One may have a contempt for religion and still be a Believer of a dogma. But "theology" is perhaps not the correct word. Theology is the study of God, and there is certainly something irreligious about the Holo-Cult. I guess it depends on one's definition of Diety and what criterion separates the orthodox Believers from the heterodox Deniers. Some area between Groupthink (an organizational, mass, or group-psychology) with traditional Theosophy is meant. The Holocaust is much more than a myth, much less than a religion, or something having its own God(s). The Holocaust certainly has its own Martyrs and Devils, Saints, Sinners, and Spectators; it also has Believers and Deniers and Skeptics.Dan Weakley wrote:Hmmm....Where should I start? It is more theology than historyScott Smith wrote:It is more theology than history. At best it is hearsay, as any honest cross-examination would show. Proprietary-history, however, does start with the premise that the experiences of one's people are unique.Dan Weakley wrote:Okay, your worldly experience notwithstanding, why on earth would you discredit the revelations of Primo Levi? One thing I have discovered in reading the stories of Jewish inmates of the camp system is a notable absence of malice and hatred in their writings, as if they make a particular effort to seperate their just bitterness towards the Nazi's and try to relate their story in a dispassionate manner, all which leads me to believe they are more interested in influencing the reader with the facts, and to show that it is not a personal vendetta that drives them but an intense desire to ensure their story is not forgotten.
I posted this on the Old Forum a couple of years ago:
Peace is forged through tolerance and mutual respect. An agreement to disagree.Scott Smith wrote: Comrade Wiesel is mistaken if he thinks that his pain and suffering is any better than anybody else's. I'm sorry but welcome to the human race. But this really speaks more to Wiesel's own personal insecurities than anything else. It is kind of sad, really.
Having said my piece about Elie Wiesel's crusade, let me reiterate my own belief and hope:
We are just studying history here. I have said all along that we have to study history objectively and without emotion to understand ourselves-who we are, where we came from and where we intend to go.
This requires a certain degree of tolerance! History should be divorced from theosophy, in my opinion. I prefer to determine my own values and ethics, thank you. And if everybody could do that the world would be a much more reasonable, mature and safer place for all of us. Civilization is a learning-process and intellectual freedom is crucial to that.
We can't learn and progress if, for example, key historical people like Adolf Hitler are reduced to mere cardboard-cutouts of Evil.
Sincerely,
Scott
Has Mr. Wiesel or Mr. Levi "earned the right" to Hate because their people were mistreated by the Germans? We cannot force anyone to forgive. But they don't have a collective right to anything on this planet greater than anyone else. Their theology is their business.
But public space is mine too.
Really? I think not. Theoelogy does not even factor into the equation. His comment "He would spit at Kuhns prayer" clearly shows a contempt for religion.
Admittedly it may be unfair comparing Primo Levi with Elie Wiesel, the latter who seems to have bested Truman Capote in inventing "fictional nonfiction," though Wiesel was certainly not the first to "novella the Holocaust."At best it is hearsay, as any honest cross-examination would show
Come now Scott. Hearsay? I think this is first-hand knowledge, gleaned through experience (and an intense suffering that lends one to not easily forget and which we could barely imagine)
Nevertheless, if Levi did not experience something himself then it is hearsay. There is one thing with art, or even writing history, which is not claimed to be a primary source, but that is something entirely different with mythology, and particularly if it involves accusations. An honest cross-examination by a skeptical inquirer would reveal what someone knows and how they come to know it. Evaluating the originality of sources is fundamental for the critical-historical method.
Yes, but why are they telling us about it if not to pontificate? To Testify!Again, this argument seems to be headed in the direction as if the Jews have some monopoly on suffering. They certainly do not. When i speak of "earning" a right to hate I am speaking of someone who suffered grievous injustices and bodily harm. I am speaking as though that individual has the right, for him or herself, not as a spokesperson for their race. Forgiveness is a personal issue in this regard.
It might seem that way but let's separate Art from History. There is a fine line here between documenting suffering and generating Greuelpropaganda. Skepticism is more than justified with accusations, however impious to Victims and Victimology that this stance might be seen as for some.When you state that "we need to study history objectively and without emotion" I agree, and I am certainly impressed by the level of factual retelling of events, devoid of emotion, that I read in these first hand accounts. My hatred would probably be palpable and seep from the pages were it I who suffered in the same fashion and had a story to share.