Holocaust denial = sacking?

[jonathan7]

So, I'm gonna get a bit of flack here, so let's clariffy, I know the Holocaust happened, it was a tragedy.

 

In the news this week was this strange dude; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5694191.ece

 

Now I'm somewhat puzzled, as really does denying the Holocaust really constitute a sackable offence? I mean if I denied the Rwandan genocide, I doubt I would be sacked. What concerns me even more is for some reason the Pope has to apologise for someone else having controversial views. Now, freedom of speech slowly seems to be being killed, your clearly a nut if you don't think the Holocaust happened, but seriously, the whole point of freedom of speech is you have to put up with a lot of rubbish. But censoring un-popular views, at least to me seems dangerous, not least as are we even presenting why the evidence for the Holocaust is undeniable.

[Darth Avlectus]

Censorship =/= dignity, ethics, morals, decency standards, and least of all "fairness" (ahem). It just becomes more bureaucracy on top of itself when you do censor free speech.

 

Denying that something actually happened that actually did is foolish, I agree.

 

Sackable offense?...Perhaps only when it (said sentiment of free speech per entity) crosses over into treason or it is somehow subversive.

 

Simply denying it? No...just deserves ridicule.

[Chevron 7 locke]

I don't really think this should count as a sackable offense. it just seems to me like a violation of freedom of speech

[Web Rider]

The Pope is apologizing because the previous Pope kicked the guy out for his views, and this Pope(Ratzinger), put him back in, when the thing he was kicked out for remained. The idea is that because he's putting this Denier in a position of power, Ratzinger is in a way, endorsing his views. It doesn't help the fact that Ratzinger was in Hitler's Youth as a child, so it makes him look REALLY bad. And for a guy who's religion pretty much depends on how much people like you, that's not a place to go.

 

I think you're free to say that the Holocaust wasn't as big as it was made out to be. I don't think you have a right to say it didn't happen. That's like saying the moon doesn't exist, it's stupid and ignorant, and frankly, I'm all for exterminating stupidity and ignorance.

[CommanderQ]

I read about this particular Bishop the other day, and his opinions are very radical on the subject of The Holocaust. The Bishop's statement on the use of gas chambers wasn't as radical as saying the Holocaust didn't happen, nonetheless, I greatly disagree with him, he is nearly denying the fact on the amount of people who died. I watched a video of an interview with him, and he said a more accurate number of the Jews killed was not 6 million, but barely over 300,000. That statement is extremely radical in my opinion, and may range in the meter of punishment, or sacking. But still, he is merely voicing an opinion {that many disagree with}, still, I believe that the sacking was deserving of the situation, he was denying a massive fact of The Holocaust. The gas chambers are there in the camps, German records confirm the use of gas chambers{at least what I read}, denying such a huge event in history is just.....beyond stupidity.

[EnderWiggin]

Now I'm somewhat puzzled, as really does denying the Holocaust really constitute a sackable offence?

 

I think it should be.

 

_EW_

[jawathehutt]

Thats not censorship, if I decided that CPR or drowning didnt exist I would get sacked too for not believing in a real thing. Once holocaust deniers get any sane and credible evidence, it might be censorship, but every shred of evidence Ive heard is about as credible sounding as listening to a drug addict telling me about bugs crawling over their skin.

[EnderWiggin]

What concerns me even more is for some reason the Pope has to apologise for someone else having controversial views. Now, freedom of speech slowly seems to be being killed, your clearly a nut if you don't think the Holocaust happened, but seriously, the whole point of freedom of speech is you have to put up with a lot of rubbish. But censoring un-popular views, at least to me seems dangerous, not least as are we even presenting why the evidence for the Holocaust is undeniable.

 

Well, J7, I would first say that the reason that the Pope is apologizing for this Bishop is because anything that an ordained member of the R. Catholic church reflects upon him. This is doubly the case as Benedict (I'm not a fan) recently lifted the excommunication of this Bishop, when he should be condemning the man's viewpoints. The Papacy has to worry about public image as much as the next world leader.

 

As for freedom of speech, yes, all have it, but Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your job if you tell your boss that his wife is fat, etc.

The bishop is a representative of the whole, and I know John Paul II believed in the holocaust, so I understand why the Bishop is being admonished if he chooses not to recant (remember, he has the option to recant and save himself from the punishment if he so desires).

 

Lastly I would argue that the Bishop is not being censored, but told that if he is going to be affiliated with the R. Catholic Church in the future he is not permitted to speak out about (if he had kept his mouth shut it wouldn't have mattered) that viewpoint.

 

Sackable offense?...Perhaps only when it (said sentiment of free speech per entity) crosses over into treason or it is somehow subversive.

Could you give me an example as to when it becomes subversive, if this isn't the case?

 

_EW_

[Arátoeldar]

Well, J7, I would first say that the reason that the Pope is apologizing for this Bishop is because anything that an ordained member of the R. Catholic church reflects upon him. This is doubly the case as Benedict (I'm not a fan) recently lifted the excommunication of this Bishop, when he should be condemning the man's viewpoints. The Papacy has to worry about public image as much as the next world leader.

 

As for freedom of speech, yes, all have it, but Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your job if you tell your boss that his wife is fat, etc.

The bishop is a representative of the whole, and I know John Paul II believed in the holocaust, so I understand why the Bishop is being admonished if he chooses not to recant (remember, he has the option to recant and save himself from the punishment if he so desires).

 

Lastly I would argue that the Bishop is not being censored, but told that if he is going to be affiliated with the R. Catholic Church in the future he is not permitted to speak out about (if he had kept his mouth shut it wouldn't have mattered) that viewpoint.

 

 

Could you give me an example as to when it becomes subversive, if this isn't the case?

 

_EW_

 

Well Stated EW. Too many Americans and others around the world want rights without the responsibilities or their consequences. The bishop can speak his mind on any street corner in London. However he won't be doing it as a representative of the seminary.

[Web Rider]

Well Stated EW. Too many Americans and others around the world want rights without the responsibilities or their consequences. The bishop can speak his mind on any street corner in London. However he won't be doing it as a representative of the seminary.

 

Hey, thanks, I'm glad to know that even the unexcommunicating of a Bishop can be used as potshots at America. If you hadn't noticed, the actions of the Pope are not affiliated with the USA, and, several members in this topic are from the USA, and have spoken out in favor of these actions. So ya know, think before you speak.

[Arátoeldar]

Hey, thanks, I'm glad to know that even the unexcommunicating of a Bishop can be used as potshots at America. If you hadn't noticed, the actions of the Pope are not affiliated with the USA, and, several members in this topic are from the USA, and have spoken out in favor of these actions. So ya know, think before you speak.

 

FYI I am an American who has served in the military many moon ago. I deeply care about my country and what is happening to it right now (Socialism-Fascism). I believe that our Found Fathers had it right.

 

When I speak of these "Americans" I am specifically posting about the American left. Besides my post had nothing to with the Pope or the bishop being excommunication being lifted. It has do with those that think that the bishop shouldn't be fired from his job in the seminary because it it some how censoring the bishop.

[Web Rider]

FYI I am an American who has served in the military many moon ago. I deeply care about my country and what is happening to it right now (Socialism-Fascism). I believe that our Found Fathers had it right.

Pardon me while I *facepalm*.

 

When I speak of these "Americans" I am specifically posting about the American left. Besides my post had nothing to with the Pope or the bishop being excommunication being lifted. It has do with those that think that the bishop shouldn't be fired from his job in the seminary because it it some how censoring the bishop.

Ah, yes, the horrible left. Excuse me, for a minute I thought you were saying all Americans were bad. It's just the people you disagree with. My mistake.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

i'll read mallard fillmore if i want to read unfounded, sensationalist claims about liberals thanks

 

[Jae Onasi]

Back on topic....Thanks.

 

Now I'm somewhat puzzled, as really does denying the Holocaust really constitute a sackable offence? I mean if I denied the Rwandan genocide, I doubt I would be sacked.

I read through the article--I think it's written to portray it as holocaust denial as the reason for the bishop getting removed. However, if you read it very closely, it mentions that the bishop does not accept Vatican II doctrines on Jews in general, mass in the vernacular, and other changes. It's more than just holocaust denial. I believe refusing to accept and conform with Vatican II, which is a major doctrine in the church, is certainly grounds for removal of a priest, especially if he's teaching at a seminary.

 

This quote caught my eye:

The interview took place in Germany where denying the Holocaust is an imprisonable offence.

I know Germans obviously are going to be very sensitive about this issue, but if that's not suppression of free speech there, I'm not sure what is.

[Web Rider]

I know Germans obviously are going to be very sensitive about this issue, but if that's not suppression of free speech there, I'm not sure what is.

 

Kicking somebody out of a job for not agreeing with the Boss is a pretty good reason, for espousing inflamitory opinions from a position of influence is pretty close. But I do think the Germans are going too far with imprisoning people.

[Darth Avlectus]

Could you give me an example as to when it becomes subversive, if this isn't the case?

_EW_

 

In short political actions and influences becoming enactment of hostile policy.

 

OK. I’ll try to make a case for you.

 

Just so you know I have Jewish blood in my family on both sides. My personal feelings would be that of tremendous outrage. In fact on second thought/viewing of this… I’m a little irritated upon learning this and looking over it again. Still I’ll not let my emotions rule over my judgment.

 

Now: The extreme level of influence upon, shall we call them the impressionable goes without saying. A case of subversion would be to influence the impressionable over a span of years, maybe decades. While affecting morality, thinking, and such is a goal of bishops as it well should be (this is a leadership position after all--hence it’s what they do), there is a difference between promoting the way of Christianity, and promoting a spell of intolerance that could be the seed for much worse sentiment towards other religions, in this case Jews, down the road as time passes.

 

The offense would be: Overstepping bounds with regards to church and state (using these terms very loosely here) to the political enactment of policy unfavorable towards another party of religious creed which would worsen over time. With intent to, well, subvert the Jews in this case.

 

However, these things would obviously take time. Until effects have happened and are definitively found to show intent at the core…it’s little more than hearsay. Thus, the line of just where that offense was committed is…blurry. (Unless if it is blatantly obvious--but that’s IF.)

 

Maybe this is irritability towards the bishop speaking here, BUT: If the past serves as any indication and it were done again, I would say that is definitely indicative of intent, and the line has been clearly drawn--perhaps even stepped over depending on what all was done.

 

(EDIT: WHEN this becomes subversive is when intent is apparent. IMO this is unsettling, but his intent is not apparent yet. Certainly NOT something to be ignored, though. THAT much is for sure.)

 

So, Ender, I Suppose that I am open to whatever suggestion you might have.

[Darth InSidious]

Except... Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galaretta weren't excommunicated for holocaust denial (and there's no evidence that the other three hold those views). They were excommunicate for accepting consecration as bishops from bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was specifically forbidden from doing so. By accepting consecration, they automatically incurred that censure.

 

The Society of St. Pius X, which they belong to, has been and is suspended from practicing as priests. What has not happened is that they are not accepted into the Catholic Church again yet. As Jae pointed out, the group in question denies the validity of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and that situation must be resolved before they can be fully accepted into the Church.

 

What has happened is that the excommunication, the specific penalty incurred automatically upon their consecration by Bp. Lefebvre has been lifted. The Pope has not apologised, since neither he nor his predecessor either did anything (the penalty was automatically imposed by the actions taken), or allowed anything to happen that was contrary to Canon Law. They may once again legitimately receive the sacraments - i.e., go to confession, the eucharist, etc. Previously they were forbidden. They have not been returned to positions in the Church.

 

The four bishops are still bishops because they were ordained validly, that is, according to the correct manner, despite the ordination being gained illicitly, i.e., without a Papal mandate (in this case, specifically against being forbidden to do so).

 

A couple of years ago, the leader of the S.S.P.X., Bp. Fellay, asked for two signs of willingness from the Pope that they could return to communion with Rome - one was allowing a wider use of an older form of the Mass, and the other was the lifting of the excommunications.

 

About a day before the excommunication was lifted, however, an interview was released with Bp. Williamson chattering quite happily about his theories on Swedish TV. It seems no-one picked up on it in Rome, however, and in any case, it didn't really relate to the canonical offences committed by the man. The excommunications were lifted, his superior apologised, he apologised (though not for his views, but the letter makes interesting reading in light of the latest business) and finally he either stepped down or was sacked by the SSPX (it's not entirely clear which, further muddied by said letter).

 

The bishop's views have not been endorsed, any more than any other bishop's political views are endorsed, held binding or approved (i.e., not at all). Nevertheless, the bishop seems to believe ahistorical rubbish extremely detrimental to all, and which makes dialogue with Jewish groups strained at best (several have threatened to break off ties with the Vatican altogether over this). It would be foolish to deny that the situation is delicate, and it has been made clear that the bishop must repudiate his views if he wants to function as a bishop within the Church.

 

The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren, receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".

 

Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication.

 

While his private views are obviously his own business, the risk of him attempting to preach this (which is in any case beyond his authority) needs to be removed. At the very least, allowing him to influence others with his views on the subject would be unwise. This is probably what the current state of play is about. Nevertheless, you can't expect the press to catch subtleties.

 

Confirmation of Bp. Williamson's removal (French language), Bp. Williamson promises to apologise if wrong, clarification from the Vatican in L'Osservatore Romano (Italian), Bp. Fellay denies such views himself, Bp. Williamson's letter, Bp. Fellay forbids Williamson to speak on political or historical matters, 1988 decree of excommunication, the interview in question.

 

Apologies for the huge dump of links, but this issue needs to be understood clearly.

[EnderWiggin]

Except... Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galaretta weren't excommunicated for holocaust denial (and there's no evidence that the other three hold those views). They were excommunicate for accepting consecration as bishops from bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was specifically forbidden from doing so. By accepting consecration, they automatically incurred that censure.

 

The Society of St. Pius X, which they belong to, has been and is suspended from practicing as priests. What has not happened is that they are not accepted into the Catholic Church again yet. As Jae pointed out, the group in question denies the validity of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and that situation must be resolved before they can be fully accepted into the Church.

 

Interesting. Thank you for the clarification, DI.

 

The article now seems a bit misleading, in hindsight.

 

_EW_

[jonathan7]

I think it should be.

 

_EW_

 

Why? And is that for all jobs?

 

Well, J7, I would first say that the reason that the Pope is apologizing for this Bishop is because anything that an ordained member of the R. Catholic church reflects upon him. This is doubly the case as Benedict (I'm not a fan) recently lifted the excommunication of this Bishop, when he should be condemning the man's viewpoints. The Papacy has to worry about public image as much as the next world leader.

 

Partly conceded, however, I differentiate between the thoughts of an individual and the organisation he represents.

 

As for freedom of speech, yes, all have it, but Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your job if you tell your boss that his wife is fat, etc.

 

What happens if that happens to be true?

 

The bishop is a representative of the whole, and I know John Paul II believed in the holocaust, so I understand why the Bishop is being admonished if he chooses not to recant (remember, he has the option to recant and save himself from the punishment if he so desires).

 

This strikes me a bit like tyranny though, you will believe what we believe or we will hurt you...

 

Lastly I would argue that the Bishop is not being censored, but told that if he is going to be affiliated with the R. Catholic Church in the future he is not permitted to speak out about (if he had kept his mouth shut it wouldn't have mattered) that viewpoint._EW_

 

Good point

 

Well Stated EW. Too many Americans and others around the world want rights without the responsibilities or their consequences. The bishop can speak his mind on any street corner in London. However he won't be doing it as a representative of the seminary.

 

a) I'm not American

b) Read this before making any presumptions as to what I think about Freedom of speech - http://infomotions.com/etexts/philosophy/1800-1899/mill-on-215.htm Overall jist, of my point; those with evil/wrong opinions must be allowed to speak so that their opinions can be shown to be incorrect.

 

Take a scientist banned in the last year from speaking on how Africans are inferior to White's - based apparently on science. He was barred from talking, and as such the myth's he presents can hang on, had he been allowed to speak those in the scientific profession could of destroyed his fallacious arguments. By stopping him from speaking, you don't give them the opportunity to rip his data to shreds.

 

Except... Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galaretta weren't excommunicated for holocaust denial (and there's no evidence that the other three hold those views). They were excommunicate for accepting consecration as bishops from bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was specifically forbidden from doing so. By accepting consecration, they automatically incurred that censure.

 

The Society of St. Pius X, which they belong to, has been and is suspended from practicing as priests. What has not happened is that they are not accepted into the Catholic Church again yet. As Jae pointed out, the group in question denies the validity of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and that situation must be resolved before they can be fully accepted into the Church.

 

What has happened is that the excommunication, the specific penalty incurred automatically upon their consecration by Bp. Lefebvre has been lifted. The Pope has not apologised, since neither he nor his predecessor either did anything (the penalty was automatically imposed by the actions taken), or allowed anything to happen that was contrary to Canon Law. They may once again legitimately receive the sacraments - i.e., go to confession, the eucharist, etc. Previously they were forbidden. They have not been returned to positions in the Church.

 

The four bishops are still bishops because they were ordained validly, that is, according to the correct manner, despite the ordination being gained illicitly, i.e., without a Papal mandate (in this case, specifically against being forbidden to do so).

 

A couple of years ago, the leader of the S.S.P.X., Bp. Fellay, asked for two signs of willingness from the Pope that they could return to communion with Rome - one was allowing a wider use of an older form of the Mass, and the other was the lifting of the excommunications.

 

About a day before the excommunication was lifted, however, an interview was released with Bp. Williamson chattering quite happily about his theories on Swedish TV. It seems no-one picked up on it in Rome, however, and in any case, it didn't really relate to the canonical offences committed by the man. The excommunications were lifted, his superior apologised, he apologised (though not for his views, but the letter makes interesting reading in light of the latest business) and finally he either stepped down or was sacked by the SSPX (it's not entirely clear which, further muddied by said letter).

 

The bishop's views have not been endorsed, any more than any other bishop's political views are endorsed, held binding or approved (i.e., not at all). Nevertheless, the bishop seems to believe ahistorical rubbish extremely detrimental to all, and which makes dialogue with Jewish groups strained at best (several have threatened to break off ties with the Vatican altogether over this). It would be foolish to deny that the situation is delicate, and it has been made clear that the bishop must repudiate his views if he wants to function as a bishop within the Church.

 

 

 

While his private views are obviously his own business, the risk of him attempting to preach this (which is in any case beyond his authority) needs to be removed. At the very least, allowing him to influence others with his views on the subject would be unwise. This is probably what the current state of play is about. Nevertheless, you can't expect the press to catch subtleties.

 

Confirmation of Bp. Williamson's removal (French language), Bp. Williamson promises to apologise if wrong, clarification from the Vatican in L'Osservatore Romano (Italian), Bp. Fellay denies such views himself, Bp. Williamson's letter, Bp. Fellay forbids Williamson to speak on political or historical matters, 1988 decree of excommunication, the interview in question.

 

Apologies for the huge dump of links, but this issue needs to be understood clearly.

 

Thanks for a most enlightening post indeed DI

 

Interesting. Thank you for the clarification, DI.

 

The article now seems a bit misleading, in hindsight.

 

_EW_

 

QFT

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

When I speak of these "Americans" I am specifically posting about the American left. Besides my post had nothing to with the Pope or the bishop being excommunication being lifted. It has do with those that think that the bishop shouldn't be fired from his job in the seminary because it it some how censoring the bishop.

Er, uh, you had me there for a minute.

Ah, yes, the horrible left. Excuse me, for a minute I thought you were saying all Americans were bad. It's just the people you disagree with. My mistake.

LOL. Thank you for expressing my thought clearly, WR.

I know Germans obviously are going to be very sensitive about this issue, but if that's not suppression of free speech there, I'm not sure what is.

Protection of "free speech" is laudable, but we do have to draw a line somewhere. IMHO, Jae, this is where it is drawn - in places where horrible things occurred, without a ton of dissent by the people who lived there, some who willingfully involved themselves in making it happen - those people lose a little of that freedom, so that such a thing won't happen there again.

 

I understand your struggle with it though, I share it, I am a Chomskyan ultimately on this matter.

 

Partly conceded, however, I differentiate between the thoughts of an individual and the organisation he represents.

As you are welcome to do. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom to say whatever you want and not fear getting canned for it. Your government protects you for being punished physically or mentally for your free expression - your pocketbook is your own problem.

 

The bishop is a representative of the whole, and I know John Paul II believed in the holocaust, so I understand why the Bishop is being admonished if he chooses not to recant (remember, he has the option to recant and save himself from the punishment if he so desires).

This strikes me a bit like tyranny though, you will believe what we believe or we will hurt you...

Are you sure you are not simply playing devil's advocate here? We have facts regarding the event known as the Holocaust. This removes the predicate "belief" from the conversation. Tyranny is a stretch here, really.

b) Read this before making any presumptions as to what I think about Freedom of speech - http://infomotions.com/etexts/philosophy/1800-1899/mill-on-215.htm Overall jist, of my point; those with evil/wrong opinions must be allowed to speak so that their opinions can be shown to be incorrect.

Wow... J.S. Mill, that old Utilitarian... haven't read his work in a looooong time. I did like Ethical Theory I agree with your point, just not how you are making it, and I argue that you are juxtaposing opinion/belief for known fact, which is not an acceptable substitution. Breaks the equation....

Take a scientist banned in the last year from speaking on how Africans are inferior to White's - based apparently on science. He was barred from talking, and as such the myth's he presents can hang on, had he been allowed to speak those in the scientific profession could of (**have**) destroyed his fallacious arguments. By stopping him from speaking, you don't give them the opportunity to rip his data to shreds.

Well, I hear you a little here, but really.... Beliefs like those are a dying breed, all by themselves. We don't need to stomp on them to make them any uglier or less appreciable - they do that for themselves.

Thanks for a most enlightening post indeed DI

Seconded

[Web Rider]

Protection of "free speech" is laudable, but we do have to draw a line somewhere. IMHO, Jae, this is where it is drawn - in places where horrible things occurred, without a ton of dissent by the people who lived there, some who willingfully involved themselves in making it happen - those people lose a little of that freedom, so that such a thing won't happen there again.

Define "horrible". Why people are dying in Iraq can be a tricky question, is it the US's fault? Is it insurgents fault? Would Saddam have been worse?(these are all hypothetical mind you.)

 

My point is that what we think was a "bad" thing does not mean that gives it protection from being questioned. Those 9/11 conspiracy guys bug me, but they're free to speculate that the government really was involved. Holocaust denying and Holocaust revisionism are two different things, is saying that only 10 million died as opposed to 11 million better or worse than saying 500,000 died? Should any statement outside official "doctrine" be punishable?

 

People learn by knowing, and we know through questioning. People are MORE inclined to repeat stupid things when the government comes in with an iron first and says "DO THIS!"

 

As you are welcome to do. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom to say whatever you want and not fear getting canned for it. Your government protects you for being punished physically or mentally for your free expression - your pocketbook is your own problem.

In the US, our "First Amendment Rights" really only apply to the government, that's what they protect us from. Subsequent laws protect us from others, but only in certain situations.

 

Are you sure you are not simply playing devil's advocate here? We have facts regarding the event known as the Holocaust. This removes the predicate "belief" from the conversation. Tyranny is a stretch here, really.

You're right, we have "facts" about the Holocaust. What we don't have is absolute truth. We know, with a darn good assurance, what happened, we don't know every last detail and the exactness of everything. We have facts known about the number "pi" too, but you'll still get a different answer when writing an equation with 2x3.14 and 2x3.14159ect...ect...

 

I think it's easier to let these guys bluster themselves out, as you said, they will more often than not shoot themselves in the foot. What they represent, regardless of what they're questioning, is that they ARE questioning. And we always should be. We should never take for granted that we KNOW everything there is to know about anything, especially the Holocaust. We can't simply boil it down to "it was horrible", because then it loses it's meaning.

 

We need to know, beyond any doubt, that it was every bit as horrible as the facts we've found say it was. And there is room for doubt.

[jonathan7]

As you are welcome to do. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom to say whatever you want and not fear getting canned for it. Your government protects you for being punished physically or mentally for your free expression - your pocketbook is your own problem.

 

I wasn't suggesting you don't get criticised for it. However is any discussion/debate so certain you would force it upon others?

 

Are you sure you are not simply playing devil's advocate here? We have facts regarding the event known as the Holocaust. This removes the predicate "belief" from the conversation. Tyranny is a stretch here, really.

 

You *will* confirm, or face sanction, seems to me to be a tyranny regardless of however naive/stupid/silly/ignorant a belief is.

 

“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.” - 'Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?'

 

Wow... J.S. Mill, that old Utilitarian... haven't read his work in a looooong time. I did like Ethical Theory I agree with your point, just not how you are making it, and I argue that you are juxtaposing opinion/belief for known fact, which is not an acceptable substitution. Breaks the equation....

 

I'd suggest you read Descartes again , what is a *known* fact and what is opinion? How do you know something is true? How do you know the Holocaust actually happened? (Yes I'm playing devil's advocate here). However;

 

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” 'Marriage and Morals'

 

There is therefore a chance, no matter how small that the whole holocaust is a fabrication and conspiracy and it didn't happen. George Berkeley kind of springs to my mind currently. Anyways; therefore, while I will strongly argue that it did happen with anyone who denies it, I will not force them to agree with me by any means of intimidation.

 

 

In the grand scheme of things, if someone thinks the holocaust happened or not, does not actually matter; regardless of if some people's emotions tell them otherwise. In the unfolding cosmic drama, in a Universe so big we have as of yet to accurately measure, and in a Universe 14 Billion years, old the deaths of small lifeforms who live for a tiny period, doesn't really matter.

 

Well, I hear you a little here, but really.... Beliefs like those are a dying breed, all by themselves. We don't need to stomp on them to make them any uglier or less appreciable - they do that for themselves.

 

Unfortunately I have to disagree, if history has shown us anything it is in time of financial trouble, racism increases rather than decreases.

[Darth Avlectus]

What happens if that happens to be true?

Well then, that would depend on the boss now wouldn't it?

If his Mrs. IS fat:

1) if he is like most business owner guys I have met He'd probably say something on the order "Ey, c'mon man! Gimmie some slack!" or "Yeah esse, I know. It's horrible...say, you got any homegirls willin' to do lap dance for me, homeboy?"

 

2) or it could go rather nastily as though it were false if the guy is particularly sensitive about it--or he is baring the brunt of it because his wife is sensitive about it. Rather nastily as in you either face retribution on civilized terms in your job...or get ready to duck as the guy cocks back to take a swipe at you. (daffy duck jumping around and whooping comes to mind).

 

This strikes me a bit like tyranny though, you will believe what we believe or we will hurt you...

How do you figure?

I would figure for such things, that the price (if not a 'sacking') would be in the neighborhood of having your proverbial "face shoved in the dung" --the very same dung which those were spewing. Ostracized in the least.

 

I think as an American, freedoms without having to take responsibility for them is a folly.

 

Moreover if the man doesn't believe in some of the doctrines of the church for whom he is professing their word...I daresay that he has disqualified himself by virtue of denial.

 

Theoretically and playing devil's advocate: well, there really is nothing he's going to say or do about it as it would put him roughly on par with most conspiracy theorists.

 

 

Protection of "free speech" is laudable, but we do have to draw a line somewhere. IMHO, Jae, this is where it is drawn - in places where horrible things occurred, without a ton of dissent by the people who lived there, some who willingfully involved themselves in making it happen - those people lose a little of that freedom, so that such a thing won't happen there again.

It isn't so much a loss of freedom, as it is having your feet put to the fire.

--If that helps you any to put it in perspective. I say there is nothing wrong with having to tow the line for what you espouse in such a position.

 

As you are welcome to do. Freedom of Speech does not imply freedom to say whatever you want and not fear getting canned for it. Your government protects you for being punished physically or mentally for your free expression - your pocketbook is your own problem.

Whatever works. Rights do have responsibilities; and thusly actions with such have their consequences, no?

 

My point is that what we think was a "bad" thing does not mean that gives it protection from being questioned. Those 9/11 conspiracy guys bug me, but they're free to speculate that the government really was involved.

Fine and well. However I will reiterate if ignorance (or I guess just outright BS in this case) is obvious, it ought to be ridiculed rather than considered. Those posing an argument ought to have it well plotted and covered on all angles.

 

 

Holocaust denying and Holocaust revisionism are two different things, is saying that only 10 million died as opposed to 11 million better or worse than saying 500,000 died? Should any statement outside official "doctrine" be punishable?

Not just any statement, no. When perhaps you are revealing that would not otherwise be revealed (and have sufficient cause to believe it so), then no. At least not without some serious consideration/reconsideration.

 

When it hyperbolizes to extremes, yes. When it is slanted (hyperbole with omissions) to fit your personal beliefs instead of the unabridged word, yes.

 

 

In the US, our "First Amendment Rights" really only apply to the government, that's what they protect us from. Subsequent laws protect us from others, but only in certain situations.

Funny isn't it?

 

 

 

I wasn't suggesting you don't get criticised for it. However is any discussion/debate so certain you would force it upon others?

Only right then and there ad nauseum. Undeniably right in front of you which rarely happens admittedly. Which was not the case for this guy. Beating a dead horse: while letting the guy make his testimony so that it could be torn apart (setup for failure) is an effective way to go about things, it may be more hassle and lees dignified than it is worth.

 

You *will* confirm, or face sanction, seems to me to be a tyranny regardless of however naive/stupid/silly/ignorant a belief is.

Then I guess the whole "thing" of research in and of itself is a dictatorship?

 

In the grand scheme of things, if someone thinks the holocaust happened or not, does not actually matter; regardless of if some people's emotions tell them otherwise.

True. Fair enough I guess.

 

 

Unfortunately I have to disagree, if history has shown us anything it is in time of financial trouble, racism increases rather than decreases.

OR some other form of bigotry thereof. Majoritarianism for one.

[adamqd]

UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognize the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred, and although the Bishop is not Directly Hating on the Jews, it aint gonna help Religious Relations IMO. I personally Think it is a Sackable offense.

 

There's a select few Subjects you dont mess with, especially when your a public figure.

[Darth Avlectus]

There's a select few Subjects you dont mess with, especially when your a public figure.

 

Exactly.

 

Hence why I believe that some subjects so obviously laced with ignorance being brought up aren't even worth wasting time to acknowledge by any degree more than that of scorn, let alone fully examined.