I have the impression that racism is taken much less seriously by the west or for that matter in other parts of the world than is anti-semitism..recently i was a participant in an unfortunate email dialogue with a Jewish friend and her friends where I was accused of being anti-Semite for opining that Thomas Friedman had been rather unclassy in describing Arafat's death to be a blessing to the world. Additionally I was told that if i didn't recognize that Arafat was a terrorist I was blind and stupid. Ultimately i lost the friendship.
I am not a revisionist by any means and dismiss as nonsense a notion that the Holocaust did not occur or that the moon landing was a charade(the US can spend money on war-it doesn't need to invent a fable about outer space to do so!). But i think its just this sort of close-mindedness that is dangerous. I remember a few years ago the same friend refused to look at the picture of a hurt child in Palestine because that made her feel bad about Israel. Well, isn't it important to follow that thought up with action instead of just brushing it away as mere sentiment for terrorists? 2005/11/18, Martin Senftleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Freitag, 18. November 2005 16:05 schrieb Jeff Bone: > > On Nov 18, 2005, at 2:51 AM, Biju Chacko wrote: > > > One should be held responsible of ones *actions* not ones > > > *ideas*. > > > > +1!!! > > IMHO, much of it grounds out in religion. Many flavors of > > Christianity hold it true that a sin committed in thought only is > > just as sinful. :-/ > > Well, agreed, but Christianity also holds true that the judge be god > alone, particularly when it is about the thoughts or ideas of > somebody. > > I find it quite interesting to have this debate here, and have > followed it to some extent. I see a very serious problem in > distinguishing between the idea and the action. Because as soon as > someone propagates his idea, (s)he begins to act. And there lies the > crux. Hitler has spread his ideas for years, until he finally reached > a position from which nobody could remove him, and when his followers > had already begun to act on their own, but under his influence. Then > he started to act, being safe in all directions, in a manner we all > agree is inhumane. > Now, can I leave it as it is when someone tells me that Hitler had > bright ideas and murdering the Jews was just plain necessary in order > to help the German people to develop and prosper? Who do you > (impersonal "you") want to hold responsible for setting fire to an > asylum of refugees, when the person who did it is obviously > brainwashed by another, strongly influencing person, who implanted > the idea that foreigners are bastards, just exploiting our goodwill > and misusing our hospitality? > Of course the arsonist will and should be punished, but can you leave > the other alone? I don't think so. > > It's a very difficult terrain, because at a certain point you reach > the same position the other has, and you are as "bad" as he is. How > long is it "protecting the freedom of thought and speech", and when > does it begin to be an attac against another person's life? > > My 2 cents... > > Martin > -- > Martin Senftleben, Doctor of Philosophy, S.V. University using Debian > GNU Linux > http://www.drmartinus.de/ > http://www.daskirchenjahr.de/ > GPG/PGP key/Schlüssel ID: 5269AE638F01C848 > > > > -- Radhika, Yeddanapudi R.
