Can the Holocaust Be Forgiven?
By Dr. Michael Brown - April 16, 2019

Last week, the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, created a firestorm of controversy when he said to a group of evangelical leaders that the Holocaust could be forgiven but not forgotten. But in response to an uproar from the Jewish community in Israel, he claimed:“that his remarks had been misinterpreted.”
As he explained:

“Forgiveness is something personal, my speech was never meant to be used in a historical context, especially one where millions of innocent people were murdered in a cruel genocide.”
Trending: 120 Christians Killed in Nigeria and the World Remains Silent

Is there a difference, then, between forgiving and forgetting? And is there a difference of opinion between Judaism and Christianity when it comes to these important (and difficult) subjects?

This past Thursday, in a meeting with evangelical pastors, Bolsonaro said (with reference to the Holocaust):

“We can forgive, but we cannot forget. Those who forget their past are sentenced not to have a future.”
So, it would seem that he felt it important to emphasize the importance of keeping the horrific memory of the Holocaust alive while at the same time allowing for the possibility of forgiveness.

In response, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin tweeted (but without specifically referencing Bolsonaro):

“We will never extend our hand to those who deny the truth or attempt to erase it. Not individuals or organizations, not heads of parties and not heads of states. We will never forgive and never forget. No one will order the Jewish people’s forgiveness and no interest will buy it.”
And Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial museum in Israel, said in a statement that:

“We disagree with the Brazilian president’s statement that the Holocaust can be forgiven. It is not in anyone’s position to determine who and if Holocaust crimes can be forgiven.”
What should we make of these statements?

Do they reflect Jewish thought regarding the possibility of repentance? And do they mirror Christian thought?

I can certainly understand the swift response from Israel, as if the Gentile, Christian president of Brazil can decide to pronounce forgiveness for the Nazis and their partners in crime.

To say this is to trivialize, to speak for the victims and their families, to minimize the enormity of the guilt.

“Yes, it was very bad, but we can forgive and move on. Let’s just be sure it doesn’t happen again.”
But is that what Bolsonaro was saying? And, if there is true repentance, is there still no possibility of forgiveness?

First, I understand that the Brazilian president’s point was this:

“We do not hold this against Germany for all time. We are willing to forgive when we see contrition and repentance. But we must never forget this horrific evil, lest something like it happen again in our day.”
Second, I don’t believe Bolsonaro was claiming to speak for God in terms of the fate of Hitler and his henchmen. He was not saying, “We pronounce those evil men forgiven.” Certainly not.

Third, Israel has forgiven Germany as a nation for its crimes, establishing excellent relations with their former tormentors.

As noted on the Israel Project website (dated January 25, 2012)”

“The German-Israeli relationship has been shaped by the memory of the Holocaust and the strong desire on the part of the German people to help ensure that the suffering endured by the Jewish people between 1933 and 1945 will never recur.”
“Germany and Israel established diplomatic relations in 1965. Since then, these ties have been characterized by overall friendship between the two nations but also by frequent crises that bring to light the delicate nature of the relations and their emotional fragility.”
Isn’t this what Bolsonaro was saying?

Fourth, the Bible records that God accepted the repentance of two of the most wicked leaders in the history of Israel and Judah, Ahab and Manasseh, delaying the judgment they were due (see 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Chronicles 33:10-17). They were responsible for many deaths, yet God postponed their punishment.

In God’s own words, as recorded by the prophet Ezekiel:

“Is it my desire that a wicked person shall die?—says the Lord GOD. It is rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live” (Ezekiel 18:23).
This would mean that, if a Nazi murderer who had escaped justice for many years came forward, confessed his crimes, and demonstrated true repentance, he should be forgiven. (If God, who is infinitely holy and perfectly righteous can forgive, shouldn’t we follow His example?) He would still need to pay for his crimes, including lifelong imprisonment or even death, but he would die a forgiven man.

And this, of course, leads to the message of the gospel, namely, that through Jesus, God can forgive and redeem the worst of sinners. This would include Saul of Tarsus (better known as Paul the apostle), who once killed Jews who believed in Jesus, only to receive grace and mercy from God (see 1 Timothy 1:12-16).

That’s how Corrie Ten-Boom could forgive the cruel prison guard who tormented her and her sister when they were imprisoned during the Holocaust for protecting Jews. (If you’ve never read the account, take a moment and read it now. It’s worth it! Corrie’s sister died while imprisoned.)

To be sure, the Holocaust itself cannot be forgiven, nor do any of us have the power to pronounce forgiveness on a past generation. In that sense, I concur with the statements from Israel. But we can recognize true repentance when we see it, we can forgive as the Lord forgave us (for followers of Jesus, this is especially relevant), and we can leave vengeance and final judgment to God.

Certainly, I understand why the reaction from Israel was so swift and strong, especially in light of the never-ending attempts to deny the Holocaust (or, at the least, to minimize it).

But there is truth to Bolsonaro’s words, and as a friend of Israel, he should not be misunderstood.

Attorney General William Barr said in a new ruling issued Tuesday that asylum-seekers who are able to demonstrate a "credible fear" and are then sent to full deportation proceedings are not eligible to be released on bond.

The ruling, which will go into effect in 90 days, states that a previous decision allowing for asylum-seekers to be released on bond while their case is being heard by an immigration judge was incorrect. Only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to release the asylum-seekers, he wrote.

“I conclude that such aliens remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States,” Barr wrote.

https://thehill.com/latino/439219-barr-rules-that-asylum-seekers-must-be-detained-during-deportation-proceedings

Clarence Thomas blasts use of religious tests in judicial confirmation process
April 15, 2019

Clarence Thomas is ordinarily a quiet man, but when religious liberty is under siege, he does not remain silent.

Known for being a devout Christian, the typically circumspect Justice Thomas condemned the use of religious litmus tests when evaluating judges and disputed the notion that religion interferes with a judge’s job.

His comments came in response to a question about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) grilling of Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett over her faith. “I thought we got away from religious tests,” Thomas told an audience at Pepperdine University School of Law’s annual banquet on Apr. 4.
Justice Thomas slams religious tests

Thomas’s comments, first reported by the Daily Caller, were a response to a question about whether a judge’s religious views should be considered when evaluating their fitness. The question was framed in reference to Feinstein’s infamous attack on Barrett’s faith during the judge’s confirmation hearing in September 2017. Feinstein suggested that Barrett’s beliefs would compromise her job, declaring, “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Feinstein’s inquisition of Barrett was widely seen as amounting to a bona fide religious test. Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Thomas, who is a Catholic, lamented that religious tests are still in currency and contested the notion, increasingly shared by progressives, that Christians cannot be entrusted with interpreting the law fairly — primarily on account of their personal objections to progressive views on sexuality. Thomas said he doesn’t know a “single judge who has allowed religion to interfere with their jobs.”

To the contrary, Thomas said that praying in the morning can help judges keep their egos, and personal prejudices, in check.

“I think if you start the day on your knees you approach your job differently from when you start thinking that someone anointed you to impose your will on others,” Thomas said.
Open hostility to faith demands a defense

That humility is wholly lacking in the Democrats’ growing hostility not only to public expressions of faith, but to the private religious beliefs of federal appointees. Indeed, Thomas’ reference to “imposing your will on others” seems to have been lost on Senate Democrats. While Barrett’s grilling is arguably the most famous, Thomas’ response touched on a broader trend of Democrats subjecting Catholic judicial nominees to religious tests.

In February, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) asked Judge Neomi Rao whether she believed gay relationships are sinful during her confirmation hearing. And in December of 2018, Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) grilled attorney Brian Buescher over his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a mainstream conservative Catholic organization and suggested that he was unqualified to serve because of the group’s “extreme” beliefs.

The senators asked Buescher whether he was aware the group opposed gay marriage and abortion when he joined it. Both of these stances are Catholic doctrine and have been for centuries.

The Democrats’ increasingly open use of religious tests reflects a growing hostility toward faith and tradition on the left, as many progressives have taken up the mantle of separation of church and state to squeeze religion out of public life — and even attack private citizens over their faith. In practice, Democrats — in the name of separation of church and state — are working to replace one set of values their own progressive, secular ones.

Contrary to the aspersions cast by progressives about faith clashing with public weal, Thomas questioned whether oaths mean anything to atheist judges, since they don’t recognize a higher authority than the law they are trusted to interpret.

“I think it’s interesting in a profession where we all take an oath, that they would look at people who have strong faith as somehow not good people, when, if you’re an atheist, what does an oath mean?” Thomas asked.

As Democrats ratchet up religious tests to impose their own progressive beliefs on everyone else, it is more important than ever to have judges like Thomas who are willing to defend religious freedom.