Friday, December 22, 2006
The timing of the release of David Irving from an Austrian prison where he was being held for denying that the Nazis exterminated Jews and others during WWII is timed to the just concluded conference in Iran about the accuracy of the Holocaust version of history in the mainstream West.
The challenge for the would-be real Christian is to sort out the truth from the obfuscation. Get the half of the half-truths on both sides that is true and put that together and discard the half of the half-truths on both sides that is false.
In a dig at Mel Gibson, the news reports state that David Irving backs the drunken admission of Mel Gibson that he believes that Jews were behind every recent war. Well, the fact is that that is true; however, non-Jews were also. It has never required a Jew for nations to go to war. Nations have warred without Jewish instigation. It just so happens that Jews have risen in the mundane ranks in many countries in the world.
The Jews look upon such statements though as suggesting that certain Jewish entities are particularly evil in that they are of the spiritual and genetic line, (both required) libel for the murder of Jesus, which is true. Well, the fact is also that those particular Jews have no monopoly on such liability or such spirit.
Any time anyone falls into selfishness, he or she heads down the path of scapegoating others rather than down the right path of the spirit of universal repentance, atonement, and forgiveness.
Jesus was scapegoated by the high priests and the dark side of the Sanhedrin with the aid of the Roman Empire, but that didn't spare them in the end. It also points to that same spirit running through the other nations of humanity.
Now, freedom to sin is slavery to evil. Nevertheless, coercion is also evil. Today, England and the US and other states are headed further down the road of saying that nothing but the official history will be allowed. Anything not the official history is to be viewed as inciting bad feelings in the ones holding to that official history. This means that questioning that official version will not be allowed. Therefore, taken to its logical conclusion, if George W. Bush came along in the future of this official world, he could imprison anyone who said he lied to get the US into Iraq.
Who controls the official version? Those with the most money and power to control it, of course. It has ever been so. Today, they just aren't hiding it or apologetic about it. It's blatant.
Labour peer Lord Foulkes, a member of the Policy Council of Labour Friends of Israel, said the police should keep a close watch on Mr Irving's comments to see whether they breached anti-racism laws.
He said: "Mr Irving should be aware that since he was last in the United Kingdom, the laws have been strengthened to deal with people who hold racist views and who stir up antagonism on the basis of either race or religion. That is why the authorities, particularly the police, need to keep a very close and careful watch on him."
Well, it cuts both ways. Is it not racist to cover up unrepented racism? What of those who believe that the false-Zionists are racist towards the Palestinian Arabs? Isn't suppressing their views then a form of racism, aiding and abetting the false-Zionists in their "transfers" of the Palestinians out of Palestinian homes? Yes. Can it then be claimed racist to point to the racism of the false-Zionists who do not comprise the whole of the descendants of Jacob? It can be claimed, but it's a false charge.
In addition, what about the treatment of Blacks after Hurricane Katrina? Who can doubt that White racism is at the bottom of it? What about the treatment of the Blacks in Nigeria by the oil industry? Isn't that racism?
Look, Debora Lipstadt, who prevailed in a libel suit brought against her by David Irving has the right idea.
"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."
...the issue [Irving's imprisonment by Austria] also raised a debate on what grounds freedom of speech could be denied in democratic countries.
The ACLU has the right idea too that freedom of speech means freedom to say the wrong things on all sides. The difference real Christians have with the ACLU is that the ACLU favors using the coercive force of the majority to protect the erring speech and the ACLU doesn't say to people that they ought not to be saying what they are saying.
We say that each person must control himself or herself freely through knowledge, of and love of, truth. This is the real civil libertarian position. Anything else is offense and of the devil.
In truth, Irving has said, "I am not a Holocaust denier. Nobody in their right mind can deny that the Nazis killed millions of Jews." We agree. He also has said that there is no evidence Hitler knew about the Holocaust. Well, is there evidence that he knew? Well, it depends upon for what level evidence one is holding out.
Certainly he hated the Jews and would gladly have seen them all gone from existence on this plane.
He was certainly there when the final-solution type coded talk took place (plausible deniability since they all knew by then that Germany had lost the war?).
Irving has also said that fewer Jews died at Auschwitz than is commonly believed, and that the "real killing centres" were elsewhere.
We haven't seen his so-called evidence for these positions, because we were never interested in the lines he was pursuing.
He's entitled to be either right or wrong about it in as much as no one else is right to force his silence. Convince him he's wrong. Make your case to the people, openly, honestly, and directly. Let everyone be able to do that. There is censorship now by the mainstream media about the impeachable offenses of Bush/Cheney, et al.
This European law against questioning anything about the official line of the Holocaust is fascistic in its own right.
Self-censorship from conscience is the only correctly applied censorship.
Let people self-sensor without human coercion. Let their hearts guide them. Let their consciences guide them. If they reject the truth, don't take God's law into your own hands. Vengeance is not yours. If we all adhere to these things, God will set everything right.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)