Feb 8, 2009

He needs more "proof"

While I believe that one shouldn't expend too much energy in responding to nutty and controversial claims in general, but this one has me intrigued.

Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson doesn't believe the Nazi Holocaust took place, and has said, "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against...". The bishop goes on to say "If I find this proof, then I will correct myself".

One wonders what proof he will need to see, and where he has been looking for it.

There are eyewitnesses alive today -- who have been either guards or inmates at concentration camps -- who attest to the facts. Some of the camps still exist, preserved as memorials. Also, both American and Russian armies were firsthand witness to the atrocities when they arrived to liberate the survivors. Photos and film footage exist from before, during, and after the liberation. Nazi records also exist -- which document actions and logistics that took place. At numerous trials since then, enablers at all levels have used the "just following orders" defense.

Bishop Richard Williamson still needs more proof. The irony, of course, is that Bishop Williamson apparently does not require proof of the existence of god, that Jesus walked on water or that the virgin Mary has appeared to the faithful as an image on a tortilla. Actually, rather than being an irony, it is the "tell" that belies the Bishop's agenda. Here is a person who's "being" is based on wholesale acceptance of articles of faith, and yet he is denying overwhelmingly well documented fact as "insufficient proof".