Genocide Denial

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327184526' post='2372879']
maybe I'm weird, but I have no problem being friends with people even if they have horrible opinions on any number of things. I am friends with people who do not agree with me that what the British did to the Irish during the famine amounted to genocide, I have friends who have never even heard of the Armenian genocide, I have friends who think we should just nuke the whole middle east, I have friends who think babies are just parasites if the mother doesn't want them. These are all people that I would never vote for for political office, but I am friends with them. friendship to me does not mean one must agree about things.

I would even be friends with someone who was a holocaust denier or an armenian genocide denier, or if they were anti-american or anti-Christian, though I would disagree adamently with them. the idea of ostracizing someone because of their ideas, no matter how ridiculously wrong they might be, strikes me as rather insecure about one's own ideas and is generally repugnant to me. what if this friend was your brother? would you cut him out of the family for being an armenian genocide denier?
[/quote]
If the armenian genocide were something extremely important to me, I might end a friendship over it.

You ask all good questions, the essence of which, I think, is what is friendship? I'm kind of the opposite of you...I could vote such people into office, but not be friends with them. I don't really have a choice in the politicians I have to choose from...but I do have a choice in the friends I have to choose from. You say friendship does not mean you must agree about things...but I think it does. I guess there are casual friendships, but I could probably never be "friends" in the truest sense with someone who does not share some basic things that I hold dear. That doesn't mean I wouldn't talk or be friendly to people I disagree with, but I guess the essential question is: what is a friend? Chesteron tries to give his definition in your quote above, but I doubt I could be friends with a Muslim or a Crusader.

I wouldn't ostracize someone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I would be "friends" with them, along the lines of what St. Paul says in 2Corinthians 6: "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?"

[MissMaro]

Era Might and Aloysius,

Really all I mean by ostracize is that I would no longer spend time with him. I might or might not tell him why (I would- politely- if he asked), but if I ran into him I would be civil. I don't believe in giving people the silent treatment.

However, I think it's important to choose friends wisely. I don't want to be led astray by a Armenian holocaust denier, a racist, or someone with strongly immoral beliefs. I have plenty of friends who aren't Catholic, and I'm certainly okay with being friends with people who have different beliefs and opinions from mine. But I don't feel very comfortable with someone who denies historical facts that are well-documented. I would worry that their thinking would start to influence mine in a profoundly negative way.

"Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals.' 1 Corinthians 15:33

"He who walks with wise men becomes wise,
but the companion of fools will suffer harm." Proverbs 13:20

Mainly, I'm just trying to decide if I should keep studying with him or not. I probably couldn't still consider him my friend even if I were willing to try.

Aloysius,

Any family member of mine who denied the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust would be met with so much reproach and disapproval that he would quickly change his views. My mother has always been disgusted by that kind of thing. Would we ostracize them? No. There's a world of difference to me between a brother I've known my whole life, and a guy I've only been friends with for two years. This guy is not my family. He doesn't think of me as family and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to treat him as family. I see your point, and I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't agree that not spending time with him would be the same as not spending time with a family member.

Era Might,

I find it pretty impossible to find a politician I agree with too, so I just go for the one who I think will make the best choices from a moral standpoint and pray.

[MissMaro]

Light and Truth,

I have trouble understanding how anyone could not care. The losses and trauma that the Armenians suffered still have repercussions in the world today, and we are fellow Christians. I think we should stand by one another in standing up for the truth.

Thank you for sharing the information about Taner Akçam. I've seen his work around and I was kind of curious about him. I'll have to check out one of his books. Is there one in particular you'd recommend?

[MissMaro]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327195250' post='2372979']
He should look for another field of study. You can argue to what extent there was a systematic effort to exterminate the Armenian people as such by the Ottoman Empire's ruling class. But to deny that the killing which occurred were atrocities is beyond appalling.
[/quote]

I agree. I think he really isn't following his beliefs to their natural conclusions. Maybe he really does believe the self-defense story.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327195479' post='2372985']
It's also particularly ironic since Lemkin coined the term genocide to describe what the Ottoman Empire did to it's Armenian population.
[/quote]

He basically argues that the Armenian "Tragedy" (as he calls it) couldn't have been a genocide because it wasn't the same as the Holocaust. But something doesn't have to be exactly like the Holocaust to have been a genocide. The Rwandan Genocide certainly wasn't... But yeah, the irony is pretty spectacular.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1327206402' post='2373085']
Light and Truth,

I have trouble understanding how anyone could not care. The losses and trauma that the Armenians suffered still have repercussions in the world today, and we are fellow Christians. I think we should stand by one another in standing up for the truth.

Thank you for sharing the information about Taner Akçam. I've seen his work around and I was kind of curious about him. I'll have to check out one of his books. Is there one in particular you'd recommend?
[/quote]
I started reading [url=""]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

[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.