From: pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:04:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: sarah.1992Oct9.150420.18525
Reply-To: pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu
Organization: SUNYA School of Public Health, Albany, NY

In article <1992Oct8.205729.17456@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.140658.2276@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:
>>In article <yT30RB1w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>, waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker) writes:
>>>pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:
>
>>>>   To make my point clear: I have no doubts that "Protocols ..."
>>>> are anti-Semitic, but selling, buying the book and reading it doesn't
>>>> make me anti-Semitic.  Whow otherwise would I know what what
>>>> is inside ?  How do you know ?  I do not think that to prohibit
>>>> people from expressing their views is the best way to fight
>>>> ideas.
>
>>[...]
>
>>>The Protocols are a lie, a forgery, and an attempt to stir up violent 
>>>hatred of Jews.  They are not literary expression, they are a political 
>>>tool used to promote the agenda of antisemitism.
>
>>>If you sell, distribute, promote, or display them for any reason other 
>>>than to expose them for what they are and to educate people about them, 
>>>then you are engaging in a political act of antisemitism.
>
>>>You claim that this person was "merely displaying them with other books" 
>>>for sale.  You cannot 'merely display' the Protocols with other books in 
>>>a store, they are not literature and are not a part of the public 
>>>marketplace of ideas.
>
>>  I am afraid that this is an expression of your personal sensitivity.
>
>No, I think it's a fact.  Deliberate forgeries have a special status
>among publications.  
>
>>I doubt whether this kind of reasoning would make you the case in the US.
>
>Are you suggesting that someone wants the book banned?  I haven't
>heard anyone say that.  
>
>We are distressing our horror and grief at a report that the book
>is being sold, and therefore approved of, by a church, and that the
>hierarchy of that church, which is usually very strict on doctrinal
>matters, has seemingly voiced no objections to the sale.  
>
>We want an explanation. 
>
[...]
>
>>PS.  Somehow it makes me feel funny to preach Americans what freedom
>>means :-).
>
>Seems funny that a Jew has to tell a (presumably) Catholic colleague
>how his church works.  "Market of ideas," indeed!
>
>Roger
>>
>>PS2. Since I posted my original text I returned to the text which initiated
>>this discussion.  It turned out that the book was offered by the CHURCH
>>bookstore and presumabely printed by Church offices (which also means
>>that the book would have to bear the sign of Imprimatur - official
>>Catholic censorship) - this is entirely different story. I do not think
>>that Catholic Church should be involved in promoting this kind of books.
>>Unfortunately Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and we
>>don't have easy ways to impose our will on it.
>>

   It seems to me that we have major misunderstanding here.  It is also
strange for me to take a position I do not agree with.

  I will try to clarify everything briefly:

1. I am not Catholic and in my PS2 I made an error about Imprimatur and
was kindly reminded about it in a personal letter.

2. We have two problems here:

  a) what Church should or should not print - and I would leave this
     question to people more knowledgeable about Catholic Church issues;
     I am not in a position to explain or protect the actions of the Church.

  b) whether books like Protocols should be printed and freely distributed
     in the free country.

  As far as (a) is concerned I am afraid that you jump into conclusions
and built your case on a weak evidence.  Please return to the original
thread and read it again (as I did).  The story goes like this:
sombedy saw something which looked like something and was told by people this
and that.  That's why I originaly objected to the strong accusations
about anti-semitism in Poland.  I believe that we need stronger
evidence then taht to put forward this kind of accusations.

 You write:

>We are distressing our horror and grief at a report that the book
>is being sold, and therefore approved of, by a church, and that the
>hierarchy of that church, which is usually very strict on doctrinal
>matters, has seemingly voiced no objections to the sale.

  Personally I do not see any evidence for this kind of conclusions
in the original story.


  As far as (b) is concerned I am still not persuaded by your arguments.

>  Deliberate forgeries have a special status
>among publications.

  Since when ?!  Go to the local bookstore and check.  There are plenty
of books atributed to somebody but actually written by somebody
else (I am afraid that large parts of Bible fell into this category
and it was done delibarately - prophets usually didn't write down
their own words).  

  Since you write that you don't suggest the book to be banned I assume
that we basically agree that the very fact of the book being printed
and shown on the display in the bookstore doesn't tell much about
the intentions or personal believes of the bookstore owner or printing
company.

                                      Pawel Penczek