Showing posts with label Holocaust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holocaust. Show all posts

Monday, December 5, 2022

So the Former US President and Current GOP Candidate for the Presidency Calls for a Coup and the End of US Democracy — And?

President Donald J. Trump 2 March 2019, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in Oxon Hill, MD; official White House photo by Tia Dufour, at Wikimedia Commons


Heather Cox Richardson, "Letters from an American: December 3, 2002":

The leader of the Republican Party has just called for the overthrow of our fundamental law and the installation of a dictator. 

Monday, February 10, 2020

The Holocaust and Christian Theologies of Sin and Forgiveness: Imperative Need for Christians to Listen to Jews

Elizabeth Johnson, The Quest for the Living God (London: Bloomsbury, 2007)

Ruth Krall's recent sounding of various ecclesial responses to the sexual abuse of minors and how they raise profound questions about theologies of sin and forgiveness has made me think about the valuable contribution of Jewish thinkers to Christian theological reflection about these matters. Ruth's essay includes a paragraph surveying some Jewish thinkers on the topic of sin and forgiveness.

Friday, January 27, 2017

When No One Was Gay: We Must Not Deceive Ourselves; It Can Happen Again. In a Heartbeat.

New York Times, 2 July 1937, p. 1, col. 6-7


It's the late 1980s or possibly early 1990s. I'm at my first full-time teaching job in the theology department of Xavier University in New Orleans.

When my colleague comes to work one morning, eyes blackened, face bruised all over, limping, we rush to him to ask what has happened, how we might help. 

Friday, November 25, 2016

"One Wonders If These People Are People at All": Catholic Pro-Life Response?

Grace Wilson, "CNN Segment on Anti-Semite Sparks Backlash"

One wonders if these people are people at all: thus white nationalist Richard Spencer in a speech at the National Policy Institute in D.C. last Saturday in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building a few blocks from the White House. It was in this speech that Spencer shouted, "Hail Trump!," eliciting Nazi salutes among those in attendance, as he lambasted the Lügenpresse, the Nazi word for the "lying press" that sought to expose Hitler. 

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

David Gushee on "My Discovery in Recent Years of Versions of Christianity That Actually Make People Worse Human Beings Than They Might Otherwise Have Been"

For Religion News Service, David Gushee writes today about how the hopeful view of how Christian communities relate to the world around him that he learned from his professors Glen Stassen and Larry Rasmussen, both indebted to Bonhöffer, has had to be complemented over the course of time with a more somber assessment of what Christian communities can really be capable of. As he has reflected more on the real role Christian churches played during the Holocaust (a much more ambiguous and shameful role than many Christian apologists would like us to see), on the role that Christian communities have played in promoting racist ideologies in the U.S., and the role many Christian groups are now playing in spreading Islamophobic ideas, he has had to revise the hopeful understanding of Christian ethics he learned from Stassen and Rasmussen.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Ruth Krall on Ferguson and the Task of Re-Humanizing Ourselves and Our Culture



Yesterday, Ruth Krall sent out a meditation on what Ferguson teaches (or should teach) us. It's very powerful, and manages to weave together the Christmas story of incarnation with the events of Ferguson. Ruth has kindly permitted me to share her meditation with you here. (As I've mentioned previously, Ruth is a Mennonite theologian who maintains the Enduring Space blog and has been very actively involved in the movement to call the Mennonite to accountability around issues of sexual abuse of minors and violence to women). Here's Ruth's meditation:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Friday, September 21, 2012

Elizabeth Johnson's Quest for the Living God: Concluding Theological Reflections (2)



Continued from yesterday's posting--again a transcript from a journal entry I've written as Steve and I travel, after I finished Elizabeth Johnson's Quest for the Living God

Friday, April 20, 2012

Anthea Butler Excoriates Attempt of Catholic Centrists to Give Cover to Anti-Semitism of Lefebvrists



At Religion Dispatches, Anthea Butler writes, "On Holocaust Remembrance Day, Catholic 'Liberal' Hails Return of Anti-Semitic Group."  Butler, who teaches religion at University of Pennsylvania, and whose work I've recommended here in the past (e.g., here), is commenting on Michael Sean Winters's article earlier this week at National Catholic Reporter carrying the headline, "Welcome Back Lefebvrists."

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Mormons in the Public Square: Romney's Candidacy and Controversy about LDS Baptism of Anne Frank



One of the interesting religion-and-politics stories of the past week: due to Mitt Romney's prominence in the Republican campaign for the presidential nomination, a longstanding controversy about the LDS church's practice of baptizing Holocaust victims has come back into the news.  In this case, what's being discussed is the revelation that, after the Mormon church has stated that it no longer baptizes Holocaust victims, it has nonetheless recently baptized Anne Frank.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Scott Lively's Pink Swastika Thesis Promoted on Catholic Blog: Some Necessary Critical Questions


I had thought better of noticing this recent discussion at the blog site of a leading American Catholic journal of the center.  It's Advent, and I'm deliberately trying to cultivate hope these days, when so much conduces to quench the fire and light of hope in my heart--and, I suspect, in the hearts of others, as well.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Benedict Meets with Ugandan Bishops: Total Silence about Kill-the-Gays Legislation


What I earlier today wrote speaks to the foundations of faith for the community to which I belong—or, at least, this is how I understand those foundations.  But then there’s the everyday reality of that faith as it’s expressed here and now, the frightening everyday reality of what Catholicism is coming to mean to many people around the world today.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Thought for the Day: Daniel Mendelsohn on the Importance of Every Story

To be alive is to have a story to tell. To be alive is precisely to be the hero, the center of a life story. When you can be nothing more than a minor character in somebody else's tale, it means that you are truly dead.

Daniel Mendelsohn, The Lose: A Search for Six of Six Million (NY: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 434.

The illustration is from the Tower of Faces at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., which contains pictures of inhabitants of the shtetl of Ejszyszki in Lithuania. At the time of World War II, the shtetl had about 3,500 inhabitants. The German SS, aided by Lithuanian auxiliaries, killed all citizens in this shtetl.

Mr. Obama and the Golden Rule: Morality Depends on Moving Beyond Words to Actions

I have persistently suggested that (e.g. here and here), by remaining silent regarding one of the key human rights issues of his presidency—the denial of rights to gay citizens in many areas of American life in general, and the denial of the right to marry in particular—Mr. Obama is eroding the moral foundations on which his platform of progressive change needs to rest, if it’s to be successful. And so I’m interested to read a number of recent articles whose analysis moves in a similar direction.

Commenting at Huffington Post on President Obama’s important Cairo speech this week, Aaron Zelinsky cites the following statement by the president:

There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew.

And hearing that statement (with which I wholeheartedly agree), I have to ask, “As the president makes this statement, does he mean to say that he would have done to himself what he continues to permit to be done to gay citizens of the United States, simply because we are gay?” If the president happened to be gay, would he want to be denied the right to serve his country in the military? Would he like to be devoid of any legal protection against discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, in most states in the nation?

Would he rest easy with the denial of his right to marry the person he loves, to enjoy all the privileges and protections pertaining to marriage in our society? Would the president like to be told, when he begged to visit his dying spouse in the hospital, what Janice Langbehn was told at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami: that he could not see that spouse, because he happened to be in a homophobic state with homophobic laws? Would he like to be susceptible to violence solely because he was gay, and without any federal laws combating that violence, while laws exist to protect other targeted minorities?

Can one credibly say that one cherishes the rule that lies at the heart of all religions—do to others what we would have done to ourselves—when one has the power to speak and to act on behalf of many brothers and sisters whose lives are constantly affected by unjustifiable prejudice, and one does nothing? As Aaron Zelinsky notes, the president also cited the golden rule and Luke 6:31 in his Notre Dame speech.

But Luke’s gospel connects saying and believing to acting. Moral insight is inauthentic, it is meaningless, when it does not issue in action:

Here, Obama references Luke 6:31: "Do to others as you would have them do to you," which he also referenced at Notre Dame. Luke 6:49 is less supportive: "But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built a house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."

Rachel Sklar makes the same point in another HuffPo post this week, this one discussing the president’s visit to Buchenwald. As she notes, the president’s appearance at this Nazi death camp site, and his unambiguous condemnation of anti-Semitic lies and Holocaust denial, was an amazing moment.

Sklar adds, however: “But moments must be followed up by more moments, and action.”

As Sklar notes, the brilliant Jewish thinker Elie Wiesel, who accompanied the president on his visit to Buchenwald, told Mr. Obama, "Mr. President, we have such high hopes for you... because you, with your moral vision of history, will be able and compelled to change this world into a better place." And the president replied, "I will not forget what I have seen here."

But what do these profound moral insights have to do with the world in which we live on an everday basis? What do they mean; what do they mean in the world beyond mere rhetoric? How will they issue in action?

Great. Awesome. Done. But now what? The Wiesel speech was all over the cable nets, and is burning up Twitter. The image of the kindly-faced elderly man with snowy-white hair blowing in the wind beside the solemn-faced U.S. President and German Chancellor was a great TV moment. But moments must be followed up by more moments, and action.

It is not enough to talk about human rights. It is not enough to bow to the grand aphorisms of the moral life and of human rights traditions. When one has the power to change things—the power to speak out, the power to set legislation into motion and to influence it, the power to abolish grossly discriminatory regulations with the stroke of a pen—and one does nothing, one is not reaching the threshold of an authentic moral life.

The test of the moral life is not what we say. It is what we do. The longer the president remains silent about one of the key moral challenges facing his presidency, the more he erodes the moral foundations on which his entire platform of progressive change needs to rest, if it is to be effective.

And what to make of the promises the president made during his campaign, which he now appears willing to break without any explanation at all? David Sirota asks that necessary question in a probing commentary at Salon this week. As Sirota notes, “It's true that politicians have always broken promises, but rarely so proudly and with such impunity.”

But. But,

We once respected democracy by at least demanding explanations -- however weak -- for unfulfilled promises. Then we became a country whose scorched-earth campaigns against flip-flopping desensitized us to reversals. Now, we don't flinch when our president appears tickled that a few poor souls still expect politicians to fulfill promises and justify broken ones.

The worst part of this devolution is the centrality of Obama, the prophet of “hope” and “change” who once said that "cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom." If that's true, then he has become America's wisest man -- the guy who seems to know my kids will laugh when I tell them politicians and voters once believed in democracy and took campaign promises seriously.

Suggesting that others break promises, or that your predecessors have done so, is not good enough, Mr. Obama. We elected you because we hoped for better from you. We are a nation hungry for positive change, which puts the politics of cynicism behind us and places hope in the foreground.

And you are disappointing us.

As Jenna Lowenstein notes in an article at 365Gay this week, we are disappointed on moral grounds:

But what if instead of worrying about politics and power, Obama worried about moral authority? How he gained moral authority, how he can hold on to it, and how he can refuse to cede it in the face of small-minded bigots. Twice in the last few weeks, Obama has given speeches on the importance of remaining steadfast in our American ideals. First, when he announced his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Obama emphasized a message of equal rights and social justice. Then yesterday, he delivered a speech to the Muslim world, much of which emphasized the necessity of holding on to moral authority at all cost.

President Obama is a smart guy. He knows what he’s doing is based on political calculation and not idealogy [sic], and he knows that’s not courageous. As Andrew Sullivan put it recently (and it drives me crazy to quote Mr. Sullivan), Obama seems to be acting on LGBT issues with “the fierce urgency of whenever.” And that’s just not good enough.

As the religious right has long told us, it’s about morality in the last analysis. It’s about the moral foundations of our society.

Unfortunately, the religious right’s claim to speak with moral authority has been definitively exploded, and its pretense to be the moral voice of our society has been resoundingly rejected by the American voters, who recognize that the moral center of our society lies not in stigmatizing minorities but in building a humane society for all.

One centered on recognizing the rights of all—because that is what people do, when they do unto others as they would have done to themselves. In continuing to belie this central principle of the moral life through silence about discrimination to gay and lesbian Americans, and in continuing to do nothing at all to combat that discrimination when he has the power to do a great deal, the president is eroding the moral foundations of his platform of progressive change, and is setting his presidency on a precarious footing.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Sunday Poems: On the Holocaust














Two poems today. The first is entitled "Kristallnacht," the second, "On Touching a Theresienstadt Death Cart":


Fire marries sand
And glass is born.


Flashing swords of light,

It spirals to the sky in windows,
Traps the gazer's eyes in mirrors,

brazen eyes,
lovelorn eyes

soft deep eyes.
Glass cups cool clear water
Or shelters pictures on the wall.


But here, this darkest night,

Shattered always
In these screams of pain,
Here glass can be


Just one plain thing,

And one alone:

The irretrievable breaking
Of a human heart.

+ + + + +


Touch is always the last thing to go.


Sight fails, ears stop.
Still, we reach out to hold:
The final semaphore of love.


We kiss the dying one

As eyes shut,

Heart stops its beat,

And breath flies forth.


Our lips, our fingers know.


They grasp the lover's soul

Until they loose their grip

And break the bond.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Moving Beyond Lies: Responding to "Ex-Gay" Lies by Claiming the Gay Place at Table

Another update to my recent postings about the American Family Association’s beefed-up outreach to youth through the internet. Pam’s House Blend reported last evening that WOOD-TV, a Grand Rapids news station, has decided not to air the video “Speechless.” This is the AFA video that claims Christians are being silenced in the United States today about which I blogged yesterday (www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9447 and http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2009/02/targeting-youth-with-anti-gay-lies-afa_11.html).

Pam notes that the Human Rights Campaign issued an action alert yesterday about this video. The action alert notes that AFA intends to air this video nationwide, as an opening salvo in a battle against new Congressional pro-equality legislation, and, in particular, against hate crimes legislation to protect gay citizens from violence and discrimination (www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/02/take-action-afa-anti-lgbt-tv-program-could-air-saturday).

The HRC statement names the lies around which AFA is building this campaign to assault a vulnerable group of citizens. These include claims that “Christians” are being denied free speech and arrested for proclaiming the gospel. Linked to the HRC action alert is a video by HRC’s Religion and Faith Program Harry Knox. I find that the Central Valley Yes on Equality website links to my posting about AFA yesterday, with the same video (http://centralvalleyyesonequality.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/hrc-responds-to-afas-hate-crimes-lies).

Harry Knox’s statement about AFA’s campaign is powerful and unambiguous—he identifies the AFA initiative as one based on lies and distortions:

The truth is that the AFA and their allies have never been speechless when it comes to promoting their own agenda, and that’s driving a wedge in the very places where LGBT Americans work, live, and even pray. They claim to speak from a religious viewpoint, but they pervert the love and kindness that leads millions of Americans of faith to support common-sense hate crimes laws. As we gear up to pass a law that protects millions of Americans from hate violence, we must not allow these sixty minutes of lies and distortions to fuel more hate.

As my first posting today notes, German journalist Mario Kaiser has just published an op-ed piece discussing his reason for resigning from the Catholic church in the wake of Pope Benedict’s rehabilitation of anti-Semite Richard Williamson. For Kaiser, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the implication, in the Vatican response to the revelation of Williamson’s vile anti-Semitism, that Holocaust denial is one possible “position” among others.

Kaiser states, “But there are certain issues I do not want to discuss. I don't wish to discuss if Hitler had a lovely side to him. And I don't ever wish to discuss if the Holocaust really happened.”

Kaiser makes a very important point here, and it’s one that, in my view, applies both to Holocaust denial and to the “ex-gay” myth. Readers may have noted that, several times in recent days, Holocaust deniers have logged onto this blog to stir discussion of whether the Holocaust really happened, of details about what happened that have long since been settled by credible historians, and so forth. You may also have noticed how I chose to handle those attempts to gain a hearing for lies.

Rather than engage points of view that must not be engaged, if we wish to avoid giving them any semblance of legitimacy, I simply took these comments and their links to hate-filled anti-Semitic internet sites and used them as the occasion to tell the truth about the Holocaust. I countered lies with the truth. I blogged about what I have seen with my own eyes.

Arguing with Holocaust deniers about whether the Holocaust actually happened allows these purveyors of lies and hate to gain legitimacy for their lies. It allows them to represent their lies (and the agenda of hate underlying them) as one position among other possible, other thinkable, positions.

My strategy in dealing with those who pretend an interest in various “positions” when their real agenda is to promote noxious lies is simply to turn the tables of the conversation, and speak the truth back. I have learned not to engage arguments that claim to be all about fostering pluralistic discourse but are actually an attempt to shut the conversation down so that a false ideological position can be imposed in the name of truth.

This is a tactic I learned long ago in academic life. It’s a tactic about which I wrote back in the 1990s in an article entitled “Telling It Slant: American Catholic Public Theology and Prophetic Discourse,” Horizons 22 (1995), 88-103. That article takes its cue from Emily Dickinson’s insistence that we’re to tell the truth but tell it slant, since success in circuit lies.

And it’s more than a tactic, really: it’s a means of assuring that what really needs to be said and heard is said and heard, despite the attempts of those who want to control the conversation to keep the truth from being told. Right-wing interest groups have been adroit in recent years about pretending to use the structures of respectful pluralistic conversation regarding important issues to subvert any meaningful pluralistic conversation.

Those on the right with no commitment whatsoever to permit open conversation and a diversity of viewpoints about all kinds of issues—including the place of women in church and society, gender roles, homosexuality, evolution, and on and on—routinely charge anyone who challenges their lies (and names the lies as lies) with betraying the commitment to respectful dialogue. When their lies are identified, they shout about incivility and language that bashes others—even as they themselves engage in the most uncivil agenda of all, one seeking to deny human rights to others, and in ugly broad slurs about the character of those who do not fit the right-wing Christian norm.

As the masthead for this blog indicates, with Bilgrimage, I consider myself on a journey towards truth that needs to be spoken but doesn't get told. When I meet lies dressed as truth on this journey, I consider it important to undress them and deal with them for what they are. I do an injustice to myself and to others journeying with me if I allow lie to posture as truth and do not confront the lie hidden inside its nice clothes—even when I’m accused by those propagating the lie of being unkind or unfair in exposing a lie that is intended to have destructive social consequences.

My profile statement on this blog also says that I’m committed to challenging the religious right’s claim to own God. One of the premier ways in which those of us working to discover and speak the truth in those areas where the religious right insists on systemically distorting public discourse is simply to act as if the barriers imposed by the religious right are not there.

We who are gay are told, for instance, that we have no right to speak in the name of God, or about God, or about the scriptures. A number of websites are reporting today that a gay pastor was asked to give the opening prayer at the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Monday (www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/02/12/8743). At the end of the day’s legislative session, when a routine motion was made to enter the prayer into the minutes of the session, a legislator who objected to recording any mention of the prayer in the minutes called for a roll call vote.

Twenty legislators voted against recording the prayer. These included controversial Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern, a staunch ally of the religious right and wife of a Baptist minister, who has stated that gay citizens are a greater threat to the nation than terrorism. As Jim Burroway reports in the Box Turtle Bulletin article to which I’ve just linked, nothing about the prayer was controversial. One has to conclude, Burroway thinks, that the rhetoric of Christians on the right who claim to love the sinner while hating the sin is just that: rhetoric and and not an expression of what many in the religious right actually believe.

What this story says to me, loudly and clearly, is that many Christians on the right do not think that an openly gay person is qualified to pray. To use the name of God. To study and write about the scriptures. There is a claim of ownership of God running through the religious right that requires members of that movement to vilify, lie about, undermine, attack, smear, and annihilate gay human beings—in the name of the Lord, of course—and in particular, to do so when a gay human being claims the right to pray, to speak in God’s name, to read and interpret scripture.

As my postings on interpreting the holy stories of the world religions have noted (see, e.g., http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2008/12/gay-marriage-debate-and-ownership-of.html), I think that it is crucially important for those of us who are both LGBT and believers to claim our place at the table, as the scriptures are interpreted. The holy stories are our stories, too. They speak to us in ways they cannot speak to the comfortable and sated. We understand the joy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the thought of the mighty being cast down from their thrones and the lowly lifted up, and of the poor being filled with good things and the rich sent empty away.

It is important for us who are gay and Christian to claim our place at the center and act as if we have as much right to that place as any other Christian has. It is important for us to act as if the barriers are not there, as if the hedge of lies is not barring our entrance, and to speak as if our voice counts, to read and disclose the meaning of the scriptures as though we have as much right to this act of interpretation as any other believer.

As we do that, we begin to build up alternative discourse worlds that simply circumvent the roadblocks of the religious right, and alternative traditions of interpretation that challenge the dominant ones insofar as those bar voices from the margins such as ours. As we claim our right to speak in the name of a God whom we experience as grace in our life journey every bit as much as any other believer experiences that God, we also demonstrate in the most compelling way possible that the lies of the "ex-gay" movement are not one among several “possibilities” for believers, but are what they are: lies. Lies that should be ruled out of bounds every bit as much as Holocaust denial has been ruled out of bounds, and for the same reason: these are lies told to harm people, to diminish their humanity, to make people susceptible to scorn and violence. Such lies absolutely have to be exposed and weeded out in any civil society which seeks to allow everyone a place at the table.

We who are gay have an additional obligation to be concerned about stopping lies like these—noxious attacks on the humanity of others—because one of the groups in our society most susceptible to damage by the lies of the "ex-gay" movement are young folks. Young gay and lesbian folks, struggling to understand their identities in a society still frequently hostile to them. Young folks seeking what every young person seeks: affirmation, love, self-understanding, a place in the community.

The lies of the "ex-gay movement" are especially harmful to young people. They impose on youth a burden in addition to the many burdens the maturation process itself imposes. In fact, they can and do lead to suicide.

I will not “answer” the lies of the "ex-gay" movement here in any detailed way. What I want to note in passing here is simply the obvious: the movement is built around a fundamental lie from which all its other lies flow. That fundamental lie is that we can change our sexual orientations, and that sexual orientation is not an innate, God-given part of a human being’s make-up. On that basis, the "ex-gay" movement has built an entire house of cards, each depicting yet another lie about scripture and theology, the real lives of real gay persons, gay relationships: you name it.

Look through the screen of lies the ex-gay movement tells about gay human beings and you will not see a single recognizable face of a single recognizable gay human being you know. You will see human faces on which a screen of lies have been imposed to distort those faces for the pleasure of the "ex-gay" movement.

The way out? Journeying together towards the truth. Despite those who want to disrupt that journey, because it threatens them and their agendas. Seeking the truth together. Forming alternative communities of discourse and interpretation that claim the center even as we are told that we have no right to a place there. Changing the conversation so that lies appear for what they are and no longer determine the conversation or masquerade as one “position” among many.

Liliana Segura addresses these concerns today in a fascinating article at Alternet about the need to question authority (www.alternet.org/rights/126492). She notes that Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University recently replicated the findings of the classic Milgram experiment, in which it was found that an astonishing percentage of people of all walks of life will follow orders of an authority figure and inflict pain on someone else simply because they are told to do so.

Segura points out that though the media is interpreting Burger’s findings to mean that we have a thirst to torture inside us, the real message is about authority—about our unwillingness to challenge authority figures, and our willingness to place ourselves in the hands of an authority figure even when he or she tells us to do what is wrong. She concludes,

But while Milgram so effectively demonstrated the challenge of defying authority, he also showed that subjects were far more likely to do it when they saw other people doing it. He wrote in The Perils of Obedience, "The rebellious action of others severely undermines authority."

"In one variation, three teachers (two actors and a real subject) administered a test and shocks. When the two actors disobeyed the experimenter and refused to go beyond a certain shock level, 36 of 40 subjects joined their disobedient peers and refused as well."

Put in a political context, this is perhaps the most important lesson Milgram has to teach us. The best hope people have of resisting an oppressive system is to validate their experiences alongside other people. There is no more basic antidote to authoritarianism than support, solidarity and community.

Our hope to resist, to overturn lies designed to hurt and build a better, more humane society? Finding others who want what we want—a more humane society—who will no longer tolerate the lies, and who form community and solidarity with us in pursuit of something better.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Hate Linked to Hate: Holocaust Denial and Other Forms of Hatred

Why care about those who deny the Holocaust and about anti-Semitism? As I've noted in the comments section of this blog recently, groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center have done extensive research on connections between Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, and other forms of hatred in contemporary society.

Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism link to racism, homophobia, anti-immigrant movements, and other movements targeting the most vulnerable in our midst. The groups using Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism as wedge issues are seeking to stir hatred: this is their primary goal. The object of the hatred--the particular group targeted--is not as important to these groups as is their ability to stir social hatred.

For those interested in reading more about this subject, I highly recommend Mark Potok's Voices on Antisemitism podcast series at the website of the U.S. Holocaust Museum (www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20070621). This series links to other valuable resources for understanding and combating anti-Semitism.

Potok is the Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence project. Some excerpts from the 21 June 2007 introduction to his podcast series:

Antisemitism is quite central to the ideology of these [hate] groups. I think that as a practical matter, especially in this country, which historically has had lower levels of antisemitism than most European countries, Holocaust denial has been absolutely critical to growing the movement. However, it's seen quite cynically by many of the people in the movement. In other words, what you will frequently hear out of neo-Nazi groups like the Aryan Nations was, "The Jews lie, of course; there never was a Holocaust. But by the way, if there was, it's a good thing anyway and there ought to be another one coming." They claim it didn't happen, but they really like the idea and essentially promote it themselves.
I think the classic antisemitic stereotypes work very well in a lot of ways for that kind of generalized resentment. You know, it's this idea of "the Jew" as a person who is a sort of stateless, cosmopolitan person who has quite other interests at heart than the interests of the society in which he or she lives. You know, these are people who are married only to their financial interests. They care nothing for the kind of heart and soul of the real people, the kind of natives of whatever country it is we're talking about.
But more and more the large majority of hate groups in this country have essentially been Nazified. In other words, more and more and more of these groups, I would argue a real majority of them, say, "Yes, we hate black people. Yes, we hate brown people. We're not fond of gay people. But behind them all lies the Jew." You know, the sort of clever, manipulating Jew who is kind of running these people, these various other groups, especially racial groups, as part of some kind of campaign to weaken the quote unquote "host society," to destroy, you know, what's seen as a white Christian country, certainly in the United States.

As Rev. James Martin noted recently on the America magazine blog, "At this time, it is important to remember that in official Catholic teaching anti-Semitism is a sin, and, in the words of Pope John Paul II, an 'evil' (www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=2D6AFB07-1438-5036-4F1C9D841C32199D).

Confronting the Evidence for the Holocaust: Seeing, Believing, and Moral Conversion

I keep thinking of Bishop Richard Williamson’s recent statement to the German media that, as he studies the evidence for the Holocaust, he will not visit Auschwitz (www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606323,00.html). I think I understand his refusal.

When we engage in dangerous arm-chair dissection of bogus “evidence” proving that a major historical atrocity did not happen, seeing the real evidence for that atrocity—the artifacts of torture and murder, starkly displayed in the light of day—shatters our illusions. It forces us to see ourselves in the stark light of day. And to understand the twisted motives that lead us to deny plain sense and the evidence of our own eyes, as our need to hate drives everything we do. And as we cling to arcane conspiracy theories that feed the ravenous area inside us from which our hate springs, despite abundant clear evidence demonstrating that we are wrong.

I can understand, because I have visited places in Germany in which violence—real violence, undismissable violence—took place against the Jewish population in the Nazi period. Those places have a resonance about them. The evil done at these sites hangs in the air about them, a sour tang of mob violence and ethnic hatred still perceptible to anyone with eyes to see, a nose to smell, ears to hear.

As I’ve noted on this blog several times, my life partner, Steve, is German-American. Though quite a few branches of his family were in the United States prior to the Civil War, the majority of his ancestors came to this country in the period after that war and even up to the early part of the 20th century. Those who had arrived “early” continued their use of German language in ethnic enclaves in the Midwest, where it was possible to go on speaking German as the mother tongue and language of home (and church and school) even beyond the first world war.

Steve’s grandparents all spoke German as their first language. His two grandmothers both had mothers from the German areas of the present Czech Republic, from Bohemia and Moravia in what later came to be called the Sudetenland. Steve’s family stopped speaking German only in the World War II period, as prejudice against German-speaking Americans mounted and caused families that had clung to their mother tongue for generations in a dominant Anglo cultural world to abandon it and to use English in their homes.

Because of his cultural heritage, Steve feels the Holocaust as a personal burden, as an act of incommensurable and inexplicable evil for which he himself is in some way responsible. He has spent years trying to understand how it is that people—his people—could do something like this to another people. He has worked hard to read every scrap of history he can find about the Holocaust, the rise of Nazism in Germany, the theological roots of anti-Semitism, and so on.

Because I share my life with him, I have had a broad, vicarious education in these subjects, merely by listening to him process what he is reading and learning, and then by reading what he recommends to me. Our education has also included travel—primarily, to places in Germany in which he still has cousins, to reconnect to those cousins, and to hear from them what they remember or have been told about the Nazi period.

We have not visited a concentration camp. I am not sure I am ready yet to see one. We have, though, visited other sites that bring us face to face with the history of Nazi Germany’s murder of the Jews. Those visits have been, for me, spiritual moments, gifts in my own pilgrimage towards transformative truth. I have come away from each of these encounters changed. And I am remembering those encounters lately, as I think about Richard Williamson’s refusal to visit Auschwitz.

I’ve written elsewhere about one of these sites—a Jewish cemetery in the Kraichgau area of Baden (http://neverinparadise.blogspot.com/2008/10/weingarten-baden-171998-dead-cemeteries.html). Steve and I were in that area visiting cousins of his in 1998. We’ve gone back once with Steve’s parents.

On both visits, the cousins took us to the Jewish cemetery of the community in which they live. The cemetery is a “dead” cemetery. The last stones in it are dated 1936. Standing in it, one is confronted with astonishing, deeply troubling evidence of the eradication of an entire group of people in this community (and in community after community across Germany).

People who had lived side by side with their Christian neighbors in this Rhineland area from the early Middle Ages. People who considered themselves German, since they had, after all, built Germany and lived in the area that became Germany for almost a millennium and a half before they were expelled and murdered.

In the same town is a plaque stating that the synagogue had stood on this spot, and that it was torn down on 10 November 1938. Kristallnacht: the same night on which synagogues across Germany were decimated in an organized act of mass violence engineered by the Nazis. The night on which Jewish citizens who had lived among the Christian population of Germany for centuries found their shops and houses attacked, their belongings pulled into the streets, by neighbors whom they never suspected of harboring such hate. A prelude to murder.

Steve’s Badish cousins are Catholic, as Steve is and his ancestors were. In addition to showing us these places, they have shared with us photo albums documenting their family history and the history of the community in these years. One of these shows several smiling village girls of the 1930s underneath a sign reading, in bold letters, Die Juden sind under Unglück: the Jews are our misfortune. A prelude to murder.

The cousins tell us that in this Catholic village, as in nearby Protestant villages, as in villages across Germany, there are families still living who took part in the events of Kristallnacht. Some of these families have held office in the community, since then. They are respected and well-regarded, at least by many of their neighbors.

As I think about our visits to Steve’s cousins, I remember, too, a visit to another Catholic Rhineland community in which some of Steve’s ancestors lived—this one north of Baden, just outside Köln, a little village called Stommeln. This village is unique in that its synagogue survived the Nazi years. It did so because a local farmer used it as a pigsty after the Jews of the area were expelled (http://neverinparadise.blogspot.com/2008/09/stommeln-7505-klsch-and-maibume.html).

Again, because this community is near the Rhine, which was a major route for migration of Jews into the German lands from early in the Christian era, its Jewish roots are ancient. In fact, as we did research there, Steve discovered that both of his great-great-grandparents who were born in the town and who emigrated to America in the pre-Civil War period had a Jewish grandmother. Both grandmothers has converted to Catholicism. This branch of Steve’s family—the one with roots in Stommeln—is among the most fiercely Catholic of all his family lines today.

Visiting the synagogue in Stommeln was one of the most moving experiences of my life. There was, first of all, the sense of continuity—of my own continuity with the community that had worshiped here for centuries and which was now gone. Of my continuity with Judaism as a Christian whose religion is the offspring of Judaism.

There was also a sense of inconsolable loss, of the absolute, definitive “removal” of an entire community of human beings who led lives here that contributed to their community for generations. Gone. All their contributions forgotten, denied, except for the synagogue, with its stark evidence of so much more that once flourished in Stommeln and other communities like it, through the Jewish presence.

As I think of Stommeln, I recall, too, our meeting with a local historian, a history teacher, who told us of his struggles to help his students remember what happened with the Holocaust—so that it may never happen again (http://neverinparadise.blogspot.com/2008/09/kln-10505-decentering-touches-and.html). Steve has remained in touch with this scholar. He continues to send Steve material about the history of the community, including its rich Jewish past.

I cannot forget, either, the monument of the Kneeling Jew that we came on entirely by accident on a visit to Vienna in 2003. It is in the Albertinaplatz, near the Albertina art museum. Immediately in front of this monument is a granite gateway called the Gateway of Violence, through which one passes to see the bronze monument of a Jew with barbed wire on his back, groveling as he is forced to scrub pro-Austrian slogans from the streets (http://neverinparadise.blogspot.com/2008/04/vienna-8703-heurigers-extra-early.html). The graphic at the head of this posting is a picture of this monument.

This monument by Alfred Hrdlicka commemorates actual events, the humiliation imposed on an entire population of people during the Nazi period. Also in a Catholic area. As a prelude to murder.

I remember, as well, a visit Steve and I made to a cousin of his who had been, like the current pope, a Nazi youth and a Nazi soldier. This was a cousin with whom Steve’s family had maintained contact over the years, someone who grew up in the same house in which his great-grandmother was born and lived in Moravia, in a Catholic German community, until she emigrated in the early 20th century. He had visited Steve's family several times in Minnesota. Because they are a large Catholic family with many far-flung branches, they hosted his visits in the local American Legion hall.

He was a . . . horrifying . . . man. He spoke of good S.S. officers, of the need for Germans to “cleanse” their land of the “filth” of African immigrants, who were taking over and stealing. He decried the willingness of the German Catholic church to support Bread for the World, using his money to allow the licentious Africans to continue breeding too many children, while the German population declined. He lamented the size of Poland—“all that land and so few people”—when Germany needed more room for its people.

He had, in short, learned nothing, nothing at all, from the defeat of Hitler. And he was Catholic—a point Steve insists on making when we talk about these issues. Because his struggle is to understand how a people born out of Judaism, who read the Jewish scriptures and have made those scriptures our own, who claim as Savior a Jewish man, how we can turn in hatred against the Jewish people.

He struggles to understand how his own people, Catholic Germans, a people committed by faith and baptism to healing the world, could have ripped the world apart by partaking in the mass murder of the Jewish people. And visiting those monuments close to his own history, memorials to the hatred that allowed this to happen, deepens rather than resolves these questions for him.

Just as visiting Auschwitz might trouble the certainty of Richard Williamson that no gas chambers were used to kill Jews in Nazi Germany, and that 300,000 and not 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. As I say, I can understand Richard Williamson’s decision not to go to Auschwitz.

Having visited places—real places where real violence took place against real human beings—which document the history of Nazi Germany, but in which the level of violence was nowhere near so atrocious as that of Auschwitz, I can understand. If those places made such an impression on me, imagine what Auschwitz might do to Bishop Williamson.