed.

More to the point of this conversation, turn it into a racial issue, and then you are assualting the dignity of another human being, slander charges arise, and presto, the ‘official’ version of the truth comes to the fore.

The government cannot be in the business of deciding what is true and what is not. given the nature of government, and given the ability of modern governments to intrude into every aspect of our lives and very thoughts, this can and will very easily turn into an Orwellian nightmare.

This is a difficult question I agree. What the bishop is doing si very hateful and is diseased even. It is a spiritual illness that has discussing the very existence of the obvious and for sure you will have already noticed in this thread how communicable that this disease has been.
I agree with your earlier point that the way to attack this message is not by attacking the dignity of the bishop himself as repugnant as his views are and as tempting as this may be as a result. I disagree though that criminalizing speech is the way to go. for one the world is connected, and an enemy to one government soon becomes a friend to the enemy of that government. The Zundels of the world get chased from the West and find a willing audience in the Middle East. Their very perseuction for their untruths and their lies helps to sell the idea of a demonic conspiracy against their message.

Denying the six million is of course absurd. Whosoever still denies is either outright evil in their intent, or to varying degrees actually insane, as out of touch with reality as they are.

This is not an attack on dignity to point this out. I for one do not believe that the bishop is outright evil, even as his ideas threaten grievous injury on the continuing existence of Jews on this earth. So that would make him insane, the product of a paranoid, demonizing theology that sees Jews and Satan as behind the curtain in their controlling of world events.