jump to last post 1-50 of 62 discussions (257 posts)

Bishop refuses to take back holocaust remarks

  1. Junkster profile image59
    Junksterposted 8 years ago

    http://www.examiner.com/x-662-Strange-N … sed-claims

    I personally can't stand people who spend time trying to figure out how to play down what happened to Jews during the second world war.  More so this moron, who can quite happily preach made up stuff like the bible but actiuvely researches into denying the holocaust.

    Doubly sickening that he refuses to accept that he should apologise, funny how he won't go to Auschwitz, "What's up your eminence? Would you find it uncomfortable being proved wrong?"

    Some people have no respect.

    1. Nickny79 profile image86
      Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Before we start critiquing rogue bishops on the basis of stories from gossip blogs, why don't you report to us on the comments of the current president of Iran and the bandits that "govern" the Palestinians.    I can't stand people who look for reasons to be offended by the clergy, but conveniently ignore those whom it's political unfashionably to criticize.

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Quite unreasonable, Nickny. People are free to take issue with whatever they want, without a third party setting their agenda.

        1. Nickny79 profile image86
          Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          If people are free to take issue with whatever they want, I am free to take issue with them, logically.

      2. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        By that reasoning, we should ignore the systematic paedophilia covered up by the Irish Catholic Church.

        Not from a blog, but an admission by the church themselves.

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 844875.ece

        Maybe we should avoid talking about the scandals engulfing the Greek Orthodox Church. I am of that denomination myself, but that makes me all the more determined to point out wrongdoing.

        http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules. … mp;thold=0

        Trying to hijack an unrelated thread for your own agenda is a little weak - I expected better quality from you, Nick.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't he has a habit of weaseling. Must be his legal training.

        2. Nickny79 profile image86
          Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Anyone who posts in a public forum is fair game--and the initiator of this thread is a classic example of the "selective vision" that is all too prevalent among the media and the PC police.  No one is denying the existence of cases of pedaphilia in the church.

        3. Nickny79 profile image86
          Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          If you consider yourself so even-minded and fair, I challenge you to place links exposing the anti-Semetic statements of the Iranian president and the Palestinians.  I assure you they are not difficult to find.

          1. kerryg profile image89
            kerrygposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            What's the point? Everyone knows Ahmadinejad and the Palestinians hate Jews. They have cynical political reasons to do so. What's this guy's excuse?

            1. Nickny79 profile image86
              Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

              The point is not the bishop.  The point is why are we excluviely focused on this one exceptional bishop to the exclusion of real anti-semetic villains.  I suspect this bishop doesn't propose we wipe the "stinking corpse" off the face of the globe.  Feel free to target the bishop, and I will feel free to remind everyone of the larger perspective.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Exceptional? The Catholic Church has a long history of anti-Semitism.

              2. Junkster profile image59
                Junksterposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                With all due respect if I wanted to point out something to do with Iran and politics then I'd have posted a topic in the politics forum, just because I post something about a religious figure doesn't mean I'm "short sighted" or "blinded" in some way.  I didn't mention Iran or Ahmadinejad for the same reaosn I didn't mention other random irrelevant subjects like Mickey Mouse or David Hasselhoff - THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT

                I made a topic on one person and their reluctance to apologise, which the head of his organisation has asked for.  At no point did I mention politics so you can take that to the politics forum and create a thread yourself, of which I'd be glad to weigh in with my views and won't bring up religion...just to be nice smile

          2. Sufidreamer profile image81
            Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Even now, you try to wrest control of the thread and seize the initiative, by trying to force me into answering a question with two choices, both of which are detrimental to my position. If I refuse, you will accuse me of not being 'even-handed and fair.' If I agree, then you make me falsify my own statement about thread hijacking, by participating in your agenda. The only correct answer is to point out that I see through the transparency of your weak attempt at mind-games.

            A very jaded lawyer's trick, Nick, and your challenge is of no value to this discussion.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        You are making a pitiful attempt to change the subject. There have been plenty of reports about Amahdinejad's tirades against Israel. The right-wing Pope stepped on his dick and he and Williamson are fair targets for criticism. Seems to me you have trouble admitting when you are wrong.

        1. Nickny79 profile image86
          Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Please cite a proposition that I have made that is "wrong."

  2. Nickny79 profile image86
    Nickny79posted 8 years ago

    Well then what's so remarkable that this non-exceptional instance warrants a discussion thread, while other non-exceptional instances--all too unexceptional, alas--of Islamic extremists warrants silence.  This discussion should be balanced.  Thankfully, I have come to the rescue.  wink

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

      Some rescue - like throwing a concrete block to a drowning man. wink

      Still not with you - your point still has little relevance. Balancing the thread would indicate that you came galloping to the rescue of the reputation of the aforementioned bishop. As you know, all too well, that would prove to be too difficult.

      Another tired lawyer trick - beat that straw-man to death!

      Mind you, Nick - "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." wink

      1. Nickny79 profile image86
        Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Another lawyer's trick is to attempt to trivialize valid points with exaggerated metaphors.  If my comments were truly irrelevant, they would scarcely warrant the attention which they are now commanding.  I have no vested interest in salvaging the reputation of some unknown bishop; however, I cannot in good conscience allow the selective attention of the initiator of this thread to go unchallenged.  The very vehemence of your trivializing characterizations only serves to highlight that you share the same biases as the initiator.

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Point addressed in my final comment about seeking attention.



          Addressed in my penultimate comment about straw-men.



          Nope - an irrelevant and incorrect comparison based upon flawed logic.

          Another tired lawyer trick - Good old association fallacy!

          wink

      2. LondonGirl profile image91
        LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        He's not a lawyer, he's a wannabe (-:

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Hopefully, one day he will be, but he will have to learn to argue better than that. I am just an ouzo-pickled old hippy, not a sharp New-York hired suit.

          1. Nickny79 profile image86
            Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            It's convenient being the judge of your own court and having parrots as a jury.  The ouzo-pickled hippy only thinly veils a slavish adherence to a Neville Chamberlin-style political correctness.  You will have no shortage of parrots to cheer you on.  The president of Iran sends you his regards as well.

            1. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this


              Is that how courts work in NY? Seems to be a little strange, but each to their own.



              Nope - wrong again. I have my own unique take on the world and I am nobody's slave - I studied that period of history extensively, and I can safely say that I have no pieces of paper to wave around.


              What is it with parrots? Oh, you mean the jury. Why are they cheering?


              I did not realise that you knew him personally. Does he like parrots, too?

              1. Nickny79 profile image86
                Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                That's how your court works--and I agree it is strange.  I will have to object to personal jurisdiction.



                My apologies.  The paperless student of history is immune from biases and is politically neutral on all matters.



                Yes, he loves politically correct parrots who downplay his grotesque rhetoric and stigmatize Israel in the name of "peace".

                1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                  Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Do I have a court now? Great - I always wanted my very own parrot jury. We can pass sentence on the cat that just stole my cream cake. I was looking forward to that. sad





                  The paperless student should know history well enough to realise that the famous piece of paper refers to Chamberlain's appeasement plan wink





                  Wow - you know that his parrots are anti-Israeli and politically correct - you must chill out at his place a lot. Such clever parrots surely deserve to be on one of those 'funniest animals' TV programmes. smile

                  I once taught a parrot to say 'Bollocks,' but that is hardly the same league. wink

    2. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      It's a compliment to Catholicism, really. You hear a Muslim say something like that, you roll your eyes and think, "There they go again."

      You hear a Catholic say it, it's shocking. As it should be. Catholics are supposed to know better by now.

      http://binaries.tagfoot.com/svc/member~kerryg.gallery.1a09a30000a0505c51f9da987c4372ee.jpg

  3. Nickny79 profile image86
    Nickny79posted 8 years ago

    Semantic manoeuvers and topic framing notwithstanding, I still correctly and relevantly assert that most insidious anti-Semeticism lay at the hands of Islamic extremists in Iran and Palestine who not only refuse to take back their holocaust remarks but defiantly broadcast these views unceasingly.  I will not be silenced on this point.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Fair enough - 'tis an open forum. Your right to speak is duly noted. I would not wish to be accused of 'silencing' you through sneaky semantic manoeuvres.

      I have the freedom to point out that you wander off into the realms of irrelevance.

      As an alternative, you could always start a separate thread if you do not want to be 'topic-framed.'

      smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        For once, I agree with nicky. Catholic bishops should be allowed and encouraged to molest children and deny the holocaust until these brown people stop doing so. This is much more insidious and we should be discussing that - not a catholic bishop. They speak for god.

        Now stop discussing the catholic and turn your disgust and religious hatred towards the genuine enemy please.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Good points, Mark!

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Well, at least, why don't you try to spell Semitic correctly?

    3. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think calling the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Islamic extremists "insidious" is correct at all. They broadcast it at the top of their lungs every chance they get, and it's perfectly obvious to reasonable people that they're whackjobs.

      This bishop is coating his anti-Semitic beliefs in the guise of science, like my former landlady, a delightful old Bavarian woman who I loved dearly, but who insisted passionately that the Germans couldn't possibly have killed so many people because "there was not time to dispose of so many bodies." Sowing pseudo-scientific doubts such as these is far more "insidious," imho, than loudly calling for the eradication of the Jewish race from the planet.

    4. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      But the thread was about the bishop...not about Iran and Palestine.

      1. Nickny79 profile image86
        Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        The thread is about anti-Semitism; therefore, Iran and Palestine are highly relevant.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    No...it's about the bishop...that is the title. You made it about general anti-semitism

    1. Nickny79 profile image86
      Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I have an expansive view of relevance; I cannot help it if your mind is so literal as to be unable to follow a logical, associative progression.  In any case, it is no great effort to cite dozens of examples of digressions in other threads and at the hands of the very conversational partners who accuse me of "irrelevance" herein.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but you didn't discuss the original question and just changed the topic to suit your own agenda.

        1. Nickny79 profile image86
          Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I would love to know what my agenda is besides making a passing observation.  And I thought you were supposed to ignore me or did the truce expire?

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Israel committed massive war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza. The truth is anti-semitic.

    1. Nickny79 profile image86
      Nickny79posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Oh well in that case I'm wrong--you win knowlywhatever.

  6. TheMoneyGuy profile image75
    TheMoneyGuyposted 8 years ago

    I don't deny the Holocaust, but I do think the Final Solution was born of practicality more than anti-Semitism.

    A quick study of all wars where large numbers of prisoners or laborers are held, against the length of time the prisoner or laborers were held reveals all nations chose to starve and or execute the prisoners as opposed to feed them or waste resources preserving their dignity.

    I site Andersonville as an Easy US comparison.  The book Are we All Nazi's, written by a Jewish psychiatrist with first hand experience of the Nuremburg testimony came to pretty much the same conclusion.  It is just efficient to starve the prisoners and then be revolted by it and come to the logical humane conclusion that a quick clean death is more merciful.

    As a former Military type I have seen these efficient methods and Ideas rehashed over and over.  It is just what Bureaucracy creates. 

    I want to do a good job and please my superiors, therefore I find the best most cost effective method to deal with the problem. 

    If you work for the Government and I know more than half of you do, guess what you are at any moment guilty of the same thought process, and could easily find yourself on trial if you ever happen to be on the losing side.

    TMG

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You are in a small minority. Suggest you do some reading on the subject.

      1. TheMoneyGuy profile image75
        TheMoneyGuyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I have done a lot of reading and realize I am in a small minority, that is first sign that tells you that you have gotten past the propaganda and the agenda and closer to reality. 

        Sufi,
        Another point lost in the propaganda was that, there were a lot of other undesirable that met the same fate as the Jews, but you don't see any Hollywood movies about that.  That my friends is just as evil.

        To all,
        If you are a Soldier and I don't care what nationality, your Superiors will and do create a complete myth of how Barbaric and Evil and less than humane the other side is.  They do this to make it easier for you to go to that place that makes you think it is ok to Make a Necklace out of the Ears of your Fellow Human Beings.  Nuff Said.

        TMG

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Yup - Gays, Gypsies, Political Prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally ill.

          At school, I remember watching one film about 'Euthanasia for the Mentally Ill,' made by the Nazi propaganda machine. The film was so cleverly done and made it appear that euthanasia was doing them a favour, "putting them out of their misery." A debate afterwards was telling - the film had planted seeds of doubt, making us question our morals. Bearing in mind that we were all 14 - 15 years old at the time, and a little more 'malleable,' it showed how dangerous propaganda can be. Dehumanize then Destroy.

          Brainwashing is evil - this is a copy of a post I made on a different thread:

          "During the war, after being a Bevan Boy, my grandfather became a Military Policeman. In Lancashire, there were many prison camps for the German POW's, and he had the task of guarding them. He told me that so many of the captured men were complete Nazi's, and had been brainwashed and indoctrinated with Nazi ideals since childhood. Most had been forced to join the Hitler Youth at a young age.

          Once this barrier was broken through, and the men realised that there was another way of life, they could start to rebuild their minds. Most of them turned out to be very pleasant and kind young men, and many stayed in the area after the war, marrying local girls. That was an example of true brainwashing, and was yet another Nazi crime against humanity. My Grandfather never blamed the Germans for the war, realising that a regime set upon controlling thoughts can rip the soul out of a nation."

          The fact that we are having a good and intense discussion about this shows that we are trying to analyse this period of history. Great - That is the only way to stop this evil happening again, as it has in Cambodia, Uganda, Chile and the Balkans, amongst others. At some point, humanity has to stop this insanity.

          1. TheMoneyGuy profile image75
            TheMoneyGuyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            I understand and agree, the problem is Fascism appeals to so many on many levels it is very hard to escape its subtle pervasive ways.  Some links I think are valuable.

            Fascism Part I: Understanding Fascism and Anti-Semitism
            http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic … ascism.htm


            Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
            http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic … ascism.htm

            TMG

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting site. Not sure what to make of it. I don't agree that Keynes was a fascist or that his theories were fascist. However, there are a fair number of other things in the site that make sense to me.

    2. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Could agree with some parts of that - Gays, Gypsies, political prisoners and the mentally ill made up a large proportion of the victims. Anti-semitism was definitely part of it, but paranoia even more so. My particular area of study was the ethics and psychology of the doctors performing medical experiments - there is still a lot of debate about the motivation, but I suspect that they switched off their morality and saw the subjects as pieces of meat rather than humans. My friend was a paramedic in Bosnia, and said that sometimes you have to go into a mode where you switch off emotion to cope - probably the other side of the same coin.

      The famous Milgram experiment shows the impact of authority figures - added to unfeeling bureaucracy, that is never a nice mix. The Nazi regime was notorious for being a bloated and undisciplined morass, where the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. I remember reading that towards the end of the war, German soldiers hanged partisans rather than shoot them, to save bullets. Military efficiency in action.

      Going to stop now - this particular part of history makes my flesh crawl.

  7. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    Ignore Nicky, he's just trolling in a rather pretentious way.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Please, Nicky wouldn't do a thing like that!

  8. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Yeah, Sufi-- (oops--added after your second post--in response to your Milgram thoughts--)

    I think what is amazing is how sheep-like most people are.  (I've never trusted authority & only given it respect or 'use' out of necessity to get where I want to be.)  I remember an exercise in a college class full of prospective teachers, actually, which phrased the scenario of the holocaust in different terms and presented them with a task--what they would do in the situation.

    Only a couple people even recognized-connected the dots--that this was a metaphor for the holocaust, #1, and then, #2, the ideas of how to deal with an abuse of power were so pathetically lacking, I'm sure it would be a repeat of Milgram or the holocaust all over again--undergrad style,lol.

    So, yes, literal minded-ness is a disadvantage, and can be painful--as proven by Hitler and Milgram.  smile

    And yep, absolutely, you can see this, for lack of a better term--protective device--in legitimate modern physicians distancing themselves from their patients to separate any feeling from them.  A very well-known psychological occurrence.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I thought that you agreed with the parrots!

      Human society is very complex and nothing is straightforward.

      There is no doubt that anti-semitism played a large part - Krystallnacht, yellow stars and Warsaw Ghetto showed that, but the whole thing was much more complex and largely based upon paranoia. Regimes tend to get that a lot.

      A couple of examples:

      Just before the war, German spies and operatives successfully spread rumours of a plot amongst the Russians. This whispering campaign reached the ears of Stalin, and the effects went beyond the wildest dreams of the gleeful Nazi party. Stalin ordered a systematic purge of the Red Army, and every capable general and officer was executed or exiled, and replaced with a useless sycophant. Through paranoia, the Red Army was beheaded, and crumbled before the subsequent Blitzkrieg.

      Pol-Pot had a habit of removing political opponents permanently. He soon realised that most of his opponents were doctors and lawyers, so he killed all of those. His next task was to remove all of the intellectual class, fuelled by paranoia. Further down the chain of dominoes, his troops came to believe that anybody wearing glasses was an intellectual plotter, so killed them, too. He did not necessarily order that everybody with glasses should be killed, but the 'Machine' was set in motion, so I can see where TMG is coming from.

      Most of the Nazi high command did not realise the reality of the final solution - to them it was an order written upon a piece of paper, but the MiIlgram effect became magnified the further it went down the chain. We all know the results. In fact, trust me, the ones who died in the Gas Chambers were luckier than those given to the doctors - true evil. Skin crawling time again

      Don't get me wrong - when I say that the high-command did not know the reality, I do not mean that this is an acceptable excuse. They were punished at Nuremburg, and few can argue with that. The Wiesenthal Centre is quite right to track down the last few criminals.

      People talk about the Holocaust, but few bother to understand it - maybe we all should, so that we can see the effects of extremism and marginalization of certain groups.

      Anyway, that is my rant for tonight.

      See, Nick - you are not the only paperless historian wink

      The Ouzo-Pickled Old Hippy

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed, in general--at least it all sounds very plausible.  And I don't have any problem at all with saying I have not studied this part of history as much as one could or as much as you have, Sufi. Knowledge is somewhat arbitrary as people are. Interesting stuff you have produced for everyone's consideration, though, I might add.  Step in the right direction, ie, your second to last para, whatever is behind the fact that it was produced.  Interesting rant.  smile

        My comments were general and vacillating in nature, as they sometimes are--and people's comments in general are.  LOL. 

        Was I mistaken, or did I think that you and Nick had a certain respect for each other?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Those interested in the Holocaust and the issue of why some people obey orders to commit atrocities may want to see "The Reader" with Kate Winslet and Ralph Fienes. It's quite a good movie that explores this theme among others. It also has some very hot sex scenes with Winslet and the young boy that she seduces.

        2. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          lol - I have a lot of respect for Nick's intelligence and debating skills. Just because we make fun of each other occasionally does not dampen that. smile

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Same Old, Same Old Anti-Semitism
            New Anti-Semitism, Or the Same Old Poison

            Anyone who believes that anti-Semitism is a thing of the past needs to consider the case of Bishop Richard Williamson, the cleric who denies that the Holocaust occurred and insists that the murder of six million Jews is "lies, lies, lies."

            Williamson is a Jew-hater, pure and simple. Pope Benedict's support for him demonstrates that the current pontiff, who started out as a Hitler Youth, has a rather different attitude toward Jews than his revered predecessor, John Paul II, who started out in the Polish Resistance.

            The whole phenomenon of Holocaust denial, of rejecting proven historical facts, is incredible.

            My wife was born in a Displaced Persons (DP) camp in Germany a few years after the war. Her parents were survivors. But two of her mother's siblings were not.

            They were from Poland. Her brother Abraham was a lawyer. Her sister Hannah was a teacher. When the Nazis invaded their town of Rozwadow in September 1939, they, and their parents, fled across the border to the nearby city of Lvov, which was then part of the Soviet Union. They settled there, thinking they were safe from the Nazis in Russia (now Ukraine).

            Hannah, who was 27, met her future husband there. When he decided to return to Poland to help out his parents who had been left behind, Hannah insisted on going with him. Shortly afterwards, the young couple was apprehended and murdered by the Nazi occupiers.

            Abraham stayed in Lvov and was there when the Germans invaded that part of the Soviet Union. Hiding behind his "Aryan" looks, he regularly smuggled bread from the gentile part of Lvov to the ghetto. It didn't take long before he was caught, shipped back to Poland, and executed.

            I have to wonder. What do Holocaust deniers think happened to people like Hannah and Abraham Ellenbogen? Do they think they were on the lam like Bonnie and Clyde? Did they change their identities to escape an overbearing family? Are they still alive?

            Of course, these aren't serious questions. They are dead. They were killed in the Holocaust. Most likely they were gassed at the camp at Maidanek or Birkenau and burned up in a crematorium.

            Those who deny the Holocaust are in the same class as people who deny that dinosaurs once ruled the earth or that FDR presided over this country from a wheel chair. They are, politely put, nuts.

            But the Holocaust deniers are not merely crazy. Their denial of historical facts is motivated by hate. Its specific purpose is to delegitimize Israel.

            They believe that if there was no Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state either. So, eliminating the Holocaust is a means toward eliminating Israel.

            Holocaust denial also allows the deniers to freely hate Jews who, they maintain, invented such a monstrous lie. Holocaust denial then not only intends to delegitimize Israel but also to legitimize anti-Semitism.

            Anti-Semitism is primarily a relic of the past, but it continues to exist. It thrives on the fringes of the far right and far left and ignites whenever the Israeli-Palestinian conflict flares up.

            There are those who argue that anti-Semitism is unrelated to developments in the Middle East, that it is always around, and that its rise or fall is unrelated to actual events. They make a strong case, one that is probably true in most cases. 

            But the current spike is not simply the product of intrinsic anti-Semitism but a by-product of the Gaza war. That may not be fair but it's a fact.

            Endless war does Israel no good on the public relations front, no matter whether the war is justifiable or not. Prime Minister Olmert's statement threatening more "disproportionate responses" did Israel the kind of harm that all the spin in the world will not undo.

            Fortunately, the harm produced by war is undone when Israel is seen as pursuing peace. In fact, when Yitzhak Rabin was extending the hand of peace to the Palestinians, he was admired in the same quarters (particularly in Europe) where Israel is so widely disdained today. In fact, he was the most admired statesman in polls taken throughout the world. 

            If anti-Semitism was as permanent and deep-seated as some say, Rabin would have been no more admired than a Sharon or a Shamir. Real anti-Semites don't make exceptions, especially for Israeli war heroes. Israeli policies indeed affect how Jews are viewed worldwide, as does our penchant to take to the television screens to defend those policies, no matter what they are.

            Of course, old-fashioned anti-Semitism- like that of Richard Williamson-is unrelated to the Middle East. It is race-based. He would hate Jews no matter what, like segregationists in the south hated African-Americans. But, fortunately, that kind of anti-Semitism is less common than ever before, much like the social anti-Semitism that kept Jews out of the "best" colleges, jobs, clubs, and neighborhoods through the 1950's. 

            Jews today are better off than ever before. Abraham and Hannah Ellenbogen would laugh at the very idea that a professor who champions the Palestinians-and wishes Israel would go away-is tantamount to a pogrom. If they were here, and could witness the condition of American Jewry and the power and vitality of Israel, they would think the Messiah must have arrived. 

            And yet Israelis (and some of their American supporters) are running scared, as evidenced by the Avigdor Lieberman phenomenon.

            What happened? 

            Forty years of occupation, forty years of fighting stone throwing teenagers in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza, and ten years of defending Israel against lunatics who blow up buses have done terrible things to Israel.

            And then there is Hamas.

            Israelis look at all this and suddenly a Lieberman seems not quite so unreasonable. He did not arrive from nowhere. He is the creature of Hamas just as Hamas is the creature of the settler movement.

            Not long ago, that would be a controversial statement. But no more.

            Yesterday, Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia convened a hearing on the Gaza situation.

            Dr. Ziad J.Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine, delivered an eloquent statement explaining why it is morally wrong to punish the people of Gaza and also why it is naïve to believe that Hamas will ever change its terrorist stripes. 

            Naturally, he was attacked by several of the Representatives in Congress who, with the lobby's talking points in hand, struggled mightily to justify withholding United Nations-sponsored humanitarian aid from innocent people. It was the usual stuff from the usual suspects, one of whom was not Gary Ackerman.

            Ackerman has long been Israel's most outspoken advocate in Congress. However, his idea of supporting Israel does not include punishing children. And, wonder of wonders, the Democrat from Queens blames both Palestinians and Israelis for the current horrors. In Congress, it is de rigueur to insist that the Israelis are always innocent and the Palestinians always guilty. 

            But, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ackerman said yesterday that Israeli hardliners and Palestinian terrorists are "all part of the same destructive dynamic."

            The "downward spiral" in the region "comes from terrorism and the march of settlements. It comes from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms. It comes in daily images of destruction and the constant reiteration that 'they only understand the language of force.' It comes from tunnels in Gaza and, yes, from digging in Jerusalem as well."

            Amen.

            Will Ackerman catch hell for his statement? Will he be sat down for some friendly warnings by the lobby? Will he be threatened by wealthy donors?

            You bet he will. But he knew that before he opened his mouth and, rare on Capitol Hill, he decided to "damn the consequences."  (There won't be any anyway-none that matter-which will encourage his more timid colleagues to follow Ackerman's example).

            It was a rare moment on Capitol Hill. A powerful, pro-Israel Representative departed from the script and told his listeners that the current course is bad for America, bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians. It was, perhaps, the first such moment in a subcommittee that has always been rather predictable when it comes to Israel. But I suspect it won't be the last. 

            What can you do to help?

            Why don't you give Congressman Ackerman a call and thank him? Believe me, the status quo lobby will be calling and reading Ackerman the riot act.  Just call 202-225-2601 and tell whoever answers to give the Congressman a message. A hearty "way to go, Gary" will suffice.


            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

  9. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    That is actually on my list to view, Ralph--but we don't see much at the theatre here--mainly when it gets to Netflix.  Kate Winslet is one of my favorite actresses--don't know about sex with a 15 year old, though.  That doesn't sound too 'hot,' but rather sick.  lol

    To be honest, in my actual opinion, It doesn't take much to see that this goes beyond neurosis and into psychosis--this scapegoating or abuse, which can be seen at many levels in human society--down to the family unit.  It is my belief that those in power are often narcissistic personalities--and a little beyond being unaware.  Those who would would follow these types and commit atrocities I would classify as borderline personalities---always somewhat prone to becoming the prey of the narcissists and scapegoating those weaker than they are.

    Simple human weakness--just taken to the extreme.

    Have you ever read "Games People Play," by psychologist Eric Berne, from the 'golden age' of self -help books, published in 1964 (read: therefore not smarmy), and reviewed very well by the likes, lol, of the New York Times, recently, so!  Of course I am validated, smile. Transactional analysis.

    This is why displays of cynicism and power detailing military might and politics, etc., and what we should know, blah, blah, coming from all angles always seem a little redundant and almost part and parcel to the problem at times--only at a very low level--to me.

    But taking the good from any situation or learning what you can or producing what you can by whatever it is inspired by is a positive thing--and I would think proof of the opposite tendency as to what I just detailed above.  Those who inspire these things MAY even be aware of it (then again, they may not).

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The young actor was 18 when the sex scenes were filmed. He may have been 15 in the book. I don't recall from the movie how old the character was. Maybe 15. I'm sure he was the envy of all his friends for getting to play the scenes!

      Yes, I read "Games People Play" years ago when it was published. I don't remember much about it except that I was impressed by it. Another good book about group interactions is "The Human Group" by George Homans. Also William Foote Whyte's "Street Corner Society" and "Money and Motivation."

  10. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    This story goes a lot further than Bishop Williamson.  When it comes to the point when Jewish groups are dictating to the Vatican who can be beatified as a saint and who can not be or who's excommunication can be lifted and who's can't be, then it should be time for this period of ecumenicism to come to an end.

    Here's Bishop Williamson's interview.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwDF65CDto

    He didn't have the right to say what he did.  At least without showing more proof than he did.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The Jews were perfectly within their rights to complain about the Pope's thoughtless action wrt Williamson. Williamson is an idiot or crazy or both. Thanks for posting the video of Williamson. He struck me as "Looney Tunes." Reinstating him was a really dumb thing for the Pope to do, especially in view of his own membership in the Hitler Youth (which may well have been totally innocent but for which he has been criticized) and the church's historical anti-semitism. Bringing the other Lefebvrists (sp?) back into the fold may have made sense, but not Williamson. The Pope could have done without the controversy which he should have anticipated. (edited after reply).

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I watched that, but I would simply need more information to form an opinion on Williamson. 

        Though I would say that the Catholic hierarchy is just more of the same, so who cares?  I do not put it past them to be anti-semitic.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the Jews care. And for some time the Pope and his predecessors have been trying to improve relationships between the Catholic church and the Jews. Ever somce WWII the church has been trying to dampen criticism for not taking a stand against Hitler and Mussolini during the war and in the period leading up to the war.

      2. Make  Money profile image74
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah the Jews were within their rights to complain about lifting of the excommunication of Williamson.  But they are not within their rights for saying who should or shouldn't be beatified or saying the excommunication of the other bishops shouldn't happen.  The Swedish interview of Williamson aired after the reversal of the excommunication had started.  The Pope wasn't aware that he had said it years ago.  I've read that all German youth had to join Nazi youth groups.

        Thanks for posting the MJ Rosenberg letter Ralph.

  11. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Then I guess they need to stick a rag in his mouth and usher him out of a 'PR' relationship within the organization, lol.  It didn't "sound" good certainly.  I'd just need to know more of what his thought processes are.

    I'll be honest, whenever I see those old guys, I always think they are somewhat sad--as I don't believe they have lived.  And I feel sorry for them.

    I also have a tendency to think that if the Pope or others does and can help people with a certain kind of faith--like death in the dark kind of thing--then it is not entirely in vain.

  12. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    thank you for posting this, very interesting.

  13. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    "Ackerman has long been Israel's most outspoken advocate in Congress. However, his idea of supporting Israel does not include punishing children. And, wonder of wonders, the Democrat from Queens blames both Palestinians and Israelis for the current horrors. In Congress, it is de rigueur to insist that the Israelis are always innocent and the Palestinians always guilty.

    But, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ackerman said yesterday that Israeli hardliners and Palestinian terrorists are "all part of the same destructive dynamic."

    The "downward spiral" in the region "comes from terrorism and the march of settlements. It comes from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms. It comes in daily images of destruction and the constant reiteration that 'they only understand the language of force.' It comes from tunnels in Gaza and, yes, from digging in Jerusalem as well."

    Amen. "


    Double Amen.  Thanks, Ralph!  smile

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      It just occurred to me that the publicity resulting from the Pope's fiasco over Bishop Williamson actually helped remind the world that anti-semitism still lurks in the hearts of men and counteract the adverse publicity over the atrocities in Gaza.

  14. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago

    Great post, Ralph - Thanks for posting that. A very interesting narrative.

    You have given us all a glimmer of hope - if politicians are beginning to praise/condemn both sides equally, then a real dialogue can occur. More Ackermans and fewer Williamsons - I will certainly e-mail him with encouragement! smile

    I don't know if you read Aya's Hub, but it gives another angle.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/ISRAEL-The-Two- … the-Nation

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I hadn't seen it. Thanks. Great perspective.

  15. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    That hub is brilliant, do take a look.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. I'm now an Aya fan.

  16. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "I hope that by posting this here I may bring his dream of a united Israel a little closer to fruition."
    So how come it is not a united Palistine?

  17. Dame Scribe profile image59
    Dame Scribeposted 8 years ago

    I read an article where a brazilian woman was attacked by 3 neo-nazi's .. they carved on her swollen stomach ...then left her bleeding and screaming at the train stn .. I think it's people like that bishop ... people in denial ... that allows such atrocious behaviours to continue ..this woman lost her twins (according to the news article) and she was due to get married soon. It is just sickening how these things happen. I hope the bank she works for Meark (?) do withdraw from continuing to work within that country.

  18. Junkster profile image59
    Junksterposted 8 years ago

    Thanks to everyone else who has managed to get this discussion back on the rails though, it has made for some interesting reading I can assure you. smile

    I thought I'd mention something about soldiers as one poster had brought up the idea that commanders indoctrinate their soldiers with tales of how the enemy is evil and does horrible things:  Please watch Band of Brothers, the TV mini series about a group of 101st Airbourne paratroopers...

    One of the veterans who the story is based on made an excellent comment which I can't quote exactly but it went along the lines of when describing the enemy "That man and me in a different life may have been best pals, he may have liked to hunt and I'd have liked to fish but we were only enemies becuase we were told to fight and that the other was our enemy when in reality we could have been best friends" 

    Sorry I can't recall it correctly but I hadn't seen it in a while, seemed pretty relevant to the discussion about soldiers being told that their enemy is the evil one. 

    Anyway, sorry for that random off-shoot of the discussion.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      No worries, Junkster - Glad you enjoyed the thread (Sorry about the Iranian President's Parrots - I had drunk a lot of Ouzo by that point!) smile

      Liked the Band of Brothers quote - very true. Expanding upon that, the US, England and Greece all suffered civil wars, one of the most evil types of conflict. The US and English civil wars were two of the bloodiest conflicts ever, and the scars still run deep for the Greeks. Ideology is a dangerous path to tread.

      On another tangent, I watched an excellent series on the BBC recently, about some dude travelling around Iran and visiting the homes of normal Iranians. Great series, and it makes you realise that the Iranians are no different from the rest of us. There was a great shot of a bunch of guys in a coffee shop, smoking and playing backgammon - could just as easily have been Greece or the Italian Quarter of New York.

      Just because the president is an idiot does not justify demonizing the entire nation, as happens all too often. sad

  19. Junkster profile image59
    Junksterposted 8 years ago

    The ouzo inspired iranian parrot army did sort of throw me a curve ball, but no more confusing as bringing up politics in a discussion about one man of the (supposed) cloth big_smile

    I see that more and more often, an out-of-touch ruler giving off the impression that all people under him are evil and twisted just like him.  But the thing with wars in my mind is that religion is quite often the cause, people always argue the point but I've seen little to disprove my thought.

    One of the many reasons I have for being simply void of any relgion at this point in my life.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Press-ganging parrots into the army - is there no end to that man's evil! mad

      Mind you, considering that dolphins, dogs and pigeons have been regarded as fair game for delivering high explosives, not so far-fetched.



      Yup - expanding upon that, any sort of extremist ideology is dangerous, usually recruiting from the poor and oppressed. Once opinion becomes polarised, there is little room for compromise. Religion, politics and nationalism are all dangerous areas, if misused, but we are seeing a slow drift of people to extremes, mainly fuelled by ignorance and misinformation.

      I do worry, sometimes. sad

  20. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    It is worrying. This is an interesting article about the current pope. -

    http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/20 … s-catholic

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      There were many things about the last Pope that I disagreed with but, credit where it is due, he actively tried to promote inter-faith dialogue.

      Don't get the same feeling with this Pope. hmm

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        "Fear-mongering, right-wing, reactionary bigot," comes to mind. smile You would think the vicar of christ on earth would be a little more christ-like in his attitudes.

        Still, maybe I am just being unreasonably optimistic. I already see all the govs resorting to nationalism and protectionism as the economy goes into decline. Why would the churches be any different. At the end of the day - they are only interested in their own well-being. sad

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Sadly true - some of the financial shenanigans in the Greek Orthodox Church stink. Politicians, lawyers and judges are expected to steal - it is what they do best. When you can't even trust a bunch of monks, there is something seriously wrong with the world.

          Agreed Ralph - For example, the Catholic Church had gained respect as a neutral party in the Israel/Palestine conflict. 'Roland' Ratzinger has managed to anger both sides. mad

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Ratzinger was the Dick Cheney under Pope John Paul. He was a very poor choice to succeed John Paul.

  21. countrywomen profile image60
    countrywomenposted 8 years ago

    It is so nice to see you guys standing up for a principle instead of taking firm stands on either sides. Earlier when Gaza strikes were taking place there was outcry against Israel and now there is outcry against those who try to deny the sad period in our history called holocaust. Sometimes I think it is the broad minded people like you folks who are able to see things from bigger picture. I really admire you all cool

  22. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    smile Too right. It looks as though there are even a few rationalists in the catholic church -

    http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyl … CV20090216

    1. BDazzler profile image84
      BDazzlerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The afore mentioned article ...


      I live on the Gulf Coast I was in New Orleans the weekend before she hit.  I was in Mobile, AL when she did hit.  I went back New Orleans almost as soon as they were letting people back in (I had an IT client there.) 

      Nothing prepared me for seeing armed mercenaries patroling the streets of an American city.

      The bishop who said that, has, at best, a severe lack of understanding of both physical and spritual reality. 

      He goes into the mix with Job's "comforters".

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Problem is - he believes his god told him this. And this is what god says in the bible. You will be punished for your sins........

        1. BDazzler profile image84
          BDazzlerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, well, God told me his mouth is full of poop .... I'm not saying God doesn't punish sin, even this severely, I'm saying that there is A LOT more to the story, and it's this bumper sticker theology ... "If something bad happens it automatically means God's punishing you." that makes more atheisist than all the rational arguments combined.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            But you are not a highly respected bishop. No offence smile

            That is the problem with believing in god. Unless you subscribe to the idea that not everything is down to god? Random chance?

            So, either god had a hand in the New Orleans  disaster or god does not have a hand in everything................

            Hence the atheism.

            1. Junkster profile image59
              Junksterposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              That's my exact train of thought, the "oh but it's in the interest of the greater good" or the "bigger plan" explanation is a load of bull in my book.

              1. Sufidreamer profile image81
                Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe they are Borgs - Assimilate. big_smile

  23. profile image0
    jgrimes331posted 8 years ago

    What is wrong with this Bishop (man) thinking the way he does?  My sister in-law thinks Neil Armstrong and the moon walk is a great big fraud.  Her name isn't in the news.  Should it be?
    Why should he apologize?
    Why should the church get involved?  It is HIS personal belief and thought?
    How does his ideas or thoughts disprove history?  So why do his personal thoughts matter?
    Are humans too dumb to think for themselves now?  Is that whats being said?
    He might have been disrespectful or rude to a group of people and right to another group and this is news why?

    Religion... that's why!  It didn't matter if Galileo said the earth was flat, but it did when he said the earth was round.  The church needs to keep out of such things...  and let men be men.

  24. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Not the Church Julie.  One bishop, Bishop Williamson.

    This is a very good recent article by Michael J. Matt on Holocaust Revisionism that's definitely worth reading.

    It should be noted that Williamson originally said what he said in 1985.  The Swedish interviewer asked him again about it just recently, obviously because the excommunication was just about to be lifted.  Williamson got his information from a Fred Leuchter report which he hadn't known had recently been refuted.  To research what he has said he has ordered a book by Jean-Claude Pressac which is mentioned in this two part video by David Cole.  Part one  Part two

    See Mr. Obama has been caught in his first public lie.  Obama's uncle liberated Auschwitz?  But the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz in January of 1945.  The Nuremberg trials took the Soviets word for what they said they had discovered there which wasn't available to the west until 1989.

    Mike

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Mike,  but isn't the church trying to force the Bishop to apologize?smile  For what I understand, he has an opinion about the Jewish Holocaust that differs from the opinion of the Catholic Churches Vatican.  If that is the case and he is just one man, why is the Vatican getting involved and trying to force him to apologize?  Is he not entitled to his opinion?  I don't know.  That is what I was asking.

      1. Make  Money profile image74
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        It seems it's upset the Jewish community and they must think they should have some sort of say in the matter as to whether the Vatican lifts the excommunication.  Bishop Williamson belongs to a Catholic organization that has had a bit of a rift with the Vatican.  They were just getting the rift mended when the Swedish reporter brings up what Williamson said in 1985.  Now the Jews have broke off meetings with the Vatican till the excommunication is back on Williamson and they are even hinting on the Catholic organization too.  They are even complaining about talk about beatifying Pope Pius XII.  Seems kind of pushy to me.  The Vatican wants Williamson to recant what he said and apologize.  He wants to research it more first.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Williamson's denials of the Holocaust haven't "upset" only the Jewish community. They have upset the Catholic, Protestant communities as well as the German community and government. His remarks remind everyone of the Catholic Church's long and shameful history of anti-semitism which the church has been trying to put behind it.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          The Jewish community is not the only one objecting to Williamson's reinstatement. So are plenty of thoughtful Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans, none of whom believe that Katrina was God's punishment and all of whom accept the conventional view of the Holocaust and most of whom would like to see more ecumenical harmony among world religions.

          1. Make  Money profile image74
            Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph the SSPX have given Williamson to the end of the month to recant.  Personally with all the other evidence that has surfaced since 1989 proving his case I hope he doesn't.  If more ecumenical harmony among world religions means changing Catholic dogmas then I'd say forget about it all together.  What good has come from the ecumenicism of the last 40 odd years anyway.  Nothing as far as I can see.  This thread even shows it.

          2. profile image0
            jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Ralph!  I gathered the assumption that the Catholic Vatican, some members, Protestants and Anglicans are upset by the Bishop's words.  I watch a lot of different news channels.

            But....  Wasn't it only the Jews, out of the list above, that canceled talks with the Vatican?  If the Protestants and Anglicans canceled because of this low level bishop I'd have a better understanding as to what point you were trying to make.  As it is....  I apologize.  But what does the Protestants or Anglicans have to do with the cancellation between the Vatican and Jewish leadership and them demanding the bishop to recant his position?  Thanks.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Please tell us what evidence you have for your accusation that Obama "lied" about his uncle's experience at Auschwitz. I suspect you are mistaken or overstatin the case. By the way, I don't recall seeing you point out or acknowledge the many lies by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, et al.

      1. Make  Money profile image74
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Obama may have just been mistaken when he referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald or it could have been intentional.  I wasn't coming to the HubPages during most of Bush and Cheney's tenure or you would have heard from me.  Personally I think Bush, Cheney and others should be forced to stand trial for war crimes.

        From David Cole's Part one video above at about 22:00 minutes you can see that Dr. Frankziesk Piper, the director of the Auschwitz Museum in Poland along with other scholars like Israeli Holocaust expert Yehuda Bauer are responsible for lowering the number of the Auschwitz death count in 1989 from 4 million to 1.1 million.  By the way David Cole is also a Jew.  Bishop Williamson is not saying anything more than what David Cole has said.

        The media is calling Bishop Williamson a holocaust denier the same as this list of rabbis, scholars, researchers, journalists and attorneys.

        Rabbi Dovid Weiss, Professor Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were both Holocaust survivors and who wrote the book, "The Holocaust Industry"), Arthur Butz PhD, Robert Faurisson PhD (severely beaten by Zionists), Henri Roques PhD, Carlo Mattogno, Paul Rassinier, Fred Leutcher, Germar Rudolf (PhD candidate), William Barton, M.D., David Irving, Jurgen Graf, Richard Widmann, Carlos Porter, Ingrid Weckert, Ditlieb Felderer, Walter Luftl, Paul Grubach, Thies Christophersen, Hans von der Heide, Samuel Crowell, Brian Renk, James J. Martin PhD, Siegfried Verbeke, David L. Hoggan, PhD, General Otto Ernst Remer, Leon Degrelle, David Cole, Wilhelm Staglich, PhD, Ivan Lagace, Francois Duprat (murdered by Zionists), Hans Schmidt, Udo Walendy, Pedro Varela, Ernst Zundel and dozens of other scholars and researchers including a former Dow Chemical scientist, as well as journalists (Bradley Smith, Doug Collins, Mike Piper and Michael Hoffman), and attorneys (Doug Christie, Barbara Kulaszka, Bruce Leichty and Jurgen Rieger).

        But not one of them is denying the holocaust.

        Like Bishop Williamson they are all just questioning the numbers since recent evidence has surfaced in 1989.

        So why is this such a "sacred cow"? 

        Not many even recognized the 1915 Armenian holocaust of Christians until recently.  The Ugandan genocide could have been prevented but it wasn't.  Does anyone even know about the Bengal famine of 1943 under British administration that claimed the lives of two to two and a half million (other sources claim up to 6 million)?  Or that Marxist governments have killed over 95 million of their own people in the 20th century, mostly Christians.  Does anyone even care about this?

        With new information surfacing in 1989 it should be natural to question the official number of the Jewish holocaust.  Nobody is saying that it wouldn't still be terrible.  It would still be terrible if it was just 1 million.  What do they have to hide?  Do they think it would diminish the support for the state of Israel?

        As a Catholic I feel this whole Bishop Williamson episode is being carried out by outsiders that are meddling with the affairs of the Catholic Church and it should not happen.

        LondonGirl the Catholic Church is still the largest benevolent organization in the world.

        Mike

        1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
          Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          1     Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation      United States     Seattle, Washington     $35.1 billion         [1]
          2     Wellcome Trust      United Kingdom     London     $26.4 billion     £14.2 billion (GBP)     [2] [3]
          3     Howard Hughes Medical Institute      United States     Chevy Chase, Maryland     $18.6 billion         [4]
          4     Ford Foundation      United States     New York City, New York     $13.7 billion         [5]
          5     The Church Commissioners for England      United Kingdom     London     $10.5 billion     £5.67 billion (GBP)

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Mike, what could possibly have motivated Obama to intentionally substitute Auschwitz for Buchenwald? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The Williamson episode was brought on by nobody other than Williamson himself and the Pope who reinstated him for whatever reason.

  25. Junkster profile image59
    Junksterposted 8 years ago

    I think that it is a big deal as yes it is because of religion and I was brought up to think of priests and the clergy were impartial and non-controversial figures in the community.  Now there's all the talk of amny child abusers and this special bishop who wants to deny something tragic.

    That being said I still think someone of his status should not be making views like this public, as it does nothing good for his views and the organisation as a whole, just like if someone was vocal in their job about how they hated one race or religion.  I think that he said something like that in the first place was dumb and it's clearly a big deal with the current regime as this pope they have, wasn't there something about him being in the Hitler Youth??

    So I guess Mark was right it is self-preservation after all! big_smile lol

  26. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    As far as I know, no Americans liberated Auschwitz, so Obama's uncle is unlikely to have been there.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps it was some other concentration camp. Or perhaps Obama's uncle exaggerated or was confused. The fact that Obama was not even born at the time  makes his mention of this bit of family lore a great stretch to call it a lie. I recall similar stories in my own family passed down by my grandmother and my mother which may or may not be completely accurate. Calling Obama a liar over this is a bit overboard. I invite comparisons with the countless intentional lies over much more critical matters told by George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al.

      Here's a link to a Washington Post blog on the incident which strikes me as much ado about nothing. Obama staffer's assert that Obama confused Auschwitz with Buchenwald in relating the incident involving his uncle. Not a big deal IMHO.

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/ … ratio.html

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Amen.

      2. LondonGirl profile image91
        LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't call him a lier - and I agree, in any comparison with Bush etc, it's not important.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I know. I was referring to Money Maker's post, not yours.

          1. profile image0
            jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            LG- It's LIAR not LIER.  Or is that the way the UK spells liar?


            I can see where the comments of this Bishop could have upset a lot of people.  But WHY?  When did he say it, 1985?  24 years ago?  If the Jews were really wanting to meet with the church, work towards peace- something non-incidental like this, shouldn't have stopped them.   Moving forward would've set a better example, don't you think?  Very concerning and sad.  The bishop is so not important.  What he says isn't important.  It's not like he changed the course of history and made anyone think the holocaust was a joke.  The is the first I've heard of the matter.  That's a shame.  I suspect I wasn't the only one to hear this for the first time.  Sad....

            Yes he is a man of the clothe.  But so are the priests that rape young small choir boys.  Do those men represent the whole of the Catholic Church?  Why then should this man? 
            I think he might be a tad touched in the head, but he doesn't speak for the whole of the Catholic Church.  He's a mere Bishop.  That is a pretty low status in the Catholic Church. 

            The Pope is the "earthly human face and voice" of the church.  Not this bishop...

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Well, why would the Pope want to reinstate a bishop that is "touched in the head?" That was a dumb move. Or perhaps he didn't get all the facts from his advisers.

              1. profile image0
                jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Good question.  I am not stating that he should or should have.  I stated that was MY opinion of the man.  I NEVER said he should be reinstated either.   I can't pretend to think like the pope or a pope's adviser knowing what facts he'd gathered or was given.   I live in MO, USA not the Vatican.  Never been either. 

                I think, I THINK anyone who doesn't fully recognize the horrific circumstances of the holocaust, might be a little touched in the head.  MY OPINION.  I don't know how the Pope feels and I won't pretend I have the power to do anything about it. 

                The bottomline still...  is the fact that the Jews let 1 persons views get in the way of peace.  That, again tells ME, that the they were looking for an escape goat to get outta of the meeting anyways.  He is too incidental in the BIG scheme of things.  Or at least I think so...
                I didn't see the purpose of canceling.  I saw the greater need to move forward.smile  Thanks.

                1. Junkster profile image59
                  Junksterposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Well if you want to be pedantic about spelling then I thought I'd point out that there is no such thing as an escape goat, there's a scapegoat but even that isn't the right word in the sense you used.  A scapegoat is typically someone who gets all the blame for some sort of problem or wrongdoing.

                  Unless that's how you spell it over in the US or there are escape goats which you use to ride off away from religious discussions? lol

                  1. profile image0
                    jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for the spelling lesson. 

                    As for riding off away from a religious discussion....  I went to bed.  Is that okay?  Getting a goodnight sleep, that is?hmm  When you sleep, are you running off?

                    Now back to the subject at hand: (is that phrasing okay with you?  Any misspelled words?)
                    I woke up this morning, still thinking that the Jewish members that were to meet with Vatican officials, still let 1 measly little bishop get in there way of peace talks.   So were they really interested in peace or an inconsequential man?big_smile

            2. LondonGirl profile image91
              LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              No, I wrote it wrongly. Thanks for pointing it out.

              1. profile image0
                jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                LG- what is your thought on this post?

  27. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    I think the church is making a mistake; and I'm not surprised people are upset by it.

    But I also think the Catholic Church is effectively guilty of genocide, esp. in the Third World, and that is more important.

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Respectfully asking, what makes you think that the Catholic Church is guilty of genocide in the Third World?  May I ask you what Third World area you are talking about.  I, like most Americans, think of South America first when thinking of a Third World country.  I don't think we are thinking about the same area, is why I ask.

      1. LondonGirl profile image91
        LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I'm thinking more of Africa - where they are actively helping the spread of AIDS, and the birth of children who will die of hunger.

        1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
          Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          The church isn't the only culprit, though.  Since it isn't profitable to research on the correct dosage of aids drugs to give small children, American pharmaceutical companies don't have correct dosages -- doctors in Africa have to guess how much to give small children.  T

          1. LondonGirl profile image91
            LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I agree - plenty of blame to go around.

            What dosages do they give to HIV positive children here, or in the USA?

            1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
              Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              No idea.  I'm wondering if they actually use the same drugs -- seriously -- let me do some research and get back to you on that.

              1. LondonGirl profile image91
                LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Seems there is guidance:

                "The United States Department of Health and Human Services keeps a living document (updated as needed and reviewed on a monthly basis) on their website. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in pediatric HIV infection was published in October 2006 and certain sections have been updated. That website can be accessed at: www.aidsinfo.nih.gov

                The Children's HIV Association of UK and Ireland (CHIVA) endorses the guidelines set by the Paediatric European Network for the Treatment of AIDS (PENTA). The guidelines were written in June 2004 and updated in May 2007. The document title is PENTA guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy, 2004 and can be found online at: www.pentatrial.org/guidelin.pdf"

                http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1234692.asp

                1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
                  Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm glad that someone knows what they are doing.  I wonder, though, if all the same drugs that are available in the States are also available in Africa.

        2. profile image0
          jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I thought maybe you might be thinking Africa.  But like I said, over here, South America is what comes first to mind- usually.smile

        3. Make  Money profile image74
          Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Do you actually think that condoms will prevent the spread of AIDS?  Abstinence would prevent it more.

          There are thousands of Catholic charities around the world.

          Ralph I suspect the Israel Lobby could have something to do with it.  There certainly does not look like there is going to be much of  a "change" in Palestine.

          1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
            Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that married couples would enjoy abstinence.  AIDs in Africa is transmitted mostly by heterosexual sex.

            1. Make  Money profile image74
              Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Well abstinence at least until they are sure their partners are HIV/AIDS free.

              I believe the wealth of the Catholic Church is exaggerated by many.

              I don't believe that LG.

              1. LondonGirl profile image91
                LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                I remember watching  a Panorama programme on BBC 1 where an African bishop was interviewed and said exactly that.

                1. profile image0
                  jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  So is that why you blame the whole of the Catholic Church for Genocide?
                  Again, are you blaming the Catholics or the Vatican?  You never made that clear.  You have also stated that the Catholic Church is the group responsible for Genocide in Africa.  Then you stated they aren't solely responsible, sort of....but are still debating they are without clarification of your position so you needn't retract any earlier statements? 

                  Did you ever list any other group that is (solely) responsible for the Genocide of the African people?  Or is the Catholic Church- the CATHOLIC PEOPLE still the only 1 that is deliberately, systematically destroying the racial, political and cultural mass of African people? Through aids as you have suggested earlier.

                  1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
                    Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    There are two types of genocide (at least).  One is the planned and systematic killing of others -- as was carried out during the Holocaust, or the "ethnic cleansing" in eastern Europe.  The second kind is through omission, carelessness, or neglect that leads to people dying as a direct consequence.  I think LG is describing how the policies promulgated by the Catholic Church -- no condoms, for example -- is leading to large numbers of people dying.  This is, effectively, genocide.

                  2. LondonGirl profile image91
                    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. There is certainly plenty of blame to go round. I've said that before.

          2. LondonGirl profile image91
            LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Did you know that many Catholic bishops and priests in Africa tell married women they have a duty to have sex with their husbands, without condoms, if those men are HIV positive?

            Abstinence is, however, a pretty useless policy. Humans don't do that.

  28. profile image0
    jgrimes331posted 8 years ago

    Hi Teresa-

    I see you listed a bunch of other foundations and churches.  Are they linked under the Catholic church?

    I am sure Mike, like many of us, do realize that the Catholic church isn't the only contributor in this world...  I don't think he was suggesting that.  But I am curious as what you are suggesting with this list?  Why did you list these names?  Are they involve with committing genocide in third world countries?  I don't get it.

    1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
      Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      No -- none of them are in any way affiliated with the Catholic Church.  This is the list of the five largest charitable foundations in the world.  You will notice that the fifth is the Church of England, which is considerably smaller than the Catholic Church, yet manages to give away more money.  The Catholic Church is perhaps more wealthy, but not as a charitable foundation -- the holdings of the Vatican, for example, alone amounts to billions of dollars.  That does not make it a benevolent -- certainly not a beneficent -- entity.

      1. profile image0
        jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        "That does not make it a benevolent -- certainly not a beneficent -- entity." .....I see.

  29. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "spread of AIDS, and the birth of children who will die of hunger."
    Agree.

  30. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    And resource wars.

  31. Teresa McGurk profile image60
    Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago

    LG: I found some rather grim information -- no surprise there.  http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Chil … news-poh1/ stated that, for developing countries (not just Africa) "There are no accurate statistics about the number of children who are HIV positive or have AIDS so it is difficult to plan and organize specific resources for them.
        *
          There is a misconception that all HIV infected children die in early childhood and ARV therapy is not effective for them.
        *
          Young infants and toddlers under 18 months of age require different methods of diagnosis than adults.
        *
          ARV drugs are not easily available at affordable prices.
        *
          Children’s formulations of ARV drugs are not available for all ARV drugs and the doses needed for children at different ages are not always well established.
        *
          There is a lack of expertise in diagnosing and treating HIV/AIDS in children.
        *
          Many HIV-infected children are orphans and therefore do not have strong advocates supporting their needs."  ARV are the anti-retroviral drugs.

    Gulp -- that last one alone is. ..    Anyway, the States has a relatively low percentage of the children in the world suffering HIV or AIDS -- of which most are low-income -- so again, no incentive for the drug companies to do any research --

  32. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    Thanks Teresa - I saw your message after I'd written mine.

  33. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    I don't wonder, I know they aren't (apart from possibly in up-market private clinics).

    For example, in the House of Lords case of N (FC) (AppellantN) vs The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 31 the availability in Uganda. They summarised the facts thus:

    " 2. When the appellant arrived here she was very poorly. Within hours she was admitted to Guy's Hospital. She was diagnosed as HIV positive, with an AIDS defining illness. In August 1998 she developed a second AIDS defining illness, Kaposi's sarcoma. The CD4 cell count of a normal healthy person is over 500. Hers was down to 10.

    3. As a result of modern drugs and skilled medical treatment over a lengthy period, including a prolonged course of systematic chemotherapy, the appellant is now much better. Her CD4 count has risen to 414. Her condition is stable. Her doctors say that if she continues to have access to the drugs and medical facilities available in the United Kingdom she should remain well for 'decades'. But without these drugs and facilities her prognosis is 'appalling': she will suffer ill-health, discomfort, pain and death within a year or two. This is because the highly active antiretroviral medication she is currently receiving does not cure her disease. It does not restore her to her pre-disease state. The medication replicates the functions of her compromised immune system and protects her from the consequences of her immune deficiency while, and only while, she continues to receive it.

    4. The cruel reality is that if the appellant returns to Uganda her ability to obtain the necessary medication is problematic. So if she returns to Uganda and cannot obtain the medical assistance she needs to keep her illness under control, her position will be similar to having a life-support machine switched off."

    and also:

    "There are millions of people in the world who are HIV positive, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa; thousands of people arrive in this country every year without leave to enter or remain but are for one reason or another able to stay here for some considerable time during which they will usually receive the medical care they need; the anti-retroviral therapy now available here can, for as long as it continues, restore the compromised immune system to such an extent that life expectancy is greatly enhanced; for the fortunate few that or at least some therapy may be available in their home countries, but for most it will remain only a theoretical possibility for many years to come."

    But they found (upheld by the ECHR) that sending her back was not "cruel or inhuman treatment" contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR (Article 3).

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      ....So am I correct in thinking that you think this is all the Catholic Churches fault?  Respectfully thinking I might add.smile

      1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
        Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Julie: here we were talking about the big pharmaceutical companies, British law, and correct administering of AVRs to children.  I'm at fault here -- I changed the subject a little when I started to talk about drugs, and LG was kind enough to give me some research she'd done on the topic in reply.

        1. profile image0
          jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, well I still thought that at the end of it all, even though this thread didn't direct it that way 100%, that the Catholic Church was still the reason for "AIDS" in Africa, causing Catholics to take part in Genocide.  We did get on the topic of AIDS and administering of drugs to children- via the Genocidal killing of Africans by way of the Catholic Church?  Didn't we?  My mistake, Teresa- please accept my apologies.smile

  34. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    Of course it's not. But they make things worse, not better, in this field.

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I see...

      I thought you said, LondonGirl that the Catholic church was guilty of Genocide.  I must have missed the part where you laid blame to anyone else, other than the Catholic church.   "Aids" being the what when and how...  Is it unreasonable to think someone could draw that conclusion from your posts?  All common sense aside...

      If the Catholic Church is the sole reason of the Genocide occurring in Africa, or for that matter, having known participation to that type of action-  are you speaking of the Catholics or are you referring to the Vatican?  Again, respectfully inquiring.smile

  35. Teresa McGurk profile image60
    Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago

    The example LG cites of the Ugandan girl is appallingly sad.  I don't know how Medicins sans frontieres manage to stay sane; I suspect many of them can't.

    Make Money: yes, indeed, there are thousands of Catholic charities around the world, with probably hundreds of thousands of volunteer workers doing excellent work.  But thousands of individual charities do not make the Catholic Church the largest benevolent organization in the world; and, while it would be simplistic of me to say that money necessarily makes a charitable organization effective, if the Catholic Church were to spend 5%, say, of its current world-wide wealth on charity, that would put it in the running with the Gates Foundation and the Church of England as indeed being, as you suggest, one of the largest charitable organizations in the world.

  36. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    I hereby accuse the catholic church (not the ignorant individuals who belong to the church, the institution) and the Vatican of collusion with the Nazis during the systematic attempted genocide of the Jews during WWII, covering up the molestation of young children by catholic priests, helping to spread AIDS by forbidding their "flock" to use condoms, general hypocrisy, actively lying to protect their monetary and political influence, war-mongering, and spreading religious hatred.

    And yes, there is evidence for all these things. big_smile

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.... Finally someone who is not afraid to stand behind his words.  Mark, I respectfully disagree with you that the Vatican or the Catholic church is committing genocide in Africa.big_smile

      As for the ignorant individuals who belong to the Church... I don't think they are responsible either.smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I never said they were committing genocide. I said they were helping to spread AIDS.

        Surely the membership of the church have some responsibility for the actions of the church?

        Or is no one ever responsible? Like the governments and the banks. lol

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          This discussion could benefit from a bit of humor--

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

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            I already have that on my blog with some other ones :

            http://markpknowles.com/a-collection-of … tisements/

            I have a hole bunch of funny condom ads -

            http://markpknowles.com/funny-condom-advertisements/

            big_smile

        2. profile image0
          jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I truthfully can't answer the question put forth about members responsibility.  I can address my membership and what I feel I am responsible for.  But I can't speak for the whole.

    2. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Went to check out your condom pictures...  GREAT FUN!lol

    3. Make  Money profile image74
      Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Quite the quote from the high priest of atheism, oh salami.  But not very accurate.

      Quote form Golda Meir from Holocaust Revisionism




      So Mark what do you attribute the decrease of AIDS in Uganda where they have taught abstinence and fidelity as compared to Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Botswana where they have handed out condoms but AIDS has increased. 


      The second link does not even mention condoms Mark but quotes this.


      And we see from above that the national strategy for Uganda has been abstinence and fidelity not the prorogation of the use of condoms.  So Mr. Apuuli is blaming the use of condoms as well as "The perception that anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) cure HIV/AIDS " and "He also attributed the increase in the infection rate to people who engage in extramarital affairs without knowing the HIV status of their companion."

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Mike - even the authors of that paper (I checked the original, not the poor source you gave), state that it is difficult to draw any correlations and conclusions. The evidence suggests that promoting fidelity AND condom use reduce the rates of HIV transmission. It was built upon a meta-study, a notoriously inaccurate scientific method. It can imply trends, but no more than that. To try and manipulate results, as with your source, is the worst type of junk science.

        Suggesting that using condoms is ineffective or, as you implied above, harmful, is extremely dangerous and misleading. I suggest that you cease this line of reasoning, because it is merely giving ammunition to your 'opponents.'

        Fidelity and condoms must be used together to prevent the spread of HIV - either of those used in isolation is not effective.

  37. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    For example:

    "That's the bizarre view of the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio (pictured). He believes some European-made condoms are deliberately infected with HIV, the virus that causes Aids -- and that some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected "in order to finish quickly the African people"."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/09/a … ve_yo.html

    and:

    "The Catholic Church has been accused of telling people in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus.

    The claims are made in a Panorama programme called Sex and the Holy City to be screened on BBC One on Sunday.

    It says cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.

    The World Health Organization has condemned the comments and warned the Vatican it is putting lives at risk.

    The claims come just a day after a report revealed that a young person is now infected with HIV every 14 seconds. "

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

    Extracts from that Programme:

    "In 1996 Cardinal Otunga, who is the highest ranking Catholic in the country, led a symbolic burning of  condoms and safe sex literature.  In Africa millions face death from AIDS, yet here the church is burning condoms.  The bonfire was attended by a top Catholic gynaecologist."

    "What's really heartbreaking is that the sisters here seem kind, they seem intelligent, they're hard working  and they could be the front line in the war against AIDS, and yet what they're doing is peddling rumour and  superstition, and the question is really, who has made them believe it? 

    We've come across what the WHO  calls "The dangerous allegation that condoms let HIV through before."   The Archbishop of Nairobi had put  his name to a pamphlet making the claim, and we'd heard the story from Catholics in two other continents,  from the Head of the Pro Life Clinics in Manila City."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi … lycity.txt

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LondonGirl, I can see where you are coming from.  Am I mistaken in thinking that when you address the "Catholic Church", you view it as 1 great big organization and not individual fellowships of Christ?  Am I correct in stating that your evidence to this debate is circumstantial evidence from the mouths of few people?  Not the millions of other Catholics that would serve as witnesses to the good deeds done in Africa and as themselves witnesses to the doctrine taught in Catholic Churches all over the USA today; if  Catholics are forced to face a tribunal council courtroom?

  38. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    For Teresa McGurk, LondonGirl and Mark

    Quotes from Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS In Africa?


    The moral of the story is not to believe everything you hear or read in the mass media.  It seems some backtracking is in order, especially where the word genocide has been used.  By these results the blame could be reversed.  From Teresa's helpful quote from the Catholic encyclopedia we can see that the distribution of condoms in Africa as opposed to teaching abstinence and fidelity is a sin of commission.

    Thank you Julie.  God bless you.

    Mike

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Mike - you are blinded by BS faith in everything you read just happening to agree with your twisted view of reality. Condom use and deaths amongst infected people were the two main reasons for the reduction.

      Guess what - 800,000 Ugandans died of AIDS in the 1990s, bringing the total living with AIDS down pretty dramatically.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/957853.stm

      And it is on the rise again, now that the group born in that decade are becoming sexually active:

      http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- … 302718.htm

    2. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Mike - Not going for the genocide thing, as all of the available evidence suggests that BOTH approaches are needed. Safe sex education and condoms, when tied in with instructions about fidelity, can work. If you use that to promote fidelity, I have no argument. If you are using that to suggest that condoms are of no use, that is a very dangerous attitude.

      Using a biased source is not helping the situation - Uganda had a long war, rapes and population changes leading to a change in the HIV infection rates. The article that you provided has taken one piece of information and attempted to tack on a correlation - very weak science.

      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl … id=2480513

      There are a few more sources promoting the usefulness of condoms, but they are from subscription only journals, so I will try to find some free sources, if required.

      1. Make  Money profile image74
        Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Sufi if you had moved to Africa instead of Greece would you use a condom with a partner if you knew or even thought that they may have HIV or Aids, now that you know that condoms have been demonstrated to prevent infection only 90% of the time?  Especially when that 90% figure is a highly contested point (it could be less)?

        Correction Teresa.  This thread was started to talk about Bishop Williamson.  Not to talk about the Catholic Church's attempt to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa or any other thing you perceive about the Catholic Church that you want to bring up.  So Julie has the right to say what ever she wants.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Mike - what are you trying to prove here? I am pretty sure you are celibate, but this is not a viable option for most of the world's population. lol

          Condoms are an effective barrier to AIDS. Why are you arguing that they are not?

          Go forth and multiply........ ? lol

          1. Make  Money profile image74
            Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            That is exactly the point Mark.  Condoms are not an effective barrier to AIDS.  The 90% effectiveness (or less) with condoms and the results in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Botswana have proven this.  The genocide bull shite got me started.

            How is anyone going to go forth and multiply using a rubber.  Well maybe 10% of the time. lol

            1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
              Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              The problem with the metaphorical, when it is taken literally.  But only, apparently, 10% of the time?

            2. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              So 90% effective (which is an understatement) is not going to help? So you feel it is worth arguing against. Because you have a viable alternative called not having sex? Which I agree would be 100% effective. But impractical.

              http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public … condom.htm

              As usual, your belief in a magical, invisible super being and the infallibility of the roman church is clouding your judgment.

              The c*** of a bishop that started this discussion probably agrees with you. The more dead Africans, the better. And then deny it ever happened. Nice. Very christian.

            3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe they should be using two condoms.

        2. Teresa McGurk profile image60
          Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Since the beginning of this thread, the topic has shifted perspective and focus several times.
          Of course Julie has every right to talk about whatever she pleases, whether on topic or off. 
          I did not bring up the topic of the Catholic Church in Africa, I brought up the topic of AIDS doses for small children.

        3. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          As I clearly stated above, fidelity AND condoms are essential in the fight against HIV. You are cherry-picking my words to suit your own argument - I am faithful to my partner, so your comparison is irrelevant.

          The failure rate is actually 95 to 99% - still not perfect, but I will run with yours, for the sake of argument.

          The chance of contracting the virus from a single heterosexual exposure is less than 1%, or 1 in 100 times. If you multiply that by the chance of condom failure, at 1 in 10, you arrive at a chance of conrtracting HIV of 1 out of every 1000 times, better odds. That is very conservative,  - if you take the 99% rate, or 1 in 100, you arrive at 1 out of every 10 000 times. The rate of transmission is actually less than 0.5% - can you see where this is going?

          Your figure of 90% actually supports the case for distributing condoms wink

          Of course, amongst a population of millions, with multiple sexual acts, this is still a significant proportion, hence my support for education about fidelity, too.

          Edit: "The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32%"

          From:

          Downs AM, De Vincenzi I. Probability of heterosexual transmission of HIV: relationship to the number of unprotected sexual contacts. European Study Group in Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Apr 1;11(4):388-95.

          Wiley JA, Herschhkorn SJ, Padian NS. Heterogeneity in the probability of HIV transmission per sexual contact: the case of male-to-female transmission in penile-vaginal intercourse. Stat Med 1989;8:93-102.

          Proper sources smile

    3. LondonGirl profile image91
      LondonGirlposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      The "ABC" programme (abstain, be faithful use condoms) kicked off in Botswana, not Uganda, although Uganda certainly put it in place, althoug did not use the "ABC" campaign specifically for some time.

      But they did not "reluctantly" advise the use of condoms. Condoms were central to the strategy:

      "What appears to have worked in Uganda was a combination of risk avoidance and risk reduction approaches. These resulted in a fall in the annual number of new infections between the late 1980s and mid 1990s, which in turn led to a reduction in HIV prevalence. In later years, an increase in the death rate probably made a contribution to further declines in prevalence, while the number of new infections remained more or less unchanged.

      What has been particularly important in Uganda has been the combination of messages and approaches that have been used, including the widespread promotion and distribution of condoms. During the 1990s, schemes funded by USAID and other donors greatly increased condom use.

          “The ABC approach in Uganda was and still is more than just abstinence and needs to be balanced without any emphasis on one aspect. Neither 'A' nor 'B' nor 'C' on its own can provide the answer to reducing risk of infection that is practical for every member of the population.” - Dr Stella Talisuna, March 2005 "

      http://www.avert.org/abc-hiv.htm

      And this looks at the ABC's programme being used in the way you have done:

      "Meanwhile, U.S.-based social conservatives in and out of government—even as they pay homage to the ABC mantra—continue to confuse all of these issues. For them, ABC has become little more than an excuse and justification to promote their long-standing agenda regarding people's sexual behavior and the kind of sex education they should receive: A for unmarried people, bolstered by advocacy of B, but for most people, "anything but C.""

      "The findings of an analysis released by The Alan Guttmacher Institute in November 2003, A, B and C in Uganda: The Roles of Abstinence, Monogamy and Condom Use in HIV Decline, are consistent with the current consensus. Between 1988 and 1995, the time period during which HIV prevalence was declining, key changes in behavior occurred.

      • Fewer Ugandans were having sex at young ages. The proportion of young men who had ever had sex decreased substantially and the median age at which young women began having sex rose from 15.9 in 1988 to 16.3 in 1995. Importantly, however, among those people who were having sex, overall levels of sexual activity did not decline.

      • Levels of monogamy increased. Sexually active men and women of all ages, particularly the unmarried, were less likely to have more than one sexual partner in a 12-month period in 1995 than in 1989. Other research has found that the proportion of men reporting three or more sexual partners also fell during the period.

      • Condom use rose steeply among unmarried sexually active men and women. Among unmarried women who had had sex in the last four weeks, the proportion who used condoms at last intercourse rose from 1% in 1989 to 14% in 1995; among unmarried men, condom use rose from 2% to 22%."

      "HIV/AIDS rates also are declining in Cambodia, Thailand and the Dominican Republic, three other countries where various combinations of ABC behavioral changes appear to have played an important role. In Cambodia and Thailand, the epidemic spread mainly through prostitution. Both countries are adopting a "100% condom use" policy in brothels, and it is yielding positive results. In the Dominican Republic, meanwhile, the infection rate has slowed mainly due to men having fewer sexual partners as well as to increased condom use."

      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060501.html

  39. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Think the thing is that there are kazillions of spirits waiting to be released into the earth sphere, so that they can be tested over the fires of sin, for later transition to Heaven or Hell. Any hinderance of the spiritual immigration is a sin
    and so one must not use passports and hinder entry points or set up border check points.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile

    2. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      No, really - this one made me laugh out loud. Nice.

  40. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "From the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, a Rakai Project, Uganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda, the b Center for Population and Family Health, Columbia University School of Public Health, New York, USA, and the c Department of Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology Unit and the Institute of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
    Requests for reprints to: S. Ahmed, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street 4030, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
    Received: 2 February 2001;
    revised: 18 June 2001; accepted: 2 July 2001.
    Conclusions: Consistent condom use provides protection from HIV and STDs, whereas inconsistent use is not protective. Programs must emphasize consistent condom use for HIV and STD prevention."

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile

      That is my sort of scripture!

  41. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    Sufi I asked that question from the perspective of an African seeing that is who we are talking about.  You didn't answer my question.  The problem with the propagation of condoms in Africa where HIV and AIDS are epidemic is that it is giving Africans a false sense of security.

    Even the high priest of atheism, peace be upon you oh salami, agrees that abstinence and fidelity would be 100% effective. smile

    So have we come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is not committing genocide in Africa by recommending abstinence and fidelity?  What a ridiculous thought coming from a lawyer and lodge member. mad

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You never put the question like that - you actually asked if I had chosen Africa rather than Greece. With due respect, that is not from the perspective of an African smile

      Studies in Thailand have shown that a dualistic approach is the most effective way. Promoting abstinence and not safe-sex education is a futile path. Believe it or not, Catholics have been known to lie and have affairs/visit prostitutes, just like any other group.

      People did not suddenly start having multiple partners because condoms were distributed - they were doing it for a long time before that. Again, I refer you to the figures above - one chance in thousands of contracting HIV is better than 1 in 1000.

  42. profile image0
    jgrimes331posted 8 years ago

    Hi Make Money's Mike...  Hi to all the other Mike's out there.  But I am pretty sure that some Mikes will not appreciate this...  My apologies....

    But Mike as in Make Money...  And also with you.  Peace and blessings, Julie

    1. Make  Money profile image74
      Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Julie and to you.  And you have no reason to apologize to anyone in here.

      I just find it completely ridiculous to have to defend the Catholic Church against the false accusation of genocide because it tries to propagate abstinence and fidelity in Africa.

      What next. mad

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        No accusation of genocide here - just disagree with promoting fidelity rather than condoms.

        Both approaches are needed for stopping the spread of HIV.

        As for the drug companies..............possibly another thread! mad

        EDIT: With knol on that one - people are going to have sex! wink

      2. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Which of course begs the question as to why you feel the need to defend the catholic church?

        Their part in the holocaust is well documented. And the reason for this discussion is one of their high-ranking politicians. No one could argue that they did not murder thousands spreading their religious hatred during the Auto da fe. Yet still you feel the urge to defend this political money making machine.

        Why?

        Nice twisting of words though. Very impressive. Very christian. God must be very proud. mad

        1. profile image0
          jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Oh but Mark, I am not defending the Catholic Church.  I am inquiring to more solid proof, but not defending.  Though am I or Mike not permitted to do that?  But if u deem it to be okay, are Mike or myself doing something  illegal in the Hubpage forum? Mark, I am the LAST person on this earth God is proud of.  Check out my hub; Picking up the pieces.  Maybe then you'll realize that God and I aren't on very good terms.  But thank you for trying to..... insult?me.

          As a Catholic, being charged by some of committing mass murder, I am defending myself.  I have killed one person already in my life, I don't want to be responsible for more killings.  Is it okay that I defend my self?  Is it okay with you and hubpages if I defend my Catholic self against Genocide???  Please do tell, inquiring minds would like to know!

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I was not talking to you, but go ahead and make it about you. I am sure that helps.

            Last week you were a muslim. Now you are a catholic. Are you trying to take all the world's ills?  Perhaps make everything about you?

            1. profile image0
              jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever Mark.  I was amongst you and Mike...  please.  I think you are making it more about your opinions.  Thanks-  but I very much felt included!!!!!!

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah. Go ahead and make it about you even though I was clearly speaking to some one else.
                lol

                Feel included now? Better?

  43. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    Logically abstinence will prevent the spread of disease - absolutely no doubt
    whatever - a certainty. But how practical is it? If no one drives cars there will be no auto accident deaths. To insist that no one drives or no one should have sex except for procreation only, for an urge that is as strong as for food,
    is ridiculous.

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I tried to make analogies such as this...  But was quickly told they were "false analogies".big_smile However; I think analogies do serve a purpose in debate.  So Knolyourself.... if someone says to jump off a 100 ft rocky cliff, are you going to jump? 

      People in Africa have brains to think with, the same as we do.....  They themselves are choosing not to wear condoms or practice safe sex.  I don't know of any "Catholic" gunmen pointing a gun at anyones head, declaring them to NOT use a condom.  Do you?  Do share there names please...

  44. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    knolyourself would you consider trying to propagate abstinence and fidelity in Africa as being genocide?

  45. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "knolyourself would you consider trying to propagate abstinence and fidelity in Africa as being genocide?" No.
    However if it is the only thing encouraged, and birth and disease control
    by other means are discouraged or prohibited by the church - then yes.

  46. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    " I don't know of any "Catholic" gunmen pointing a gun at anyones head, declaring them to NOT use a condom.  Do you?  Do share there names please..."
    How about the name of God holding a gun called Hell, as proclaimed by the pope.

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      What's hell?  Are you talking about Sheol?  Fire and Brimstone?  The "Underworld"?  Please....
      I have that same PROCLAMATION pointed my direction everyday too.  It's a proclamation not a gun.  big_smile 

      But yet I have a free thinking brain.  OH MY! 
      So bottom line you'd jump...  I see.  Thank you.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I seem to recall that religionists influenced George Bush's policy on the dissemination of family planning information in U.S. foreign aid programs.???

  47. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "As a Catholic, being charged by some of committing mass murder,"
    Only true if you believe in 'Collective Punishment' where all are guilty by belonging to some singular association, such as is the case in Israel.

    1. profile image0
      jgrimes331posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You must not have read Teresa's definition of sin....

  48. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago

    Good call, London Girl. big_smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Actual facts are not really welcome here. Sorry.

      Lithium and beliefs are the order of the day. big_smile

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose that it is the religion forum!

        Not a big fan of dangerous junk science, as you probably noticed. smile

  49. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 8 years ago

    Thanks, both.

    Do you read the junk science column in the Guardian? It's very good.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Sadly, not available here - I will check if they have it online smile

      New Scientist generally has a lot of articles slagging off junk science, and they specialise in the Ig nobel awards - always worth a laugh. smile

      http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html

      I love the dog-to-human translation device big_smile

      1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
        Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        what about the guys who discovered that "rats sometimes cannot tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backwards and a person speaking Dutch backwards."  Ya mean sometimes they CAN?

        1. Sufidreamer profile image81
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Master Splinter!

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Splinter1990movie.jpg/150px-Splinter1990movie.jpg

          1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
            Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            You rang?

            1. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              lol Great new avatar! Now you just need to understand Dutch spoken backwards!

              1. Teresa McGurk profile image60
                Teresa McGurkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                nah -- Dutch is a breeze; og-nohin ihsakzum used (nihon-go muzkashi desu).

  50. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "I seem to recall that religionists influenced George Bush's policy on the dissemination of family planning information in U.S. foreign aid programs.???" True
    Probably a Carl Rove ploy to keep the relgionist vote coming.

 
working