|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 5:13:25 GMT -5
This poster should have been forbidden:“Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” this poster says. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. The same racist propaganda is being widely promoted by political Islam today. And just who do you think should have forbidden it?
The USA? Britain? France? YOU? The worker who speak at the Theodore convention in Canada?
And just how would they go about forbidding it?
It was primarily the responsibility of the German government but the USA, Britain, France and other free countries could have put pressure on through diplomatic channels. Hate speech is dangerous and I'm not sure that it's a necessary part of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 5:43:01 GMT -5
And just who do you think should have forbidden it?
The USA? Britain? France? YOU? The worker who speak at the Theodore convention in Canada?
And just how would they go about forbidding it?
It was primarily the responsibility of the German government but the USA, Britain, France and other free countries could have put pressure on through diplomatic channels. Hate speech is dangerous and I'm not sure that it's a necessary part of democracy. Y es, hate speech can be dangerous.
But who defines "dangerous?" Do you know much history of post WWI history in Germany?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 2, 2015 9:39:33 GMT -5
Which government are you talking about? Up until the end of the Weimar Republic, which allowed freedom of speech, it would be difficult to come up with a reason for censorship. At the end of the Weimar Republic (1933) when the Nazi party came into power, it immediately enacted a number of anti-Jewish laws and then two years later the Nuremberg Laws. Of course, the government under Hitler was not about to allow freedom of speech. The government was well aware of the damage the truth can cause to a brutal regime. Following 1933, the government used propaganda and censorship as Hitler had outlined - tell the people what you want them to hear and don't allow them to hear anything else. If you lead up to taking control with bland propaganda that resonates with the population there is no reason to suggest censorship. With 20/20 hindsight many things could have been done differently.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 13:10:55 GMT -5
Which government are you talking about? Up until the end of the Weimar Republic, which allowed freedom of speech, it would be difficult to come up with a reason for censorship. At the end of the Weimar Republic (1933) when the Nazi party came into power, it immediately enacted a number of anti-Jewish laws and then two years later the Nuremberg Laws. Of course, the government under Hitler was not about to allow freedom of speech. The government was well aware of the damage the truth can cause to a brutal regime. Following 1933, the government used propaganda and censorship as Hitler had outlined - tell the people what you want them to hear and don't allow them to hear anything else. If you lead up to taking control with bland propaganda that resonates with the population there is no reason to suggest censorship. With 20/20 hindsight many things could have been done differently. What you refer to as "bland propaganda" included "get rid of the Jews". “Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” the poster read. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. Such talk is widespread among Muslims and it is dangerous. With 20/20 hindsight many things could have been done differently. If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 2, 2015 18:02:55 GMT -5
I find it interesting that Muslims won't draw Muhammad and they get upset with those who do, and Jews will not write the word God, yet don't seems to care if others write God or god.
I wonder what happen from the OT to NT where writing God became ok?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 2, 2015 20:44:12 GMT -5
You really shouldn't conflate violent Muslim extremism with conservative Muslim theology. The two require completely different measures, IMO. It's quite simple. 1) Deal harshly with violence and oppression whereever it is found. 2) Respect national and ethnic autonomy and allow Muslim dominated countries to resolve their internal issues with theology and governance. Where I'm not following you is that you advocate allowing Imams to incite violence and oppression, yet you want us to fight it "wherever it is found". You can arrest a man for robbing a bank. You can't arrest him for saying he's going to rob a bank. You might be able to arrest him if the plans are highly specific, or if he is a banker who provides a safe combination to the actual thieves. There are some speech acts that are indictable but they are very narrowly and specifically defined in law. I remember some years ago one of my English profs being chagrined at radical Communists on campus who demanded the right to hold meetings and try to grow their party, yet if they ever came to power they would shut down the same free speech rights that got them there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 21:37:55 GMT -5
Where I'm not following you is that you advocate allowing Imams to incite violence and oppression, yet you want us to fight it "wherever it is found". You can arrest a man for robbing a bank. You can't arrest him for saying he's going to rob a bank. You might be able to arrest him if the plans are highly specific, or if he is a banker who provides a safe combination to the actual thieves. There are some speech acts that are indictable but they are very narrowly and specifically defined in law. I remember some years ago one of my English profs being chagrined at radical Communists on campus who demanded the right to hold meetings and try to grow their party, yet if they ever came to power they would shut down the same free speech rights that got them there in the first place. Yes, communism and fascism were similar in that they took advantage of the freedoms that they despised. They also preached blood and death as a means to achieve their aims for which they were willing to give their lives. The difference with political Islam is that it does it in the name of a very well established religion. The ISIL phenomenon may prompt an awakening from within Islam as they see that political Islam has caused so much suffering. I notice that the radical Imams are mostly from basket-case countries. Wouldn't it make sense to stop these guys from preaching their evil doctrine in Western mosques and colleges?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 2, 2015 21:46:10 GMT -5
Up until the end of the Weimar Republic, which allowed freedom of speech, it would be difficult to come up with a reason for censorship. At the end of the Weimar Republic (1933) when the Nazi party came into power, it immediately enacted a number of anti-Jewish laws and then two years later the Nuremberg Laws. Of course, the government under Hitler was not about to allow freedom of speech. The government was well aware of the damage the truth can cause to a brutal regime. Following 1933, the government used propaganda and censorship as Hitler had outlined - tell the people what you want them to hear and don't allow them to hear anything else. If you lead up to taking control with bland propaganda that resonates with the population there is no reason to suggest censorship. With 20/20 hindsight many things could have been done differently. What you refer to as "bland propaganda" included "get rid of the Jews". “Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” the poster read. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. Such talk is widespread among Muslims and it is dangerous. With 20/20 hindsight many things could have been done differently. If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Did you know that ISIS is targetting the man in that video? www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/28225768/mid-south-professor-targeted-by-isisIs he describing 'jihad' or advocating 'jihad'? Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 2, 2015 21:48:11 GMT -5
You can arrest a man for robbing a bank. You can't arrest him for saying he's going to rob a bank. You might be able to arrest him if the plans are highly specific, or if he is a banker who provides a safe combination to the actual thieves. There are some speech acts that are indictable but they are very narrowly and specifically defined in law. I remember some years ago one of my English profs being chagrined at radical Communists on campus who demanded the right to hold meetings and try to grow their party, yet if they ever came to power they would shut down the same free speech rights that got them there in the first place. Yes, communism and fascism were similar in that they took advantage of the freedoms that they despised. They also preached blood and death as a means to achieve their aims for which they were willing to give their lives. The difference with political Islam is that it does it in the name of a very well established religion. The ISIL phenomenon may prompt an awakening from within Islam as they see that political Islam has caused so much suffering. I notice that the radical Imams are mostly from basket-case countries. Wouldn't it make sense to stop these guys from preaching their evil doctrine in Western mosques and colleges? If revoking a travel permit is all there is to it, then certainly.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 22:29:00 GMT -5
If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. No offense, Fixit, but it hasn't been very indicative by your posts that you know a lot about Germany's history between the two WW's..
My husband & I took World Civilization classes together.
Our teacher stated he really didn't think of the two WW's as separate wars due to the history of Germany between the two wars.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 23:12:50 GMT -5
He seems to be reasonable in his open letter to Obama:
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 3, 2015 0:00:26 GMT -5
What you refer to as "bland propaganda" included "get rid of the Jews". “Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” the poster read. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. It is not unlike talk to censor the Muslims. Or "Don't let them attend schools". If you do not support freedom of speech that is your stand. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't. Exactly. Do not allow any government to limit the freedom of speech. From 1933 things went quickly downhill in Germany. If you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.― Neil Gaiman
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 3, 2015 10:54:08 GMT -5
The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific. The tests that were done by psychologist Stanley Milgram showed this quite well. It is actually the same mindset that Hitler used to get good intelligent Germans to do horrific things. He didn't just one day say 'go and exterminate all the Jews in Europe'. Not many would have gone along with that. But he started small. He started a sterilization program that targeted German citizens in about 1933 and then by the end of the decade was euthanizing the handicapped (physical and mental) children and from there went on to adults. Once they got the system down and people were used to doing these things in stages, it wasn't a huge step to start their extermination program of the Jews. And that's how things progress. That's why we need to be very careful when we start talking about certain groups should be restricted in areas that other people have rights.
Hitler's justification for all those programs was the belief that these people were harming the German people and in order to protect the German people these other groups needed to be exterminated. We need to be careful that we don't start allowing the slow incremental stages of first taking away rights of the people we think are harmful because we can end up taking it much further than we might want to. We don't want to have to look back at how we handled this situation with horror of what 'we' were capable of.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 14:08:01 GMT -5
The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific. The tests that were done by psychologist Stanley Milgram showed this quite well. It is actually the same mindset that Hitler used to get good intelligent Germans to do horrific things. He didn't just one day say 'go and exterminate all the Jews in Europe'. Not many would have gone along with that. But he started small. He started a sterilization program that targeted German citizens in about 1933 and then by the end of the decade was euthanizing the handicapped (physical and mental) children and from there went on to adults. Once they got the system down and people were used to doing these things in stages, it wasn't a huge step to start their extermination program of the Jews. And that's how things progress. That's why we need to be very careful when we start talking about certain groups should be restricted in areas that other people have rights. Hitler's justification for all those programs was the belief that these people were harming the German people and in order to protect the German people these other groups needed to be exterminated. We need to be careful that we don't start allowing the slow incremental stages of first taking away rights of the people we think are harmful because we can end up taking it much further than we might want to. We don't want to have to look back at how we handled this situation with horror of what 'we' were capable of. The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific.It starts earlier than that. Before getting people to do small things they get them to accept small things. Like a poster that says "Get rid of the Jews". Or like a sermon that says "kill the Jews to the very last one".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 3, 2015 14:49:29 GMT -5
The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific. The tests that were done by psychologist Stanley Milgram showed this quite well. It is actually the same mindset that Hitler used to get good intelligent Germans to do horrific things. He didn't just one day say 'go and exterminate all the Jews in Europe'. Not many would have gone along with that. But he started small. He started a sterilization program that targeted German citizens in about 1933 and then by the end of the decade was euthanizing the handicapped (physical and mental) children and from there went on to adults. Once they got the system down and people were used to doing these things in stages, it wasn't a huge step to start their extermination program of the Jews. And that's how things progress. That's why we need to be very careful when we start talking about certain groups should be restricted in areas that other people have rights. Hitler's justification for all those programs was the belief that these people were harming the German people and in order to protect the German people these other groups needed to be exterminated. We need to be careful that we don't start allowing the slow incremental stages of first taking away rights of the people we think are harmful because we can end up taking it much further than we might want to. We don't want to have to look back at how we handled this situation with horror of what 'we' were capable of. The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific.It starts earlier than that. Before getting people to do small things they get them to accept small things. Like a poster that says "Get rid of the Jews". Or like a sermon that says "kill the Jews to the very last one". What 'snow' is saying applies to authority, laws and rules and how they apply to the population or members of the population. We are in no danger presently of our current government implementing a program to "kill the Jews to the very last one". The people who say these things, in our country, have no power. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with Imams who utter death threats; it's just that that's not who 'snow' is talking about. She's talking about the hatred of Muslims in our country, and how people want to take away the rights and privileges given to everyone else and guaranteed by the Constitution. Recently a judge in Quebec ordered a Muslim woman to remove her hijab, which covered her head but no her face, in order to address the court. Because she refused to do so, she lost her right to petition the court. That is how it began with the Jews. There are many Canadians now who are saying "no special privileges for these people" by which they mean, Muslims should dress, eat and talk like everyone else. Some of the anti-Muslim propaganada on youtube and elsewhere is similar to anti-Jewish propaganda that appeared before World War II. Here are some examples of anti-Jewish reports ... Salacious accounts of sexual offenses featured in nearly every issue.[61] The Reichstag fire was attributed to a Jewish conspiracy.[62] It supported an early plan to transport all Jews to Madagascar,[63] but this prospect was dropped as soon as it became an actual possibility.[64] Later, taking Theodore N. Kaufman with the importance that the Nazis generally attributed to him, urged that Jews intended to exterminate Germany,[65] and urged that only with the destruction of Jews would Germany be safe.[66] (from wikipedia - Themes in Nazi propaganda Sound familiar? Sexual offences - ukpaedos-exposed.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/facts-and-stats-on-child-abuse/muslim-paedo-rings-in-the-uk-why-how/Sabotage - www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Jihad-Sabotage-America/dp/B0096JFGD2Intend to exterminate - www.amazon.com/Religion-Peace-Islams-Against-World/dp/097789844X/sr=8-1/qid=1160850916/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4674548-6221535?ie=UTF8
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 16:52:20 GMT -5
What 'snow' is saying applies to authority, laws and rules and how they apply to the population or members of the population. We are in no danger presently of our current government implementing a program to "kill the Jews to the very last one". The people who say these things, in our country, have no power. I think you underestimate the power these people have who advocate things like "kill the Jews to the very last one". I think we are agreed on the need for military action to kill jihadis in Iraq and Syria. It seems a shame that Imams from basket case countries can live in the West and exploit our Western freedoms to radicalise young people. I feel uncomfortable that thousands of young people from Western countries are going to the Middle East to kill and be killed, and we are afraid to tackle the root cause which I believe is radical Islamic anti-Western rhetoric. Is it the fault of the young folks that they take their religious leaders seriously and act on what they are incited to do? Or does society have a responsibility to protect it's young people from dangerous religious brainwashing? I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do. The nut-job clerics are exploiting that opportunity. It just seems fairer to deal with the nut-job clerics rather than kill their disciples in the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 17:02:22 GMT -5
I do hear what Snow is saying but I'm sure the Jews in the 1930s were not fighting all around the world like Jihadis are today.
Actually I think its an insult to the Jews of the 1930s and 1940s to compare them with the Muslims of today.
If you rein in the Jihadis and their Imams and get the Islamic world to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm pretty sure the backlash against Muslims would quickly melt away.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 17:27:03 GMT -5
Freedom of expression is essential for a free society, but it shouldn't extend to advocating anything that is illegal e.g.
Kill Muslims Kill Jews Kill Christians Kill Atheists Kill homosexuals Kill adulterers Cut off hands and feet for theft Genital mutilation of women Death to Israel Death to America Death to the Westbro Baptist Church and its Members (a Facebook site) etc...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 19:31:21 GMT -5
It was primarily the responsibility of the German government but the USA, Britain, France and other free countries could have put pressure on through diplomatic channels. Hate speech is dangerous and I'm not sure that it's a necessary part of democracy. Y es, hate speech can be dangerous.
But who defines "dangerous?" Do you know much history of post WWI history in Germany?
Like you, I think of WW2 as an extension of WW1. It seems that helping Germany get on it's feet again after WW1 would have been good policy. I think opposing and preaching against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is dangerous. Are you a supporter of the Enlightenment, and a defender of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 3, 2015 23:12:06 GMT -5
I do hear what Snow is saying but I'm sure the Jews in the 1930s were not fighting all around the world like Jihadis are today. Actually I think its an insult to the Jews of the 1930s and 1940s to compare them with the Muslims of today. If you rein in the Jihadis and their Imams and get the Islamic world to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm pretty sure the backlash against Muslims would quickly melt away.
Nothing is going to "quickly melt away " as long as you & others like you keep saying things like this:
" I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do."
How very patronizing!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't exactly help either!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 3, 2015 23:49:24 GMT -5
I do hear what Snow is saying but I'm sure the Jews in the 1930s were not fighting all around the world like Jihadis are today. Actually I think its an insult to the Jews of the 1930s and 1940s to compare them with the Muslims of today. If you rein in the Jihadis and their Imams and get the Islamic world to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm pretty sure the backlash against Muslims would quickly melt away.
Nothing is going to "quickly melt away " as long as you & others like you keep saying things like this:
" I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do."
How very patronizing!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't exactly help either!
Refusal to acknowledge the root causes of problems and discuss it openly only hinders progress.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 4, 2015 0:44:17 GMT -5
Nothing is going to "quickly melt away " as long as you & others like you keep saying things like this:
" I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do."
How very patronizing!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't exactly help either!
Refusal to acknowledge the root causes of problems and discuss it openly only hinders progress. Making remarks like you keep doing is NOT acknowledging any "root" causes of problems . Making a statement like you did, " I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do"
is simply denigrating a whole group of people as if they are just not as intelligent as you suppose yourself to be! That is NOT a "root" cause! That is pure hubris on the part of anyone making such a statement!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't get at any "root" problem either!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 4, 2015 1:54:37 GMT -5
Refusal to acknowledge the root causes of problems and discuss it openly only hinders progress. Making remarks like you keep doing is NOT acknowledging any "root" causes of problems . Making a statement like you did, " I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do"
is simply denigrating a whole group of people as if they are just not as intelligent as you suppose yourself to be! That is NOT a "root" cause! That is pure hubris on the part of anyone making such a statement!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't get at any "root" problem either!
It's nothing to do with intelligence, but rather culture. In free countries we put a lot of value on the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Islamic world rejects those values because their culture is different from ours. Even in the West we have differences in culture. The Dutch are much more inclined to question authority than their neighbours the Germans.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 4, 2015 2:06:36 GMT -5
Making remarks like you keep doing is NOT acknowledging any "root" causes of problems . Making a statement like you did, " I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do"
is simply denigrating a whole group of people as if they are just not as intelligent as you suppose yourself to be! That is NOT a "root" cause! That is pure hubris on the part of anyone making such a statement!
Continuing to call their clerics " nut-jobs" doesn't get at any "root" problem either!
It's nothing to do with intelligence, but rather culture. In free countries we put a lot of value on the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Islamic world rejects those values because their culture is different from ours. If It has nothing to do with intelligence, then quit making statements that sound as if it does!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 4, 2015 4:16:25 GMT -5
It's nothing to do with intelligence, but rather culture. In free countries we put a lot of value on the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Islamic world rejects those values because their culture is different from ours. If It has nothing to do with intelligence, then quit making statements that sound as if it does!
I never intended to come across as patronizing. I was simply stating that we have a lot of choices to make every day about how we live, while Islamic cultures have far fewer options. People from Islamic cultures have difficulty coping with the diversity and the available options around how we live our lives. Here's an example: in Western societies you can freely express your beliefs. You can openly profess to be an atheist if you wish, but in the following countries you risk death for doing so: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. With the exception of Pakistan, those countries all allow for capital punishment against apostasy, i.e., the renunciation of a particular religion. Pakistan, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy, which can obviously include disbelief in God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 4, 2015 5:42:22 GMT -5
I do hear what Snow is saying but I'm sure the Jews in the 1930s were not fighting all around the world like Jihadis are today. Actually I think its an insult to the Jews of the 1930s and 1940s to compare them with the Muslims of today. If you rein in the Jihadis and their Imams and get the Islamic world to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm pretty sure the backlash against Muslims would quickly melt away. I'm not comparing the Jews to the Muslims. I'm comparing prejudice against the Jews to prejudice against the Muslims. That is very much the same. My reference point is only tangentially the links in your posts. I'm seeing much stronger anti-Muslim prejudice elsewhere, right here in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 4, 2015 5:48:46 GMT -5
What 'snow' is saying applies to authority, laws and rules and how they apply to the population or members of the population. We are in no danger presently of our current government implementing a program to "kill the Jews to the very last one". The people who say these things, in our country, have no power. I think you underestimate the power these people have who advocate things like "kill the Jews to the very last one". I think we are agreed on the need for military action to kill jihadis in Iraq and Syria. It seems a shame that Imams from basket case countries can live in the West and exploit our Western freedoms to radicalise young people. I feel uncomfortable that thousands of young people from Western countries are going to the Middle East to kill and be killed, and we are afraid to tackle the root cause which I believe is radical Islamic anti-Western rhetoric. Is it the fault of the young folks that they take their religious leaders seriously and act on what they are incited to do? Or does society have a responsibility to protect it's young people from dangerous religious brainwashing? I think people with an Islamic background are often poorly equipped to cope with our Western freedom of choice and prefer to be told what to do. The nut-job clerics are exploiting that opportunity. It just seems fairer to deal with the nut-job clerics rather than kill their disciples in the Middle East. I don't think the process works like you and some media describe. In the 1930s, young people went to fight fascism in Spain. In WWI, thousands voluntarily enlisted. After WW2, we had the 'rebel without a cause' phenom because young people wanted to rebel but didn't have an outlet for that. Young Muslims are going to endorse the "cause", whether they hear radical Imams or not. Many are angry and have no future prospects. That is the root cause.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 4, 2015 8:46:15 GMT -5
The psychology behind good people doing horrific things is to get people to do small things first and gradually take them further and further down the road to truly horrific. The tests that were done by psychologist Stanley Milgram showed this quite well. It is actually the same mindset that Hitler used to get good intelligent Germans to do horrific things. He didn't just one day say 'go and exterminate all the Jews in Europe'. Not many would have gone along with that. But he started small. He started a sterilization program that targeted German citizens in about 1933 and then by the end of the decade was euthanizing the handicapped (physical and mental) children and from there went on to adults. Once they got the system down and people were used to doing these things in stages, it wasn't a huge step to start their extermination program of the Jews. And that's how things progress. That's why we need to be very careful when we start talking about certain groups should be restricted in areas that other people have rights. Hitler's justification for all those programs was the belief that these people were harming the German people and in order to protect the German people these other groups needed to be exterminated. We need to be careful that we don't start allowing the slow incremental stages of first taking away rights of the people we think are harmful because we can end up taking it much further than we might want to. We don't want to have to look back at how we handled this situation with horror of what 'we' were capable of. Let's not forget that prior to 1934 the US led the world in sterilizations. As many as 30,000 in the beginning of the 1900s, many of them incarcerated in prisons or psychological hospitals, many unknowingly or against their will. The Germans were not the only ones who believed that controlled breeding would improve the human race. You know the old story: (one poetic version) First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Probably a more accurate version of the speech: When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle of society? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.
|
|