Genocide Denial

[Aloysius]

I suppose I have a very different idea of friendship than you folks. I do not base any of my friendships on shared idealogies, the friends who share my idealogy are few and far between, and I count as very close friends people who do not in the least share my idealogy about many things. I enjoy a good hearty respectful argument, even with sides whose opinins I find absolutely intellectually untenable... but ultimately, I base friendship not on shared idealogy, I consider friends the ones who I have grown to care about significantly, who I would stick my neck out for... I do not sever friendships lightly, I value loyalty above most things. all in all, when someone is my friend, I treat them much like family, in that it would take something incredibly egregious for me to consider severing a friendship, a stupid opinion on any subject, even a subject I cared greatly about, would never lead me to sever a friendship. friendship is much more about love to me than it is about some sort of intellectual support system.

yoking oneself with an unbeliever I think is more talking about marriage than anything else, interfaith marriage is still discouraged by the Church for this reason; but note, even it is allowed. friendship I think is a whole other story than "yoking with unbelievers". I don't think I'd have any problem being friends with a muslim. one of my best friends from childhood was mormon... though we never really discussed religion as adults who understood things (he moved away before either of us really grew up into being strong in our religion), I have no problem with the idea of a Mormon or a Muslim as a very close friend. the idea of friendships as being based upon idealogical agreement is just extremely foreign to me.

I think the other scriptures are more about getting in with the wrong crowd in the sense of those who will peer pressure you into drugs or theft or vandalism or sexual promiscuity and such... but if one has a strong intellectual base I don't think one should fear friendship with people with ideas vastly different from your own. if you really think remaining close friends with this person will tempt you towards believing the things that he does about the Armenian genocide, then by all means grow apart... but it sounds as if you have a strong opinion on this matter that doesn't seem like it'd be swayed just by being friends with someone who disagreed with you. again, I kind of feel that the attitude of cutting off friends based on idealogical divergance sort of reflects a kind of insecurity about one's own beliefs.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327236417' post='2373163']I enjoy a good hearty respectful argument, even with sides whose opinins I find absolutely intellectually untenable... but ultimately, I base friendship not on shared idealogy,[/quote]
Interesting. I love to discuss things, but find it hard to discuss with people who do not share my basic...not so much ideology, but basic intellectual thrust. I guess I don't place a lot of value on argument...I tend to distinguish that from discussion. I kind of view family the same way...I wouldn't really get into an intellectual argument with a family member, because I consider that beneath a familial relationship. I guess I don't "base friendship on shared ideology," but without some basic shared ideology I don't think friendship is possible for me, except for friendship in a casual sense (e.g., being friends with someone at work).

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327236417' post='2373163']I consider friends the ones who I have grown to care about significantly, who I would stick my neck out for... I do not sever friendships lightly, I value loyalty above most things. all in all, when someone is my friend, I treat them much like family, in that it would take something incredibly egregious for me to consider severing a friendship, a stupid opinion on any subject, even a subject I cared greatly about, would never lead me to sever a friendship. friendship is much more about love to me than it is about some sort of intellectual support system.[/quote]
I like to imagine friendship in a monastic sense...as you say, something beyond intellectual consideration, but there is a basic common purpose and outlook and direction that makes a monastic friendship possible. Buddhist monks might be nice people, but I couldn't live a monastic friendship with them, because we lack that basic common connection.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327236417' post='2373163']I have no problem with the idea of a Mormon or a Muslim as a very close friend. the idea of friendships as being based upon idealogical agreement is just extremely foreign to me.[/quote]
I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but I also wouldn't expect such a friendship to come about. And again, part of this is semantic...I could be "friendly" with anyone, have a discussion with anyone, go have a cup of coffee with anyone. But the kind of monastic sense of friendship, I think is hard to come by, even among Christians. I probably don't have much in common with most of the people at Mass on a Saturday at 4pm, and couldn't really be "friends with them," but I probably have more of a basis for friendship with the 5 people who show up for adoration on a First Friday.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327236417' post='2373163']I kind of feel that the attitude of cutting off friends based on idealogical divergance sort of reflects a kind of insecurity about one's own beliefs.
[/quote]
I think I'm probably more open minded than a lot of people (maybe too open minded lol)...I enjoy everything from Dorothy Day to Gandhi to Ron Paul to Malcolm X to 2Pac. I guess the way I see it, nothing really offends me as far as what YOU believe, so long as I am trying to understand YOU. But I see friendship as, in a sense, coming together for a common purpose. Friends are kind of joined together...like that famous icon of St. Peter and St. Andrew hugging. I don't think it's so much a matter of insecurity as incompatibility. The drunk man on the street is Christ incarnated, and in some sense helping him out is an act of friendship, but I cannot really be "friends" with him. We are on two different roads in life.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of developing a friendship with a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist or a Democrat or a Republican. I wouldn't expect it to happen either, but life can be surprising.

[MissMaro]

Aloysius,

Believing that raping and murdering people on any scale could ever be justified is not a small thing, it's a big thing. And publishing these beliefs in academic articles and the newspaper is an even bigger one. This isn't a question of ideology. It's a question of historical fact. He's either been mislead, in which case I feel sorry for him, or he's lying, in which case he's being incredibly immoral. In the latter case he's proved himself not be friendship material. Lying about something this important publicly could never be a small thing.

Everyone can be and is wrong about something. Everyone has blind spots. That's not the issue. But there's no excuse for what this guy is doing. None. His arguments are hurtful, potentially harmful, and very immoral. I have friends who are LDS, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, etc. It's really not about ideology. It's about what I consider to be the grave immorality of his chosen life course. This isn't just an opinion he holds privately. This is what he's planning to make his life's work. So, thank you for helping me to see that more clearly.

[MissMaro]

Era Might,

I have two incredibly close friends. One is a Catholic and the other is an atheist. And I have to say that the problem with the latter friendship is that we can't discuss everything. She's not interested in my religion at all, and we don't have the same basic beliefs so there are certain topics, like abortion, that can turn really ugly. (Though we tend just to avoid discussing them.)

But my Catholic friend and I can discuss anything, and that makes me feel much closer to him, even though I am extremely fond of both of them.

So, I tend to agree with you. And I'm not sure my atheist friend and I would be friends at all if I hadn't been pretty agnostic in my beliefs at the time I met her. We used to agree on pretty much everything, and that's what helped us become close in the first place.

[MissMaro]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1327213723' post='2373115']
I started reading A Shameful Act: the Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Shameful-Act-Armenian-Genocide-Responsibility/dp/080508665X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327213286&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.co...27213286&sr=8-1[/url]
[/quote]

I'll have to check it out. Thanks.

[Aloysius]

Interesting discussion on friendship... Iunno... anyway, I'm not calling into question how wrong their opinion is, nor am I saying that their opinion is not a big deal, I just don't see their opinion as being something that merits not being a close friend with them. but honestly it's just an idea, it's a wrong belief about historical events wherein he thinks what, that it was civil war collateral damage instead of intentional genocide, that it wasn't as bad as we say it was... how can an idea about an historical event be immoral? it can be wrong, it can be stupid, it can be based upon faulty research from biased sources, but I can't imagine it's immoral.

I guess I just never thought we should anathematize people for any position on history (except the history of the Gospel obviously, haha, because that would be denial of dogma and go literally to what the meaning of anathematizing is lol).

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327304326' post='2373657']

I guess I just never thought we should anathematize people for any position on history (except the history of the Gospel obviously, haha, because that would be denial of dogma and go literally to what the meaning of anathematizing is lol).
[/quote]

If somebody believes that the central Nazi leadership did not have a systematic program in place for the extermination of world Jewry based on their reading of the evidence but admits that any antisemitic programs, centrally directed or not are wrong, then that is one thing. And while I find such a view absurd I wouldn't end a friendship over it. That would be anathematizing someone for a position on history. If somebody announced to me that the central Nazi leadership did not have a systematic program in place for the extermination of world Jewry based on their reading of the evidence but thinks it's a shame because those beaver dam Jews deserve no less, then I have a serious problem with that person and their moral judgement and would seriously reconsider my friendship with him or her. I wouldn't want to be associated with somebody who held and espoused such a vile position. Her friend does not simply deny that the killings were part of an organized campaign by the Ottoman elite. He believes that what occurred, the mass murder, systematic or not, of innocent Armenian men, women, and children, was entirely justified. That is an espousal of a seriously disturbing moral framework and I would think careful about associating with such a person.

[MissMaro]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327309414' post='2373668']
If somebody believes that the central Nazi leadership did not have a systematic program in place for the extermination of world Jewry based on their reading of the evidence but admits that any antisemitic programs, centrally directed or not are wrong, then that is one thing. And while I find such a view absurd I wouldn't end a friendship over it. That would be anathematizing someone for a position on history. If somebody announced to me that the central Nazi leadership did not have a systematic program in place for the extermination of world Jewry based on their reading of the evidence but thinks it's a shame because those beaver dam Jews deserve no less, then I have a serious problem with that person and their moral judgement and would seriously reconsider my friendship with him or her. I wouldn't want to be associated with somebody who held and espoused such a vile position. Her friend does not simply deny that the killings were part of an organized campaign by the Ottoman elite. He believes that what occurred, the mass murder, systematic or not, of innocent Armenian men, women, and children, was entirely justified. That is an espousal of a seriously disturbing moral framework and I would think careful about associating with such a person.
[/quote]

Exactly. Hasan put it very well.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1327250697' post='2373219']
Aloysius,

Believing that raping and murdering people on any scale could ever be justified is not a small thing, it's a big thing. And publishing these beliefs in academic articles and the newspaper is an even bigger one. This isn't a question of ideology. It's a question of historical fact. He's either been mislead, in which case I feel sorry for him, or he's lying, in which case he's being incredibly immoral. In the latter case he's proved himself not be friendship material. Lying about something this important publicly could never be a small thing.

Everyone can be and is wrong about something. Everyone has blind spots. That's not the issue. But there's no excuse for what this guy is doing. None. His arguments are hurtful, potentially harmful, and very immoral. I have friends who are LDS, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, etc. It's really not about ideology. It's about what I consider to be the grave immorality of his chosen life course. This isn't just an opinion he holds privately. This is what he's planning to make his life's work. So, thank you for helping me to see that more clearly.
[/quote]

I think I agree with Aloysius here. I don't think "arguments" can be very immoral. If I say the holocaust never happened - that's a lie, but it's going to do less damage than a lot of other lies, because nobody will believe me. The circumstance behind the lie, in these cases, doesn't make the statement itself much more immoral. Perhaps more offensive to some immature people, but "very immoral"? I don't think so. A lie can be very immoral, but I don't think that saying something like that is "very immoral". All lies are immoral, this one is just more annoying to some people.

And if he's not lying, then he just stating what he believes, and there's nothing immoral about making that statement.

I would have no problem being friends with a Muslim or crusader (crusader, seriously? You can't be friends with a crusader?), or Turk or Mormon or homosexual. Actually, I do have friends in a couple of these categories. I think I base friendship on actions, more than beliefs. You can disagree with me all you want and I'll still be your friend - even a good friend - someone I would die for. But if you see nothing wrong with murder, AND you murder people all the time, I would have a hard time being friends with you.

Edit: sorry, I didn't read the entire thread - or your entire post. He's making it his life's work? What do you mean, by that?

Edited January 23, 2012 by fides' Jack

[4588686]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1327346979' post='2373893']
I think I agree with Aloysius here. I don't think "arguments" can be very immoral. If I say the holocaust never happened - that's a lie, but it's going to do less damage than a lot of other lies, because nobody will believe me. The circumstance behind the lie, in these cases, doesn't make the statement itself much more immoral. Perhaps more offensive to some immature people, but "very immoral"? I don't think so. A lie can be very immoral, but I don't think that saying something like that is "very immoral". All lies are immoral, this one is just more annoying to some people.

And if he's not lying, then he just stating what he believes, and there's nothing immoral about making that statement.

I would have no problem being friends with a Muslim or crusader (crusader, seriously? You can't be friends with a crusader?), or Turk or Mormon or homosexual. Actually, I do have friends in a couple of these categories. I think I base friendship on actions, more than beliefs. You can disagree with me all you want and I'll still be your friend - even a good friend - someone I would die for. But if you see nothing wrong with murder, AND you murder people all the time, I would have a hard time being friends with you.

Edit: sorry, I didn't read the entire thread - or your entire post. He's making it his life's work? What do you mean, by that?
[/quote]

He's not simply lying. He's not saying that the Armenian holocaust never happened. He said that the activities that did occur- the mass starvation, murder, rape, and brutalizations of innocent men, women, and children- are perfectly acceptable. He is actively advocating this position. If you are ok associating with somebody who advocates the acceptability of the mass slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, then that's you're right but to characterize this as a mere 'lie' albeit one that is 'more annoying than others' is to miss the point.

[fides' Jack]

I still don't think it can be classified as "very immoral." He's not actually doing the killing (which is very immoral), he's just saying that it was perfectly acceptable.

So - again - it could be one of two things: lying or ignorance. If his fault is that he's a liar, then sure, I'll be friends with him. There probably isn't a single person on PM who isn't a liar. If he's ignorant, then sure, I'll be friends with him; and I might feel sorry for that particular belief of his.

I'm not missing the point. I'm making my own. The question was whether it's right or wrong to "ostracize" someone for basically thinking that the armenian genocide was acceptable - not whether it's okay to perform those actions, or even to believe it's okay to perform those actions. I think the intended question was whether or not it's okay to stop being friends with the person. I say sure - but I think it could be a sign of immaturity.

Just saying...

[4588686]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1327355882' post='2374011']
I still don't think it can be classified as "very immoral." He's not actually doing the killing (which is very immoral), he's just saying that it was perfectly acceptable.

So - again - it could be one of two things: lying or ignorance. If his fault is that he's a liar, then sure, I'll be friends with him. There probably isn't a single person on PM who isn't a liar. If he's ignorant, then sure, I'll be friends with him; and I might feel sorry for that particular belief of his.

I'm not missing the point. I'm making my own. The question was whether it's right or wrong to "ostracize" someone for basically thinking that the armenian genocide was acceptable - not whether it's okay to perform those actions, or even to believe it's okay to perform those actions. I think the intended question was whether or not it's okay to stop being friends with the person. I say sure - but I think it could be a sign of immaturity.

Just saying...
[/quote]

So it is really in bad taste to have this disdainful attitude towards Joseph Goebbels these days?

[fides' Jack]

Okay - you can't just say names like that to me and expect me to know who you're talking about. I hate history.

Fortunately, I know how to use Google.

It seems to me in the roughly 7 seconds that I read about him on Wikipedia, that he was quite significantly involved in the immoral actions of Nazi Germany. So if that's the case, then no, it's quite right to have a disdainful attitude toward him.

The genocide in question happened a century ago. Chances are this "friend" that we're discussing had no part in it. Still, I didn't say it would be in bad taste - just a possible sign of immaturity.

[4588686]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1327357354' post='2374031']
Okay - you can't just say names like that to me and expect me to know who you're talking about. I hate history.

Fortunately, I know how to use Google.

It seems to me in the roughly 7 seconds that I read about him on Wikipedia, that he was quite significantly involved in the immoral actions of Nazi Germany. So if that's the case, then no, it's quite right to have a disdainful attitude toward him.

The genocide in question happened a century ago. Chances are this "friend" that we're discussing had no part in it. Still, I didn't say it would be in bad taste - just a possible sign of immaturity.
[/quote]

How was he significantly involved? By advocating the extermination of Jews? By using his rhetorical flourishes to whip up xenophobia and antisemitism in the German masses? Goebbels didn't actually do any killing. He simply encouraged the regime that did. By the criteria you have laid out here I think it would be quite immature to defriend a swell and sophisticated man like Goebbels, with a doctorate in 19th century romantic drama, over a silly disagreement of opinion on the moral acceptability of slaughtering some Jews.

[MissMaro]

fides Jack,

I don't recall saying anything about a crusader or my feelings about forming a friendship with one...

The kind of indifference towards immoral ideas you argue for is exactly the kind of indifference to ideas that allowed millions of people to be murdered by their governments in the twentieth century. Ideas matter because people act on ideas. Hasan basically made this point with Goebbels, but I thought I'd try to put it into my own words.

I don't know that I could be friends with someone who continually lied and advocated murder, and contrary to what you seem to think, not everyone on here is a liar. Lying is actually a sin, and it can be avoided. As I mentioned before, "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals." (1 Corinthians 15:33) If someone who speaks in favor mass murder under any circumstances isn't bad company, I'm not sure what would be.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt (maybe he doesn't realize the full implications of the things he's said and written), but I don't regard it as necessarily immature to avoid someone who holds immoral views. I could certainly find a certain amount of support for the idea that it's important to choose your friend carefully, and maybe I will later, but I really ought to go read some more Greek, or I will get behind in my class.

God bless!

Edited January 24, 2012 by MissMaro

[Aloysius]

I think I'd have to see exactly what he has said and written on the subject. I find it hard to believe he's just saying "the starvation, killing, and raping of innocent men, women and children was acceptable", that sounds like a paraphrase from someone who believes the historical account of purposefuly Armenian genocide, and especially if this fellow is studying the issue as part of his life's work I imagine his position has more to do with somehow supposing that the men killed weren't innocent and were somehow combattants, and that the women and children starved was collateral damage of war, et cetera... sounded earlier in the conversation more like he was describing it as the collateral damage of a civil war rather than a systematic purposeful genocide, and that he considered some of the actions to be self-defense in some way. again, I think that is a wrong position to hold,

if he is indeed advocating that one ought to starve and rape women and children to get rid of Armenians today, that is one thing. to question the historical narrative of purposefule genocide, even when one does not dispute the fact that many died, I think is quite another thing entirely. I generally support a free exchange of ideas, even wrong and stupid ones, and not just among strangers but among friends who heartily disagree. I think my points about the Irish Famine and the Abortion holocaust prior in this thread get to this point: I have friends who don't think the British actions that led to starvation in Ireland and their subsequent callous actions towards that population on the basis of wanting the low class Irish to be gone could properly be considered genocide, but who think it's free market social darwinism and is perfectly acceptable. that doesn't make them any less my friends, though I have a huge disagreement with them on that.. i have friends who know that abortion is happening but who justify it and say it's okay; again, they are still friends. I'm pretty hard-line in my assertion that I do not base friendship on idealogy, and I just think it's a better way to live.

now, if your friend was trying to get you to murder armenians, that'd be bad company in my opinion. but if he's just arguing ideas, even wrong ones, I don't see that as bad company, it's company that deserves to be argued with by a friend trying to set them right.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

Obviously, do what you want regarding the friendship. you're under no moral obligation to remain friends with him so long as you continue to love him in Christian charity as your neighbor and brother human being... I guess I just opened up a theoretical discussion of what friendship means to me. personally, I would remain friends with the guy, certainly I wouldn't eschew his assistance in my Hebrew studies if I were you... but when it comes to what kind of company you keep among your friends and close friends, only you can make that decision and obviously you should make that decision based on what kind of experience of life you wish to have. but it's just somethng to think about, people can fall into crazy idealogies sometimes especially when the more they learn about some particular nutty theory about something, the less friends remain with them to influence them for the better.

[Anastasia13]

So what are his thoughts on the genocide? Does he think it was ok, that it was war-related, or that it was a response to rebellion/nationalism, or does he think that the killings occurred but were not systematic? Is it differing values or differing knowledge of history? How much does this come up in the relationship? Would holding differing views come up significantly?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Light and Truth

[MissMaro]

Aloysius,

I think I've already made my view on this more than clear. You don't have to agree, you can even doubt what I say about it, but you don't have to keep trying to convince me that dropping a friend over immoral beliefs is petty. I get it. You'd be willing to be friends people who thought genocide was okay until they actually started killing because you wouldn't want to drop a friendship over anything as supposedly trivial as someone [i]believing[/i] it's okay to murder another person. I've got the concept and I disagree.

[MissMaro]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1327385912' post='2374315']
So what are his thoughts on the genocide? Does he think it was ok, that it was war-related, or that it was a response to rebellion/nationalism, or does he think that the killings occurred but were not systematic? Is it differing values or differing knowledge of history? How much does this come up in the relationship? Would holding differing views come up significantly?
[/quote]

I think I've already shared his views on the subject. He doesn't think the Armenian genocide counted as a genocide. He thinks that it was not premeditated and that the Turks were justified in doing what they had to do to the "rebellious" Armenians and so it wasn't a crime against humanity. They just did what they had to do and they had some misfortunes along the way, misfortunes that included killing people. (And yes he knows who killed the Armenians.) Whether he realizes the full implications of his thinking is beyond me. He has a denialist advisor, so it's easy to see where his beliefs come from.

As for the idea that differing points of view are possible on the subject, I'd have to disagree, and that you are willing to accept that idea is proof of the kind of damage genocide denial does. There are not two sides to this event. There is the truth of what happened which has a mountain of evidence in its favor- including evidence from foreign missionaries, ambassadors, turkish soldiers, etc, and there is the genocide denial which, as Deborah Lipstadt says, "sows confusion by appearing to be a genuine scholarly effort" and which "strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators."

Whether it come up in the relationship or not, his chosen career path is to become a expert in genocide studies who espouses denialist views. If he were just some guy who believed these things because he was mislead by a professor and terribly ignorant, it would be one thing. But he studies genocide all. day. long. and I consider what he's trying to do very immoral. You don't have to agree with me, but I have to say that I agree with Elie Wiesel that it's a "double-killing" because first they murdered two-thirds of the Armenians who were in Turkey and now they are trying to destroy and distort the memory of what happened in order to mislead people. It's disgusting, and I'm not okay with it in any way, shape, or form for any genocide from the Armenian one to the Rwandan one.