Home » Intelligent Design » Teaching ID = A crime against humanity

Teaching ID = A crime against humanity

Last week I reported on the Council of Europe denouncing ID as a threat to democracy (go here). I also asked how long it would be before advocating ID in Europe would be regarded as a hate-crime. We may have to wait no longer:

Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists
From the desk of Paul Belien on Sat, 2007-06-23 18:53

Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.” . . .

MORE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

49 Responses to Teaching ID = A crime against humanity

  1. That’s astounding. It must have actually hurt mentally to rationalize ID as “undemocratic” and a “threat to human rights.” After all, it wasn’t ID that spawned eugenics programs.

  2. A month or two, I picked up a German news and current events magazine that had an article on the closing of churches in Germany. No one attends anymore, so they’re converting them to all kinds of other uses, and instituting a sort of church closing ceremony or “last rites” to these often historic, but now empty buildings.

    Its a little surprising that Germans would feel threatened by creationism or ID. I guess some secularists demand total control of the culture and can tolerate no dissent whatsoever.

  3. There was no vote on the creationism thing: see here:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/.....5120070625

    Also for people interested in the BCSE, see my latest post: their leader has walked out:
    http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com

    David

  4. I liked this part:

    Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, “young earth” and “intelligent design” in its 47 member states.
    According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

    Wow I’m considered dangerous! This could be exciting!

    To bad its not true. The only thing I’m dangerous too is the blatant lies that evolutionists spread. If telling the truth is dangerous to some people so be it. I would rather know the real truth of reality than be led astray by the imagination of a group of “experts” any day.

  5. “Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology.”

    Imposing official ideologies, huh? I know this isn’t happening anymore, thanks to what D. Anderson wrote above, but it convinces me that what we need to do is turn those abandoned, atheist-pastored German church buildings into libraries so that Darwinists can learn a thing or two from history about how dangerous it is to vote on resolutions imposing official ideologies.

  6. 6
    christopheratlee

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news,
    but the British government in it’s infinite wisdom has decreed that Intelligent Design is not a science.

    http://science.slashdot.org/sc.....7217.shtml

  7. wow wow wow…

    Looks like the Guy who said that the world hated Him first and so the world will hate you also was right!

    Hint: _esus Chris_

  8. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

    That’s ironic.

    Proto-Nazis always felt that they were righteous in the past based on pseudo-science and the blurring of clear language and form. It seems that effeminates only believe in “human rights” that Mommy Nature selects because they lack the capacity to their own selections in an intelligent, intelligable way.

    They’re the little fellows who try to engage in “biological thinking.”

    E.g.

    Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer, Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings ofthe natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application to man could not be delayed any more.

    (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    By Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)

    Ironically their own proto-Nazi tendencies and unnatural attempts at believing in naturalism motivate European elites to believe that Christianity leads to Nazism. It seems to me that human rights best not be left to natural selection or the feelings of people stupid enough to be taken in by the blurring of form, definitions and words typical to Darwinism. After all, natural selection doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to humnan rights. Instead, it seems that we need to think through our biology in order to seek some intelligent selections. How fitting it is that passive agressives who are only being intolerant of intolerance and so on want so desperately to believe in survival of the fittest.

  9. Wow I’m considered dangerous! This could be exciting!

    Yes. Your dangerousness and $4.55 will get you a Raspberry Mocha Frappuccino at Starbucks.

    Anyway, its those jackbooted homeschoolers that the Europeans are really worried about, with their spelling bees and field trips to the local art museum or nursing home. :)

  10. A month or two, I picked up a German news and current events magazine that had an article on the closing of churches in Germany. No one attends anymore, so they’re converting them to all kinds of other uses…

    If they continue to follow historical patterns a sort of anti-Christianity will emerge to unite the Herd.

    E.g.

    All of the various types of neopagans are agreed only in one thing-their rejection of Christianity and the established churches…

    (The Nordic Pagan Chant Grows Louder
    By Albion Rossberlin
    The New York Times, Aug 4, 1935; pg. 3-4)

  11. Atheistic Europe is pretty much down the tubes.

    Holland now has a legal pedophile political party. Eurabia is at the door and they still don’t see it coming.

    “these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.””

    Funny thing considering that all of Europe’s progress and human rights advances were based on Judeo/Christian values.

    It was creationists that developed the ‘scientific method’ – Bishop Robert Grosseteste 13th century.

    Newton was a creationist – so his theories must be undemocratic and “a threat to human rights.” As well as those of Wernher von Braun, Dr. AE Wilder-Smith, George Wald – 1967 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Michael Faraday, James Joule, William Thompson a.k.a. Lord Kelvin, Johannes Kepler, James Clerk Maxwell, George Boole (boolean logic) and several hundreds of other famous scientists.

    Most of the great discoveries in science from Europe were found by creationists.

    If these hate mongering CoE funny farm cases are seriously going to try and convince the public that their pernicious lies are true they will have to re-write history.

    Of course they’ve already started working on that.

    IOW, it is the CoE is the real threat to human rights and democracy.

    Half of the USA would be in prison if such a ludicrous oppressive rule were applied against ‘pro-lifers’.

    The pastor being put in jail for speaking the truth is uncannily similar to the way the Nazi’s punished those who accused them of murder.

  12. It must have actually hurt mentally to rationalize ID as “undemocratic” and a “threat to human rights.” After all, it wasn’t ID that spawned eugenics programs.

    Not to mention the American Founders who all believed in Providence, the Architect, ID and so on while rejecting Chance and Chaos.

    Despite all their differences the Founders all believed in ultimate Reason and Natural Law. That’s the only way that “E Pluribus Unum” works, naturally enough.

  13. I take no consolation in considering the inevitable demise of atheist Europe when I consider that it will be replaced by a Muslim Europe that will be, ironically, ID-friendly.

  14. “Darwin-possessed” ideologues in a world possessed by the Darwin-ghost.
    © Copyright June 2007

    I am coining new words for the world possessed by the Darwin-ghost.

    President George W. Bush is a threat to human rights and democracy?! (in Europe, not Iraq) — According to the logic of the Council of Europe.

    Why? he is anti-abortion; he supports the teaching of intelligent design; he is Religious Right.

    What next? if you say homosexual act is sinful; contraception is abortion; euthanasia is killing… Same logic applies.

    And if you are not the President of US, you can be sent to jail!

    This is the world of Darwinism dominated by Darwin-possessed idealogues.

    “The American President George W. Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the theory of evolution.”

    Lutheran pastor sent to one-year jail by German courts for comparing abortion to the holocaust.

    Welcome to the world possessed by the Darwin-ghost!

  15. Use of the terms “Darwin-possessed” and “Darwin ghost” is now freely available for free.

  16. This would definitely put the fear of God into them then :-)

    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5138

  17. 18

    http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audi.....claims.mp3

    On the above interview with William Lane Craig, he said that in Britain his lecures and debates about God are getting immense interest.

    The Scottish pastor commented that Britain is now almost a pre-Christian culture. Secularism has been around for so long that Christianity is now something new and interesting.

  18. Have hou noticed the following phrase in the link provided vy Anderson?

    “Deputies said the motion by the Christian Democratic group of parliamentarians also won support from east European deputies, who recalled that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers.”

    People who did experiment a real dictatorship actually know what is the ideology that goes against human rights!

  19. The only crime ID makes is the “crime” of saying that there is evidence for real design in the universe and in the biosphere. That is anathema to the european nature-worshipers

  20. 21

    Johannes Lerle was not convicted for teaching ID. He was not convicted for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. He was convicted for denying the Holocaust, period. If you actually look at the two web pages which formed the basis of the case against him (and can read German), you’ll learn he called Auschwitz a deception, and questioned whether the gas chambers could have killed so many Jews. Like it or not, that’s a crime in Germany.

    Now, if it were me, I wouldn’t want to be seen portraying a Holocaust denier as some kind of Christian martyr, but then I’m not a Christian. In any case, you’ve now been informed of the problem; I’ll be watching to see if you fix it.

  21. [...] Teaching ID = A crime against humanity Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.” . . . [...]

  22. Meanwhile, other nations who have tried authoritarianism based on strict materialism are finding it tiresome and difficult to maintain.

    Professor Tao’s lecture on this day was devoted to the arcane study of epistemology, ranging over the beliefs of Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin and Marx, and building up to Mao’s famous admonition to “seek truth from facts” — hardly a disagreeable notion, but one that kindled no apparent flicker of interest in the students.

    [snip]

    “Before, there was a lot of indoctrination,” said Zhou Mansheng, deputy director of the National Center for Education Development Research, an arm of the Education Ministry. Now, he said, “we stress a lot of traditional virtues, like respecting teachers and respecting the elderly. Especially now, we stress honesty.

    Strict materialists having trouble with teaching their children respect, good treatment of the elderly, and honesty – “traditional virtues”? No way, say it isn’t so.

  23. [...] Recent Comments angryoldfatman: Meanwhile, other nations who have tried … Jack Golightly: Hilarious, as usual. Not just “Brite”, Brilliant!… gerardharbison: Johannes Lerle was not convicted for teaching ID. He was not… Mats: The only crime ID makes is the “crime” of saying that there… kairos: Have hou noticed the following phrase in the link provided v… eddiehaskell: http://www.rfmedia.o… … Robo: This would definitely put the fear of God into them then :-)… nemesis: christopheratlee: That’s the opposite of what I was say… umeshbilagi: I understand little I think Origin of life & evolution… MatthewTan: As expected, there is no “right of reply” for Behe in “scien… feed » [...]

  24. gerardharbison,

    Read the following quote again.

    Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust.

    That is the news story. What you don’t seem to get is that comparing abortion to the holocaust was seen as denying the holocaust, which is of course absurd. Is Johannes Lerle also an abortion denier? According to you he apparently is because he compared abortion to the holocaust, which you claim he denies.

    If you actually look at the two web pages which formed the basis of the case against him (and can read German), you’ll learn he called Auschwitz a deception, and questioned whether the gas chambers could have killed so many Jews. Like it or not, that’s a crime in Germany.

    What web pages? Is that how justice works in Germany? Web pages form cases against people?

    Now, if it were me, I wouldn’t want to be seen portraying a Holocaust denier as some kind of Christian martyr, but then I’m not a Christian.

    Was he given the death penalty for his religious belief? Is somebody claiming that? I don’t think so.

    If this guy actually made some legitimate holocaust denial claims, that are not being reported in the English speaking world, why don’t you provide a cite somewhere?

  25. I’m willing to bet that they didn’t arrive at their evolutionist conclusions by way of reasonable debate.

  26. Jehu,
    “What web pages” Johannes Lerle’s web pages.

    “Is that how justice works in Germany? Web pages form cases against people?” People’s own writings do indeed form a case against them, when the charge concerns what they’ve written. For example, using the Google translation tool on one of Lerle’s pages:

    “In order to hold the of number six million, the number killed in the gas chambers of the occupied countries increased. Thus four million died in Auschwitz. However this number is now sinking, … With the inconceivably large number of four million laws of nature (e.g. characteristics of the Zyclon B dispenser, the size of the gas chambers, the duration of a gassing including the necessary ventilation of the gas chambers, the capacity of the crematoria as well as the missing 15,000 tons of ash from the burnt corpses) compatible is. … As proof for the gas chambers the confession of the commander of camp Hoss is considered. This was however obtained by British torture specialists. … Tourists could visit the original gas chambers in Auschwitz. When an American [Fred Leuchter, presumably] stolen a sample of rubble, which did not contain increased values of cyanide… proves thus compellingly that we were deceived also over Auschwitz.

    Looks like holocaust denial to me. Probably not relevant to his case, but worth considering before you offer him your full support, he looks like an all-round antisemite: on the same page he goes on about how Jews control the media and the American government and are bent on world domination.

  27. I thought the point of the original post was that, in parts of Europe, unpopular beliefs are being suppressed with the threat of prison. Lerle was in trouble because his statements “incited the people”. That, along with the COE statement that creationist theories are “synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”, indicates an attitude of intolerance towards religion and (more relevant to this blog) ID.

    I didn’t take the reference to the article as any kind of support for Lerles beliefs or activities.

  28. 29

    Bartholomew’s notes on religion covers this whole issue, and especially Lerle’s charming writings on the International Jewish Conspiracy.

    http://blogs.salon.com/0003494......html#a836

    Lerle’s web pages are obviously in German, but there is a link to them, and translations, on my blog.

    http://homepage.mac.com/gerard.....w204497756

    In fact, I just translated Lerle’s Auschwitz denial, and not the other passages where he expresses his morbid paranoia about Jews.

    And yes, before anyone bothers to point this out, I am anti-ID, and fairly scathing about the post at the top of this comment; I submitted my original comment to give Dr. Dembski a heads-up, since at the moment he’s only guilty of failure to check his sources.

  29. Rob,

    Maybe Lerle is an anti-semitic holocaust denier. I really don’t know. But if he is, what is the point of comparing abortion to the holocaust if the holocaust never occured? That doesn’t logically sound like a statement a holocaust denier would make.

  30. Jehu,
    “Maybe Lerle is an anti-semitic holocaust denier. I really don’t know.” There is no “maybe” about it – the guy says that Jews are bent on world domination and Auschwitz is faked. You don’t have to take my word for this: read the man’s own writing.
    “But if he is, what is the point of comparing abortion to the holocaust if the holocaust never occured? That doesn’t logically sound like a statement a holocaust denier would make.” Hmmm, maybe because logic isn’t his strength. Holocaust deniers don’t do logic.

    dl,
    “I thought the point of the original post was that, in parts of Europe, unpopular beliefs are being suppressed with the threat of prison.” The point of the original post seems to be that teaching Intelligent Design is, or is in on the brink of becoming, a crime (e.g. the headline: “Teaching ID = A crime against humanity”). That has nothing to do with Lerle’s case.
    “Lerle was in trouble because his statements “incited the people”.” No – Lerle is in trouble because he said the holocaust didn’t happen. In Germany, that is a crime.

    “That, along with the COE statement that creationist theories are “synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”…” The COE did not say that creationist theories are “synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”. What the COE said was “If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.” In so much as teaching creationism can violate freedom of religion, this is much the same position taken by virtually every American court which has considered the matter in the last 40 years or so.

  31. Rob,

    “The point of the original post seems to be that teaching Intelligent Design is, or is in on the brink of becoming, a crime (e.g. the headline: “Teaching ID = A crime against humanity”).

    I agree that that’s the point. That point is supported by evidence of intolerance towards differing viewpoints, which is presumably why the article was referenced . I was trying to point out that the original post did not in any way support Lerles activities. In particular I was referring to the part of your post where you said “Probably not relevant to his case, but worth considering before you offer him your full support,”

    “That has nothing to do with Lerle’s case”

    Lerles case is the result of an attitude that supports suppression of ideas. In that sense it is relevant to ID. The COE certainly seem to believe ID is a threat to humanity and should be suppressed.

    “The COE did not say that creationist theories are “synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”.”

    When I re-read that, I realized that I didn’t phrase that correctly. Let me try again…

    In the draft of “The dangers of creationism in education”, paragraph 9 criticizes creationism, paragraph 10 praises acceptance of TOE, and then paragraph 11 says:

    “However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights.”

    They’re clearly saying that teaching of creationism (including, in their opinion, ID) leads to activities that are ” synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”.

    “No – Lerle is in trouble because he said the holocaust didn’t happen. In Germany, that is a crime.”
    I agree. I was wrong about that.

    To sum up, here’s my understanding of the post:

    There is a philosophy that supports suppression of ideas considered dangerous, including suppressing those ideas by putting people in prison. The COE (which I’m assuming is representative of at least some governments in Europe) feels that ID is one of those dangerous ideas. The post wasn’t support holocaust denial or Lerle. It was just using his situation as an example of what that philosophy may lead to.

  32. “No – Lerle is in trouble because he said the holocaust didn’t happen. In Germany, that is a crime.”

    That is nonsense. How could he compare abortion to the holocaust if he denies the holocaust?

    His opinion on the Jews is irrelevant to the accusation.

    As was stated before he is hardly a martyr – martyrs die. And a year in prison for speaking his own beliefs publicly is hardly just.

    You’re out to lunch on this and your self-righteous fulminations against this post are just so Darwinian style equus asinus.

    Lerle does not deny the holocaust – he believes it was less than reported. Less than 6 million does not = 0. Get it? Can you do basic arithmetic?

    And your disgusting, ignorance and denial based comment, “…all in the name of preventing a medical procedure that in most cases leads to the extinction of a small, hardly differentiated mass of cells.” is proof of your glaring ignoratio elenchi.

    I’m sure a lot of other people who understand the science that says that a human foetus is far more than a “mass of cells” would see things the same way.

    Which is why nurses in one hospital room are killing (aborting) the foetus of 6 months to cater to the caprices of the parent, while nurses in the next room are trying to save a 6 month old foetus (premature birth) knowing it can survive – because it is a full human being.

    You’re another typical wannabe intellectual, a Darwinist ignoramus and an offensive fustilarian niggler to boot.

    “What would you do with a brain if you had one?”

  33. Lerle does not deny the holocaust – he believes it was less than reported.

    Yep, that’s denial. He’s denying that 6 million Jews were killed. This is wiki’s definition:
    Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust[1] — did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

    That is nonsense. How could he compare abortion to the holocaust if he denies the holocaust?

    His opinion on the Jews is irrelevant to the accusation.

    It looks like the accusation was holocaust denial (check the translation of this page, and what they say the charges were: it’s not clear if abortion, or even ID, were part of the case). I’d say that his opinion on Jews was relevant.

    It looks to me like someone has decided to conflate Lerle’s position on abortion and his holocaust denial, so as to create a newsworthy martyr. It helps that the original case was conducted in German, so it’s more difficult to follow the details (and certainly more difficult to follow them up!), because most readers won’t speak German. I’m still trying to find a good news webpage in English that describes the case.

    Bob

  34. 35
    Rev. BigDumbChimp

    That is nonsense. How could he compare abortion to the holocaust if he denies the holocaust?

    Are you really taking the stance that he is not a Holocaust denier?

    I think it’s great you guys continue to defend this guy. He was jailed for holocaust denial period. His views on ID had zero to do with it contrary to what Mr. Dembski says.

    Lerle does not deny the holocaust – he believes it was less than reported. Less than 6 million does not = 0. Get it? Can you do basic arithmetic?

    You can’t be serious. The classic stance of strident holocaust deniers is to reduce the numbers. That is still denial.

  35. I thought the point of the original post was that, in parts of Europe, unpopular beliefs are being suppressed with the threat of prison. Lerle was in trouble because his statements “incited the people”. That, along with the COE statement that creationist theories are “synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights”, indicates an attitude of intolerance towards religion and (more relevant to this blog) ID.

    That is what I thought Bill intended to highlight as well…but I doubt that will stop the Darwinists. I don’t see the point in discussing Lerle…that’s more of a side topic.

  36. BigDumbChimp et al.:

    I’m not defending this guy. I’m pointing out the facts as reported.

    If he is minimizing the holocaust statistics then he cannot be denying the holocaust altogether.

    The guy compared abortion to the holocaust. So this cannot be a total denial of the holocaust.

    This isn’t hard.

    The charge against was him denial of the holocaust – but all the news journals stated it was because of his words on abortion. Where is the relation between abortion and denial of the holocaust? There is none. That is where the injustice lies.

    And even if the guy has denied the holocaust why do the news agencies report it as speaking against abortion? The originals reports mentioned others who had been legally charged for speaking against abortion? Get it?

    Unless the news services of Europe have completely fumbled this story you anti-ID “bigdumbchimps” are the ones who are misconstruing the whole thing – as usual – in order to attack Mr. Dembski – as usual.

  37. I agree with the others who have mentioned the original point of this thread. It’s about intolerance and suppression of ideas and speech and the relation to the CoE’s schemes against ID – not Lerle per se.

    So I leave off discussing with these die hard Darwinists over Lerle’s charge of holocaust denial with regards to his anti-abortion speeches (clearly in the reports).

  38. 39

    “The news services or Europe” haven’t fumbled the story. One questionable web site in Belgium posted a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the case, and the American pro-life and creationist movement has seized on it like a drowning man clutching a straw.

    More of Lerle’s writings below. I suggest this site and the other people promoting this falsehood retract it really, really fast, because this one is about to come back and bite you.

    Translated by me from http://www.johannes-lerle.de/S.....sverhetzer

    “Why did America intervene in the Second World War? The Jew-controlled propaganda media played up Hitler’s crimes and agitated for a crusade at Stalin’s side for democracy and for religious liberty. Why didn’t America fight together with Hitler against Stalin? After all, Stalin’s body count was many times Hitler’s. Also Stalin, in contrast to Hitler, was not democratically legitimized, and he granted less religious liberty than the much-maligned German dictator. But such facts were concealed at that time in by the World-Jewry controlled propaganda press.

    That the people whom Jesus Christ called “liars”, “hypocrites” and “murderers”, are long gone, does not mean that their spiritual descendants are not murderers. The opposite is constantly being confirmed. Both Iran and Iraq threatened the state of Israel. So “jewish”–dominated America at the time of President Reagan supported the later much maligned Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran, with satellite photography and weapons, including war gas. That war cost approximately a million human lives. If it is not murder to push two peoples to war with each other, then what is murder?”

  39. One of the things that the press and some others who post here do is distract from the basic point on Darwinism. It is a doctrine that does not like scrutiny. The main point of the post above is the attempt by the COE to marginalize dissent on Darwin and possibly make it an offense similar to holocaust denial. Paul Belien’s post at the Brussels Journal may be an extreme almost paranoid comparison but we will have to wait and see what happens. The original post by the COE was off the charts itself as a an extreme reaction to legitimate dissent. But that was from a legitimate government organization.

    The second injustice is the sentencing of Lerles to a year in prison, which is the minor part of the post and used mainly to show what dissent can lead to, Apparently Lerles already previously spent 8 months in prison for protesting abortion. I do not know the particulars of this but there was no reference to the holocaust for this imprisonment, only that he opposed abortion. Apparently there have been others who have opposed abortion and have served short jail sentences. It brings up unpleasant memories of Hitler.

    It is interesting the COE is advocating a favorite doctrine of Hitler and trying to marginalize any dissent from that while German courts throw in jail people who use language similar to what the Nazi’s use.

  40. gerardharbison.

    I agree that the comments you posted about Lerles are that of a nutcase and should be dealt with accordingly but imprisonment seems extreme to us in the US for such an offense. We could rid the streets of a lot of people in the US for making similar types of accusations.

    The real issue is the attempt of the COE to marginalize dissent and as Patrick said above, Lerles is a side show meant to distract from the basic issue.

    Another side issue is what is the truth in the past jail terms of those who have opposed abortion. Was it for verbal opposition only or was it for something more extreme such as physical actions. It is one thing to oppose abortion and call it murder, another to march within a certain distance of an abortion clinic and another to shoot an abortion doctor. It would be interesting to see how many and for what, people received jail sentences. It may be all hyperbole or it could be pernicious to dissent.

  41. 42

    Given the manifest falsity of the brusselsjournal.com story posted at the top of this thread, why would you believe Lerle really was sentenced previously for opposing abortion? The sort of stuff I posted is quite enough to get him imprisoned in Germany for promoting racial hatred. Unless I see a link to a legitimate German news course, I’m going to remain agnostic on what his previous convictions were for.

    As for Germany’s Holocaust denial laws, they don’t fit well with American views of free speech, but most democracies, including vibrant ones, have laws against publishing incitement or racial hatred.

  42. gerardharbison,

    Interesting response. You reveal more about yourself by this comment than all the previous comments.

  43. …he called Auschwitz a deception…

    Post the quote where he calls Auschwitz “a deception.”

    Like it or not, that’s a crime in Germany.

    Cite please. Preferably a reference to German law.

    …the guy says that Jews are bent on world domination and Auschwitz is faked.

    Post the quote, please, where he claims Auschwitz is faked.

    Lerle is in trouble because he said the holocaust didn’t happen.

    Post the quote, please, where he says the holocaust did not happen.

    He’s denying that 6 million Jews were killed.

    Post the quote, please, where he denies 6 million Jews were killed.

    This is wiki’s definition:

    If wiki’s definition is not the definition used by the German legal system, why is it even relevant, since the debate is obvioulsy whether he was guilty of the vroim he was charged with under German law?

    Frankly, I don’t believe any of you “deniers” because you fail to supply the evidence which would substantiate your questionable claims.

  44. 45

    Cite please. Preferably a reference to German law.

    Since my previous post seems to have disappeared, simply examine section 130 (3) of the German “Strafgesetzbuch”. Paraphrasing: to deny or render harmless the acts of the Nazis is punishable by fines and/or jail time. In Lerle’s case, he did the latter, which is why he only received one year instead of the maximum of five.

  45. No, he was not jailed for comparing abortion to the holocaust, advocating intelligent design, or any other such nonsense. He was jailed for holocaust denial, a crime in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....ust_denial), as most of the people have figured commenting have figured out by now. Here`s a retraction from one publication: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062606.html.

  46. [...] Close friend of STR and leading ID Math Guru William Dembski was quick to defend this brave Culture Warrior and close friend of ShelleyTheRepublican ; In his shocking piece entitled “Teaching ID – A Crime Against Humanity?” Dembski sys that which we would all say if we only shared his God-given gift of foresight and intelligence: “I also asked how long it would be before advocating ID in Europe would be regarded as a hate-crime. We may have to wait no longer” [...]

  47. [...] their illusions will have the force of law and yours won’t. Yours may get classified vaguely as “hate crime” and persecuted. That is an unavoidable implication of their beliefs and assumptions. It becomes [...]

  48. [...] their illusions will have the force of law and yours won’t. Yours may get classified vaguely as “hate crime” and persecuted. That is an unavoidable implication of their beliefs and assumptions. It becomes [...]

Leave a Reply