Posted on 02/15/2002 6:44:35 AM PST by Romulus
LOL.....I don't necessarily share Goldhagen's views. I've never read his works and have no desire to do so. Consequently, I have had to rely on articles like this for what his views are. But I love how those who are opposed to his views (and who also have probably never actually read what he's written) try to morally equate him and others with various types of evils.
Whatever. I appreciate what you've written. It provides me with more information about your morals than the morals of Goldhagen's supporters.
I suppose what Goldhagen thinks he's doing is exposing the truth in the hopes that people will appreciate it. If so, he's wrong. True, there are a few people who will appreciate it. Most will not and will harbor resentment. And, of course, there are those who will refute his positions which only adds to the animosity. Some of the vitriolic language in this article, for instance, impresses me less than if the author took a more logical approach and left out adjectives such as "schlock". I suppose that's impossible given the emotional arguments involved.
That's not quite true. I suspect you WON'T see any. There's a big difference, but I will try and explain anyway.
Have you read the Protocols? Admittedly, I have not - I have only read commentaries on them. From what I understand, they are a collection of amazing lies designed with one purpose - to foster hatred of the Jews. And they have been used by some to generate violence and murder. Something more than just "smearing".
Whatever Goldhagen's work is...whether parts are accurate or not...I seriously doubt that it's purpose is to create hatred towards Christians or the Church, or to inspire violence. Now, I haven't read his work so I can't say for sure. Moreover, since Christianity is the predominent faith in this country and throughout most of Europe, I seriousl doubt that violence will result from any reading of Goldhagen's books.
I guess my position is that you could have denounced his work (even though you haven't read it?) without the comparison to the Protocols (which you also haven't read?). It would have made more sense.
Lol back at you. This garbage is a staple of the liberal menagerie. From homosexual activists to the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives to Unitarian, Reform and other liberal congregations, books such as this reinforce everything they believe already.
Probably no one. On the other hand, Menachem Begin (OBM) said that Poles received their anti-Semitism with their mother's milk. Whatever. Frequently, the apple does not fall far from the tree. If there is hatred in the home, children learn to hate.
Perhaps you're right. I still don't think that excuses your comparison.
This is almost equivalent to blaming the Russian Orthodox Church for the persecution of Catholics in the Soviet Union. Pope Innocent III encouraged a crusade, and the Fourth Crusade was the result, but he was not in control of it, and disapproved both of their sack of Zadar (a Catholic city) and of the diversion to Constantinople, and it was Frankish soldiers, who happened to be Catholics, and their leaders, rather than the Catholic Church, who were to blame for the outrages that took place.
Similarly, in WWII Croatia, it was Ante Pavelic and his Ustasha followers, who included some members of the Catholic clergy, but not the Catholic Church as an institution, who committed the massacres of Serbs, Jews, and others (including anti-fascist Croats); the head of the Catholic Church in Croatia, Archbishop Stepinac, spoke out publicly against the racist policies of the regime.
I haven't read his work nor do I have any interest in doing so. I would hope his motive is to uncover the unpleasant truth. However, that is just a hope, based on no facts whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.