Bill Donohue, Liberal
February 4, 2009
From our fearless crusader at the Catholic League:
“Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust is obscene, but this doesn’t excuse the grand-standing of the Regensburg D.A. who is investigating whether the bishop broke their illiberal laws when he made his comments in Sweden.”
I personally have no problems with legislation that restricts various hate speech if it serves the common good, and clearly the German authorities believe it serves the common good in this particular case, and for good reason. I guess, unlike Mr. Donohue, I am not a “liberal”.
Advertisement
65 Comments
Comments are closed.
So, people should be prosecuted for beliefs?
I cannot believe that Donohue and Noam Chomsky would agree on anything, but NC defended the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson a few years back causing controversey among the Left.
How is it in the interest of the common good to restrict free thought and beliefs, no matter how outrageous?
“…even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue. ” –Noam Chomsky
You can read more of his response here:
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989—-.htm
I think the law restricts expression of certain beliefs, and not the personal holding of those beliefs per se, J. Edwards.
Matt Talbot:
I do not see a difference unless it can be concluded that the expression is hate speech.
Dont get me wrong: I think Williamson’s beliefs are ludicrous and I wish the pope had not begun this process of re-instating him. But I think [& can't believe I am saying] Donahue is right.
No one has been worse than the Germans. Reeking with guilt over the Holocaust, we now have the spectacle of German Chancellor Angela Merkel telling the pope he needs to clarify his views on the Holocaust.
I am not sure how to interpret these two sentences. Are “we” reeking with guilt over the Holocaust? Or is it the Germans? Or Andrea Merkel?
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist when it comes to the United States, but I don’t think other countries are required to adopt our constitution. I have no problem with the country that perpetrated the Holocaust outlawing its denial.
Then there is the German press which has exploited this issue beyond belief: one major story says the pope has previously offended ‘Muslims, women, native Indians, Poles, gays and scientists.’ Translated this means that the pope speaks the truth and some don’t like it. Perhaps most embarrassing is the left-wing Catholic theologian Hermann Haering who implored the pope to quit. What a disgrace this man is to Catholics everywhere.
Of course, although Donohue deplores what these people are saying, he would defend to the death their right to say it, I am sure.
Donohue gets more press from those who don’t like him. Most would not even know about this disjointed statement if it weren’t for the publicity from rants.
MM:
You do realize that such prohibitions of hate speech are quickly turned against Catholics who argue for the immorality of homosexual actions as well abortion? it is no coincidence that in the 1st amendment freedom of religion is linked with freedom of speech
“I have no problem with the country that perpetrated the Holocaust outlawing its denial.”
I am still not sure I agree but I see this point and it makes sense. I recently watched the documentary “SCREAMERS” about the Armenian genocide and was shocked at how angry the Turkish people are over even the mention of it.
Here’s the way I look at it: there are certain rights that are absolute and cannot be trampled. But others, such as the right to private property and the right to free speech, may be curtailed for the public good — depending on circumstance. I do not take the classical liberal position that these rights are absolute, or near absolute, and I think the tradition of the Church would say the same thing.
Making certain speech illegal based on its content is a bad idea.
I know that some would prefer to have views contrary to their permanently censored, but it usually just shows the weakness and illogical nature of their own positions.
And when free speech is being restricted by secular liberalism, know that they will come for the Catholics soon enough.
2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
It seems the Church disagrees with you MM. The right to private property is absolute, but it must always be used properly (because rights always have duties).
As for free speech, it seems that history has more of a trend of damaging the common good by DENYING free speech than it has of damaging the common good by PERMITTING “too much” free speech. Your whole attitude on speech restriction may change if you consider that your specific speech is likely to be restricted outside of a Marxist system.
What liberal thinker held that speech ought to be entirely unrestricted?
You do realize that such prohibitions of hate speech are quickly turned against Catholics who argue for the immorality of homosexual actions as well abortion? it is no coincidence that in the 1st amendment freedom of religion is linked with freedom of speech
But arguing for the immorality of homosexual acts and abortion CAN take the form of hate speech. Right? Is hate speech okay when Catholics do it?
In my view Germany is wrong. You give power to hate and wacko views when you take this view
In my view Germany is wrong. You give power to hate and wacko views when you take this view
Riiiight. Which wacko views is “Germany” enabling by calling out hate speech?
You make a good point Comrade Minion.
Michael I guess it is a point of view and it is sure up to debate
But what concerns me is what is hate speech. I saw what too many people were saying about Rick Warren this year and calling him hateful and speech vile
It just sort of concerns me and too often the hate just really goes under ground.
The holocaust happened. We know that to be the case. If this guy or anyone else says it didn’t happen they are wrong. If I say the sky is orange when it is actually blue I am equally wrong.
We are better to ignore this guy than to make it something bigger than it is.
In many ways trying to regulate “hate speech” is similar to idiots trying to decide some crimes are “hate crimes.” Pretty much all murders are hateful acts. It matters not whether the perpetrator or the victim are of different races, sexual preferences, or follow different sports teams. The punishment should be based on the action taken not the motivation behind the action.
Which wacko views is “Germany” enabling by calling out hate speech?
Holocaust denial, presumably.
JH–
No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, Rick Warren denies the testimony of people who claim to be homosexual.
Isn’t there a difference between that and denying the accuracy of the history books? Some people called “holocaust deniers” only doubt the numbers and that the gas chambers were used. I think thats the case with Faurrison.
“No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, Rick Warren denies the testimony of people who claim to be homosexual.
Isn’t there a difference between that and denying the accuracy of the history books? Some people called “holocaust deniers” only doubt the numbers and that the gas chambers were used. I think thats the case with Faurrison.”
I am not sure that denying the accuaracy of history books should have you imprisoned
In the end having this in the open aloows it to be deabted and even mocked and given to riducle which robs it of its power
JH–
I dont think anyone should be in prison for denying history books or the holocaust either.
I was trying to say that I think Warren’s denial, that homosexuals need only be cured or act right, is more outrageous than denying the accuracy of historic events.
The great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said that free speech was limited, and that one may not cry “fire” in a crowded theatre. The Germans have decided, because of their radically unique historical experience, that Holocaust-denial is the equivalent of crying “fire” in a crowded theatre. Surely anyone who calls himself a “conservative” would not deny the right of peoples anywhere to decide for themselves what “fire” is to their society or their culture?
Iafrate:
No, hate speech is not okay. But that doesn’t mean there should be laws against it because those can easily be manipulated into a forced ideology i.e. a pro-homosexual agenda.
…or anti-homosexual.
Well, Donohue is a professional rectum with a mailing list:
““There will be those who won’t believe the pope didn’t know about Williamson. Yet these same people no doubt believe that President Obama didn’t know about the thieves he’s been appointing.?
Eh? Well, if the pope hadn’t heard about Williamson I’d be very surprised. He’s one of the 4 dudes. How could he not have.
Holocaust denial per se is not the crime – activities and symbols commonly associated with Nazism are illegal. In Germany, e.g., it is illegal to sing the first verse of the anthem (Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles – Germany above all else in the world. Now, the verse goes “Unity, justice and freedom for the German fatherland”).
Denying and glorifying the Holocaust is illegal.
I will never understand Holocaust denial – those who most want the Jews dead are those who deny the Holocaust. The real explanation is that they do not want Jews having “superior moral standing” because of it.
The majority of Germans is about as peaceful and anti-fascist as it gets. The USA is still “old-fashioned” when it comes to war.
The lunatics in this country are much more varied than in Germany, as such it’s not necessary to forbid particular publications.
As I said, Holocaust denial is just one aspect of such laws. It is very much the right of a country to forbid scum like that from trying to bring back the good old days, march through the streets and so forth.
You’d have to be from there to understand. To quote fellow Austrian Wittgenstein, if you don’t know wtf you are talking about, STFU (new translation :P).
What liberal thinker held that speech ought to be entirely unrestricted?
Bingo. A very common strawman.
Michael I.–
Of course hate speach is wrong when Catholics do it.
The only question is who determines what hate speach is. It appears that a number of Catholics in Canada seem to be concerned that the teachings of the church, especially on homosexual marriage, will soon be considered hate speach. Apparantly they have even prohibited a notable priest from speaking on the matter.
The only question is who determines what hate speach is. It appears that a number of Catholics in Canada seem to be concerned that the teachings of the church, especially on homosexual marriage, will soon be considered hate speach. Apparantly they have even prohibited a notable priest from speaking on the matter.
Perhaps he really was engaging in hate speech. Do you have details?
No, hate speech is not okay. But that doesn’t mean there should be laws against it because those can easily be manipulated into a forced ideology i.e. a pro-homosexual agenda.
Hmmmm.
Damn you, homosexuals, advocating on behalf of yourselves ! How dare you ! What’s next, women wanting the right to vote ? Ah, crap.
Why would a supposed anarchist be friendly to greater statist intrusion in the form of laws banning supposed “hate” speech?
“Hate” speech is a useless concept.
S.B., you’re catching on. Let’s notice the trends:
*The government needs to adopt my position, and forcibly change and restrict what and how people drive (and where they live)
*The government needs to adopt my position, and forcibly change and restrict what people say and how they say it
*The government needs to adopt my position, and forcibly change and restrict individuals private property
I could go on ad nauseum. As Zippy and others have zero’d in on, this seems to have more to do with exercising power over other than building a just society, etc.
I agree, there is no need for such laws in the USA. Here, the government perpetrates the biggest crimes. Neonazis running around pales by comparison to starting wars.
Austrian anti-Nazi laws are comprehensive. They were, btw, mandated by the American (and other Allies’) government.
As Brecht said, the womb from whence this crawled is fertile still.
The reason American laws are so much more progressive with regard to free speech is probably tied to our cultural preference for the free market. The story goes that among multiple points of view competing freely in the marketplace of ideas, the strongest and best will gain acceptance and the weakest will eventually be discredited in the minds of most people.
Obviously this has to be qualified but I think it is one of the elements of our culture that is vastly superior to that of Europe. Violent dictatorships need to control speech in order to thrive and our cultural tradition rejects speech-control so strongly that is probably impossible for us to birth anything similar to the Nazi party. Ironically Germany’s speech laws continue a long and nasty European tradition of constricting freedom of speech, and though they may be well-intentioned they basically follows the same pattern the fascists used in criminalizing ideas that the state has decided are incorrect.
Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is of course a form of speech that can be regulated, but that principle can usually only be applied to facts, not ideas. Similarly, libel and slander laws apply only to actual facts (Sally is or is not a prostitute) and not to opinions. No one can be sued for saying aloud or even printing that they think Sally is an unlikeable character.
“one of the elements of our culture that is vastly superior to that of Europe.”
LOL yeah cause not being able to publicly call for Jews to be killed or run around shouting Heil Hitler in public, that’s what really ruins a country’s standard of living.
Other than starting a business/being self-employed, the USA is not superior to the European countries I know, unless you’re a millionaire. In fact, it is far inferior – laughably and unimaginably so ! – when it comes to employees’ rights, crime, environmental protection etc. Not to mention starting one war after another. Being a war-like people, Americans have a tendency to see the world through blood-red glasses, the carnage their “men and women in uniform” cause around the globe is nothing that’d stick out.
But hey, at least you won’t see bare breasts on network tv in God’s Own Country (TM). Unless they’re charred to a crisp, of course.
“The reason American laws are so much more progressive with regard to free speech is probably tied to our cultural preference for the free market.”
There is no such thing as “the free market”. In particular not when a Republican president threw tax dollars to failed corporations. European economies are capitalist in principle, but with much stronger rights for regular people.
While I do think that even Austria could do without anti-Nazi-speech laws, it’s not something that affects any decent person. Certainly, in the USA I can complain freely – about the wars, the lack of justice, the ubiquity of crime …. in a way, free speech is great for the system, it’s a valve that makes people think they actually matter.
Magdalena–
“…our cultural tradition rejects speech-control so strongly that it is probably impossible for us to birth anything like the Nazi party.”
Even without “speech control” America managed to commit its own genocide of millions of Native Americans. And there are plenty of deniers.
I think another aspect of speech control is the way that the Holocaust has been used not to make us hate violence but to make us see the necessity of war. The Holocaust, like 9-11, now seems to be on the lips of every politician trying to rally people to get their political motivations and foreign wars. Even James Dobson tried to compare the homosexual agenda to the Nazis. Pro- or Anti- homosexual, I hope we could all see what a ridiculous appeal to emotion this is.
Gerald, it’s not a contest to see which part of the world is “better.” European culture has a lot of qualities that are better but on this particular front we happen to have them beat. A truly progressive society does not regulate it’s ciizens’ speech (and doesn’t have to, by the way). For whatever reason the Austrian and German governments feel there is something in Austrian and German culture that makes certain ideas “dangerous” if they are buzzed about in the public square. IOW even in the post-War era, their cultures have deep-seated problems with fundamentalism and anti-Semitism and it’s important not to let people poke the wasp’s nest lest all Hell break loose again. They’re trying to prevent a re-run of the 30s and 40s with those laws, it’s not at all about preventing hurt feelings.
In America the feeling is that allowing the state to determine what ideas are “safe” and what are “dangerous” is the most dangerous policy of all. We have a very strong tradition of radical liberty when it comes to speech, and it is our best guarantee against the crazies, because while we can’t shut up Bishop Williamson, for instance, with force, neither could he shut us up if he were running the show.
Of course even without a speech code, Americans have done nasty things to the Native Americans for instance – that’s not quite the point, though. A speech code would not have stopped the Trail of Tears, nor has it succssfully eliminated Nazism from the Germanic states. What is needed is cultural transformation, which is the only true promise against similar problems in the future.
A speech code more or less has no practical use except a. lip service to a minority that really needs more protection that that, or b. a blunt object the state can use to silence critics. Don’t be surprised if at some point a. morphs into b.
Christian truth-telling must go beyond speech codes and “practical use.” It means finding the assumptions within a society and exposing their lies. Like the media’s dismissal of the homeless as crazy eccentrics, homosexuals as ultra-femme or super-butch, and the forgetten American indigenous people who still struggle in places like Chiapas.
I think this is why we struggle with the question of the state enforcing speech code. It is the Christ-followers job to point to the suffering world and the suffering God. The world will never willingly accept the harm it has done to those without voice– the unborn, the indigenous people, the poor, Samaritans, those that Jesus healed.
S.B., et al.
I am open to arguments about why the gov’t should not be involved in prosecuting hate speech, but only if you go the whole way rather than being selective about what the state should enforce and what it shouldn’t.
I am skeptical about ya’ll’s position on hate speech and your denial that it can be defined since many of you engage in it several times a day on this blog.
And my “Hmmmm” in response to Denton was meant to be a response mainly to his expressed concern about the “pro-homosexual agenda.”
The USA allows Nazi speech. Canada may fine some wacko preacher. The USA is the most dangerous, aggressive and lethal country in the world. If there was a connection between free speech and unrelated areas one should obviously do the opposite of what America does. Then again, there might be – one need only think of the recently retired war criminal Bush – he justified his war by saying “they hate us because we are free.” Americans are made to believe that they alive are free and that everyone else is jealous. Well, when you arw in Austria and have five weeks of vacation mandated by law, you’re too relaxed worrifying about the indentured American masses.
I don’t see what President Bush has to do with it? Or European social programs (which I think are very good by the way).
The American cultural commitment to free speech is a tremendous social achievement and directly related to historical anomalies like the peaceful transfer of power we just witnessed. There is no state anywhere that is finally virtuous enough to resist the temptation that speech codes present. Leviathan is ravenous and it’s better to starve it entirely.
No one should be persecuted for stating his beliefs. The freedom to speak one’s mind should never be infringed upon, even if someone else deems it “hate speech.” If you allow that precedent to be set, next comes the thought police. However, just because someone has a right to say something, no matter how obnoxious or hateful, does not mean that he should. If desiring the freedom to speak my mind makes me a liberal (something I have NEVER been called before) then so be it!
I wonder how many here who are adamant about free speech agreed with the Supreme Court decision that allows flag burning as freedom of expression.
I do.
I wonder how many here who are adamant about free speech agreed with the Supreme Court decision that allows flag burning as freedom of expression.
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think flag burning should be illegal. Do you?
I do not think flag burning should be illegal, per se.
Burning objects in public, however, has its own set of legitimate safety concerns.
I do think that flag burning is simply uncouth. A civilized nation should be able to express its views without resorting to burning objects.
I should note, however, that burning objects to make a point marks a significant improvement from previous centuries practice of burning people to make a point. In that regard it should be viewed as progress.
Flag burning could easily be incorporated into various types of Christian liturgies.
Kidding.
Flag burning only gives credence to the cult, it swells the chest of the true patriot to oppose such blasphemy.
For shits and giggles, read the flag code of the US. Talk about liturgy.
Flag burning could easily be incorporated into various types of Christian liturgies.
:)
am open to arguments about why the gov’t should not be involved in prosecuting hate speech,
I’m not even sure how to interpret a remark, from a feigned anarchist, saying that he’s open to the notion that the government should NOT prosecute people for pure speech. For any actual anarchist — for any libertarian, conservative, genuine liberal, or anyone who isn’t an outright Stalinist — that remark should be, if anything, the other way around: that you might be open to allowing the government to regulate hate speech, but that you certainly wouldn’t assume that it’s a good idea for the government to start deciding which thoughts are appropriate to express in words.
It’s perplexing that you, of all people, wouldn’t be aware of how that power could be used to the detriment of the leftist radicals that you so much admire. It’s even more perplexing that a Catholic, living in Canada, wouldn’t be alarmed at the notion that the government could even start to investigate a Catholic bishop (Fred Henry) for expressing traditional Catholic teaching.
I’m not even sure how to interpret a remark, from a feigned anarchist, …
It may be worth noting that an incoherent tyrannical anarchy is the natural end state of liberalism. The whole modern project revolves around avoiding the question of what is right and what is wrong, instead mediating every political action through the expressed will of free and equal modern supermen who have transcended nature and tradition. In order for that project to work everyone has to be equally able to say anything, independent of the substantive content of their speech and even independent of substantive judgments over what it means to “say” something (see flag burning, pornography).
Because this whole project is ultimately unnatural and even incoherent (again, people should read Jim Kalb’s book The Tyranny of Liberalism), the end-state liberal is an anarchist tyrant.
S.B. – Of course I realize that, and of course I am suspicious when governments do such things, but my point was that it’s hard to take folks like YOU seriously when you argue against hate speech laws.
Why? That doesn’t even make sense. Opposing hate speech laws is perfectly consistent with my support for free speech generally, across the board.
Opposing hate speech laws is perfectly consistent with my support for free speech generally, across the board.
It’s also consistent with your… well, hate speech.
Even assuming that I engage in “hate” speech (it’s nothing compared to your own speech), your comment still makes no sense. It would be like saying, “Ah, your support for universal health care is suspicious, because you would personally benefit from such a program.” Well, so what if you personally benefit? Are you supposed to oppose any governmental policies that would incidentally benefit yourself?
It did not take Benedict too long to steer his aging troupe towards perilous waters.
I guess if one insist on a celibate male only class of priest one is forced to downsize in the long run anyway.
More and more mainstream catholics will take the hints and will get out of the way of the zealots -
sure keep insisting on blind uncritical obedience from your ever shrinking flock.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-small-churc.html
Hmmm, Grega, just a liiiiiittle off topic.
If you are friends with any Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans etc you know even churches with women and married priests are having the same vocations crisis that we are.
Magdalena – yes perhaps a bit of a broad stroke – but for me the Williamson affair very much ties into the “Schlamassel” that Benedict is making out of things.
As a German Ratzinger knew or easily could have known about this particular unpleasant Bishop – Pope Benedict has an idea for the church of the future (past really)that I do not share – no vision just back to the past – sure some folks are gaga about it – such folks will not pay the bills.
I prefer the other Tuebingen Professor
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/02/if-obama-were-pope-by-hans-kung.html#comments
Well, I don’t see that progressives are in much of a position to pay the bills, either. So-called “liberal Christianity” has been in demographic retreat for a long time, associated as it is with Europe. In the future I think you will find more and more that the growing and vibrant Global South dominates ecclesial politics, and they are rather conservative down there.
You can somewhat see the Catholic future if you look at what is happening to the Anglicans. The anti-gay-bishop Anglicans are mostly poor Africans but they vastly outnumber their wealthy liberal counterparts in England and elsewhere. A schism would cut the Africans off from Western money but would leave the West with an even tinier Anglican church than exists now.
An interesting area of research might be progressive Christianity’s relative inability to evangelize for itself. Ironically w/ regard to your earlier comment, progressive Christian denominations with philosophies similar to Dr. Kung’s have experienced unwanted “down-sizing” on a much larger and more rapid scale than that imagined by Pope Benedict for the Catholics!
Magdalena – I can not argue with most of your post.
I would just say that what you describe as ‘liberal Christianity’ is in my view a much larger group –
the average catholic family size these days is around two children. I would be willing to speculate that a significant percentage of such families would not describe themselves as ‘liberal’. Thus when I am talking about paying the bills I refer to the average catholic – and yes this very much includes rather conservative believers.
It is no secret that in most religions the most orthodox fractions do still have large families. It is also not rocket science: if Catholics indeed would follow the letter of encyclicals like humane vitae the average family size would be significantly different from 0-3 children.
“An interesting area of research might be progressive Christianity’s relative inability to evangelize for itself. Ironically w/ regard to your earlier comment, progressive Christian denominations with philosophies similar to Dr. Kung’s have experienced unwanted “down-sizing” on a much larger and more rapid scale than that imagined by Pope Benedict for the Catholics!”
Again I think you are mostly correct here – I find it particular amazing how successful the evangelicals are with their simplistic bible thumbing -Jesus loves YOU – I am born again bla bla bla.
And yes progressives like myself are on a strong trajectory towards secularism -since it is pretty certain that issues like female ordination, married priests, more involvement of layity etc will not go our way it is no big surprise that a good many move on – which is a shame.
You know your example of the Angelicans is interesting – I happen to have no love lost for those African bishops. They have nothing on us! Do you like the kind of societies they are having – I don’t.
I would not be a catholic if I would not have been born into great catholic family. Despite my moments I happen to enjoy
a good many aspects of our religion – that is why my wife and myself continue to raise our children as Catholics.
Grega,
It is my experience that many Conservatives are willing to actively entertain the notion that they are wrong on matters (including matters of faith), and if they are presented with ample logical evidence on some matter will change their position.
It is also my experience that this is not true for many liberal Catholics (progressive being a new code-word for liberal). That liberal positions are primarily held out of emotional conviction, and that reason is useless because the positions are not held reasonably. Because of that, no amount of logic or evidence can convince liberal on matters such as female ordination. Logic doesn’t matter, the emotion of now does.
Buzz words like “Blind” and “uncritical” are thrown around, but it seems the lack of critical thought appears to usually be on the anti-Church side.
I ask this with all charity: have you ever seriously examined these issues from the perspective that you might actually be wrong?