Painful memories

Everyone knows about the Holocaust. Some want to forget it, others believe we need to remember the horrors in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. As the years go by, less and less people have been directly affected by this devastating moment of human past. So how do we deal with the dwindling survivors? The Jewish people that escaped, should they have or should they receive compensation? Another pressing topic for more people, is how do we deal with those who were Nazis? Who were apart of the chaos, who helped, or didn’t do anything to oppose it.

Well the question is raised once again, this time with a slightly more important person than those who may have just been mere soldiers or pawns. This time, there is an Auschwitz guard put on the hot seat. 93 year old Oskar Groening has been charged with 300,000 counts of accessory to murder. As an SS (Shutzstaffel) guard and member, he has a much higher bounty on his head. Accused of helping operate the death camp between May and June of 1944, 425,000 Jews were brought to the camp, 300,000 being gassed to death almost immediately. His job included, but was not limited to, dealing with belongings of the prisoners, and helping collect and tally the money that was found among the victims. The prosecutors believe this to say that he “helped the Nazi regime benefit economically, and supported the systematic killings,” while his attorney, Hans Holtermann, declined to comment on any of the charges.

WARNING, BRIEF GRAPHIC INCIDENT DESCRIBED. Groening has openly talked about his time as a guard, and even shared a specific incident with a German magazine. On “ramp duty” he heard a baby crying, and observed his fellow SS soldier grab the baby by the legs, and smashed the child’s head against the iron side of a truck until it was silent.

Groening is one of roughly 30 former Auschwitz guards who are going to be pursued and charged, regarding a new German law. Groening is the fourth case investigated, 2 being shelved due to the suspects being unfit for trial, the 3^rd being closed after the suspect passed away. Groening is in good health though, so what is to happen to him will set precedent for the rest to come.

Do we really need to convict this man with said charges? He was cleared of any war crimes in 1948, and reportedly had nothing to do with killing and Jews directly. Of course there is something to be said for being a part of such an atrocious organization. Awful and completely inhumane things were done by humans, to other humans. While I personally believe the comment on how he helped the Nazi regime benefit economically is complete bull, it is a point many can and will make against this man. Think about all of this from a less literal perspective though, this man was in the middle of country trying, not just planning but trying and being very close to succeeding, at taking over the planet. It’s possible he was just trying to survive, and there isn't much we can do to blame him for wanting to survive. Aren't his memories enough torture for this man? He could have not had the guts to do any button pressing for murder. Of course these points are all multiple sided dice, and is up to you to decide, and the court to decide on a unanimous one.

Links : http://townhall.com/news/world/2014/09/15/93yearold-former-auschwitz-guard-charged-n1891936

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756765/Former-Auschwitz-guard-93-charged-300-000-counts-accessory-murder-role-Nazi-death-camp.html

ISIS. AGAIN

An ISIS magazine promotes slavery, rape, and murder in their God's name.

Previously I made a statement that I believe that they're just looking for attention, and in a way I believe that this is supporting my statement, but also fights it.

First, I don't think it's fair to consider the Islamic deity, or holy spirit, the same as one in another faith, such as Christianity. With that out of the way, the fact that their religious scripture not only approves, but praises the following of inhuman actions, in my opinion requires isolation. There shouldn't be any connection between those who follow that belief valiantly, and those who have nothing to do with anything they work for or believe in.

While this does seem extreme, It seems necessary. These people are advocating rape, slavery, ethnic cleansing and sexual abuse, and are trying to force these beliefs on the rest of the world, rather violently. I still think that they are acting for attention right now, it's for a bigger idea that they have, and it's rather frustrating that it's affecting the world as much as it is. Like stated previously, I don't believe they should be killed, but rather isolated by our choice. In doing this we sustain our humanity by not killing them for their beliefs, and allow them to live their lives by their ideals, but without any connection to those who don't wish to partake in that Religion.

Topping it off, most of what ISIS is doing is nothing new, we've seen it all before and a lot of these events are happening in other parts of the world without global recognition. ISIS is just like a little kid, doing substantially worse things, unforgivable things, but doing it on small scales and to the Biggest of the big countries, and trying to get more attention out of it.

I personally am pretty pissed at ISIS because they do these things based off of religion, and I'm not personally a very religious person, and dislike those who try to make actions towards or judgement upon someone else based on their religious beliefs.

Huzzah for rights!

Privately gay bishops have recently been told that if they publicly acknowledge their sexuality they will receive "support, prayer and encouragement" from a number of Church of England priests and parishioners. In a letter signed by more than 300 members of the Church to its leadership and entire episcopate, Anglican, Methodist and other Christian signatories appealed to gay and bisexual bishops, urging them to have the "courage and conviction" to come out. The written plea is back by at least 160 priests and promises to stand by and "welcome and embrace' those bishops who do decide to go public.
The Church of England teaches that sexual intercourse should occur within a marriage and that this "ideal" is not met by homosexuality. There are also currently no openly gay bishops. A 1991 statement from the House of Bishops said that hetero and homosexuality are not equal, nor in harmony, with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.
The letter to the Church of England Bishops adds that it does "not advocate the involuntary outing of bishops."
They write to assure those bishops who may choose to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay or bisexual and that they will receive the support, prayer and encouragement of all that respect the written proposal.
They also added "Sadly, we live at a time when those who are honest about LGBTI and Christian are treated with hostility by a vocal minority within and outside the Church. We have no doubt that the vast majority of Anglicans will welcome and embrace those of you who are gay or bisexual for your courage and conviction if you come out: weeping with you for past hurts and rejoicing in God's call as witnesses to Christ's transforming love and compassion.

I have 2 primary concerns with this. The first being, by "support" do they mean that they will actually stand behind their friends' and families' sexualities, or encourage them to "witness God's love" or whatever term they'd like to use and tell them they need to change.
Secondly, if this happens on a larger scale, as in all of the official large Christian Churches accept gay and bisexuality, then this could cause a large moral problem, larger than it already is. There are those who are die-hard to the fact that gays and bisexuals are wrong and should be "fixed." These people will probably state that they don't believe that these large scale church changes are Christian and break away, causing more extreme cases like the Wet Borough Baptist Church.