Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know how to use this message boards code to break down my response in parts (I'll take the time to learn that sometime today).

I do it manually.

Ex:


[*quote=Gospel]
I don't know how to use this message boards code to break down my response in parts (I'll take the time to learn that sometime today).
[/*quote]
minus de "*"·

1) I'm not questioning the reasonableness of anyone's belief.

Okay, then I am.

But given that you were telling Catholics "next time vet your church before putting your cock in it.", it looked to me that you were implying that it is not reasonable to believe in Catholicism without such vetting. Else, if their beliefs might be reasonable, why are you telling them to do that? I mean, if there might be no fault (of morality or rationality) on their part, I don't get the vetting part.

2) Taking a look at how Catholics define desecration I'd think that some may be relieved to stop presenting themselves to god from a place used to literally kill his children.

Some might. I would say most won't, predictably. Also, even after they see the effect on the parishioners and priests (which certainly do not like it a bit), it was already clear that the one should not expect that effect.

3) I didn't say the people who burned the church down did it to help the current Catholics. I'm saying perhaps it's one of the results.

Yeah, I know. I pointed out that there is no such intent, so that even if that were one of the results, it is not the case that Catholics should thank the arsonists. I mean, if an arsonist saves me from a building that was otherwise going to collapse on its own and on my head, and I find the arsonist did so to take revenge on the building's owner (for example), it is not the case I should thank the arsonist.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And I can't be bothered much to care for their plight. A church is building. God is supposed to be everywhere.

That argument would apply to any church burning, regardless of whose church it was. Would you not care about the plight of anyone whose church is burned, as long as they are not physically harmed?

No, that would be non-violent protest. Civil Disobedience can be violent (just not harming people).

Actually, most definitions say it's a form of non-violent protest. For example: https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

At any rate, my central point here was that it is not called "Civil Disobedience" for the reason you stated.

 

[laughing dog]

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

Unlike the Catholic Church which operated the schools and churches and participated in these actions (i.e past sins), Holocaust deniers did not actually participate in the Holocaust (they have no past sins). So one would hope that the people who had ancestors killed in the Holocaust are rational enough to see that crucial difference and not burn down homes of Holocaust deniers.

I assume from your question that you are that rational, because the question as asked is absurd.

A more interesting and on point question would be if it is morally acceptable to burn down the houses of those who participated in the Holocaust.

 

[Toni]

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

You are the one justifying the burning down of the Church's property because they 'denied' (reality: didn't apologise) for past sins.

Was I, though?

You are not only drawing a false equivalence, but an extremely tortured one.

 

[Rhea]

Canadian authorities are investigating multiple fires that destroyed four Catholic churches on Indigenous land in the past week.

The idigenous people burned buildings on indigenous land that housed the worship practices of those who murdered indigenous children.

The buildings are still owned by the same organization. That organization has never apologized, never made amends, never made an effort to ask itself what it has done. That organization STILL hides rapists. They have never stopped hiding rapists. No “good people” in that organization have ever opened an inquiry. So - are there any “good people” in that organization? Or are they rape and murder apologists, still making excuses to this day for the damage they have wrought.


The buildings were on indigenous land and were no longer welcome on that land, it seems. I guess if you shit on your host’s floor, they might toss you out, and not really care if you got your coat back.


Perhaps they were standing their ground.

 

[Arctish]

Canadian authorities are investigating multiple fires that destroyed four Catholic churches on Indigenous land in the past week.

The idigenous people burned buildings on indigenous land that housed the worship practices of those who murdered indigenous children.

The buildings are still owned by the same organization. That organization has never apologized, never made amends, never made an effort to ask itself what it has done. That organization STILL hides rapists. They have never stopped hiding rapists. No “good people” in that organization have ever opened an inquiry. So - are there any “good people” in that organization? Or are they rape and murder apologists, still making excuses to this day for the damage they have wrought.

In better world than the one we live in, leaders of the Canadian Catholic Church would have been aghast at the discovery of unmarked graves on school grounds and immediately searched their records to locate and identify the deceased. They would have offered to have the church pay for the ground penetrating radar and DNA analysis, and to assist families with funerals and burials.

But alas, we live in a world where all they did was hunker down. Hopefully they aren't actively hiding evidence of neglect and abuse, but you never can tell.

 

[Toni]

Canadian authorities are investigating multiple fires that destroyed four Catholic churches on Indigenous land in the past week.

The idigenous people burned buildings on indigenous land that housed the worship practices of those who murdered indigenous children.

The buildings are still owned by the same organization. That organization has never apologized, never made amends, never made an effort to ask itself what it has done. That organization STILL hides rapists. They have never stopped hiding rapists. No “good people” in that organization have ever opened an inquiry. So - are there any “good people” in that organization? Or are they rape and murder apologists, still making excuses to this day for the damage they have wrought.

In better world than the one we live in, leaders of the Canadian Catholic Church would have been aghast at the discovery of unmarked graves on school grounds and immediately searched their records to locate and identify the deceased. They would have offered to have the church pay for the ground penetrating radar and DNA analysis, and to assist families with funerals and burials.

But alas, we live in a world where all they did was hunker down. Hopefully they aren't actively hiding evidence of neglect and abuse, but you never can tell.

I assume that it is a given that they are actively hiding evidence of neglect and abuse.

 

[Metaphor]

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

Unlike the Catholic Church which operated the schools and churches and participated in these actions (i.e past sins), Holocaust deniers did not actually participate in the Holocaust (they have no past sins). So one would hope that the people who had ancestors killed in the Holocaust are rational enough to see that crucial difference and not burn down homes of Holocaust deniers.

I assume from your question that you are that rational, because the question as asked is absurd.

A more interesting and on point question would be if it is morally acceptable to burn down the houses of those who participated in the Holocaust.

Well, no, it wouldn't be.

In fact, I'm going to offer a hot take and say, just don't burn down other people's houses.

 

[Metaphor]

You are the one justifying the burning down of the Church's property because they 'denied' (reality: didn't apologise) for past sins.

Was I, though?

You are not only drawing a false equivalence, but an extremely tortured one.

I'm not the one condoning the burning down of other people's property.

 

[Arctish]

Unlike the Catholic Church which operated the schools and churches and participated in these actions (i.e past sins), Holocaust deniers did not actually participate in the Holocaust (they have no past sins). So one would hope that the people who had ancestors killed in the Holocaust are rational enough to see that crucial difference and not burn down homes of Holocaust deniers.

I assume from your question that you are that rational, because the question as asked is absurd.

A more interesting and on point question would be if it is morally acceptable to burn down the houses of those who participated in the Holocaust.

Well, no, it wouldn't be.

In fact, I'm going to offer a hot take and say, just don't burn down other people's houses.

No one's been burning down houses over this, at least so far.

If we're going with a Holocaust analogy, burning down the Catholic churches on First Nations land this week would be akin to burning down the offices of the National Socialist German Worker's Party if/when the remains of more victims of the Nazis are found.

 

[Metaphor]

Unlike the Catholic Church which operated the schools and churches and participated in these actions (i.e past sins), Holocaust deniers did not actually participate in the Holocaust (they have no past sins). So one would hope that the people who had ancestors killed in the Holocaust are rational enough to see that crucial difference and not burn down homes of Holocaust deniers.

I assume from your question that you are that rational, because the question as asked is absurd.

A more interesting and on point question would be if it is morally acceptable to burn down the houses of those who participated in the Holocaust.

Well, no, it wouldn't be.

In fact, I'm going to offer a hot take and say, just don't burn down other people's houses.

No one's been burning down houses over this, at least so far.

If we're going with a Holocaust analogy, burning down the Catholic churches on First Nations land this week would be akin to burning down the offices of the National Socialist German Worker's Party if/when the remains of more victims of the Nazis are found.

That shouldn't be done, either.

 

[Arctish]

No one's been burning down houses over this, at least so far.

If we're going with a Holocaust analogy, burning down the Catholic churches on First Nations land this week would be akin to burning down the offices of the National Socialist German Worker's Party if/when the remains of more victims of the Nazis are found.

That shouldn't be done, either.

I'm not a fan of arson, but I'm also not a fan of letting serial abusers go unpunished because "oh, that was yesterday".

The Canadian Catholic Church created this situation when it hid the bodies, and it's doing a piss poor job of doing right by people today. It's understandable that some folks are lashing out.

It's time for the church to come clean and help people find their missing relatives. That's the only thing that will make any of this better.

 

[Patooka]

Man, it's amazing how people are willing to condemn this act of vandalism whilst completely ignoring the context in which these acts happened. I don't think I could ever be so emotionless and lacking in empathy.

 

[bilby]

 

[Gospel]

I do it manually.

Ex:


[*quote=Gospel]
I don't know how to use this message boards code to break down my response in parts (I'll take the time to learn that sometime today).
[/*quote]
minus de "*"·


Okay, then I am.

But given that you were telling Catholics "next time vet your church before putting your cock in it.", it looked to me that you were implying that it is not reasonable to believe in Catholicism without such vetting. Else, if their beliefs might be reasonable, why are you telling them to do that? I mean, if there might be no fault (of morality or rationality) on their part, I don't get the vetting part.

2) Taking a look at how Catholics define desecration I'd think that some may be relieved to stop presenting themselves to god from a place used to literally kill his children.

Some might. I would say most won't, predictably. Also, even after they see the effect on the parishioners and priests (which certainly do not like it a bit), it was already clear that the one should not expect that effect.

3) I didn't say the people who burned the church down did it to help the current Catholics. I'm saying perhaps it's one of the results.

Yeah, I know. I pointed out that there is no such intent, so that even if that were one of the results, it is not the case that Catholics should thank the arsonists. I mean, if an arsonist saves me from a building that was otherwise going to collapse on its own and on my head, and I find the arsonist did so to take revenge on the building's owner (for example), it is not the case I should thank the arsonist.

Whatever Angra Mainyu. I'm being snippy and callous to comments about arson because I think hundreds of children dying is the real concern here. Sure, burning down the church is bad for the folks on the other end of the fire, thanks for pointing that out. You have anything to say about the graves?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The last federally operated residential school, Gordon's Indian Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

Doesn't mean that's when the deaths happened.

That is true. Getting away with murder would be harder than child abuse in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm being snippy and callous to comments about arson because I think hundreds of children dying is the real concern here.

Okay, I get your motivation.

While the murders of hundreds of children (or even one) is far worse than the burning of the churches, I do not think that is "the" real concern. First, because there are more than one thing that concern people here. Second, because clearly different people here are concerned about different things. But if you ask me, from what I'm reading, that is not a threat in the present. It is something that other people did a considerably long time ago. And it is also not something there is disagreement about.

If some of this happened until recently enough for some perpetrators to be alive, then by all means, they should be prosecuted and punished (though unfortunately Canada probably does not have a sufficiently big punishemnt). But I do not know that that is the case. That one of the schools was opened until 1996 does not imply that the murders happen up to then; but if they did, again, sure, those who murdered children deserve to be punished - of course, a fair trial would be needed to guarantee they get the right perpetrator.

Sure, burning down the church is bad for the folks on the other end of the fire, thanks for pointing that out.

Well, I'm mostly concerned with the people on the other end of the fire not deserving it, on the basis of the information available to the arsonists (punishing the perpetrators of the murders would also be bad for them, but I would be in favor of it if they were alive).

You have anything to say about the graves?

Not much, as there is agreement here about them. But if you ask me, sure, I say obviously it was very wrong to kidnap and murder children (not all of them were murdered, but what was done was still very wrong).

Generally, I'm not inclined to say much when we all agree; I'm much more inclined to say something when there is disagreement.

 

[Toni]

Okay, I get your motivation.

While the murders of hundreds of children (or even one) is far worse than the burning of the churches, I do not think that is "the" real concern. First, because there are more than one thing that concern people here. Second, because clearly different people here are concerned about different things. But if you ask me, from what I'm reading, that is not a threat in the present. It is something that other people did a considerably long time ago. And it is also not something there is disagreement about.

If some of this happened until recently enough for some perpetrators to be alive, then by all means, they should be prosecuted and punished (though unfortunately Canada probably does not have a sufficiently big punishemnt). But I do not know that that is the case. That one of the schools was opened until 1996 does not imply that the murders happen up to then; but if they did, again, sure, those who murdered children deserve to be punished - of course, a fair trial would be needed to guarantee they get the right perpetrator.




Well, I'm mostly concerned with the people on the other end of the fire not deserving it, on the basis of the information available to the arsonists (punishing the perpetrators of the murders would also be bad for them, but I would be in favor of it if they were alive).

You have anything to say about the graves?

Not much, as there is agreement here about them. But if you ask me, sure, I say obviously it was very wrong to kidnap and murder children (not all of them were murdered, but what was done was still very wrong).

Generally, I'm not inclined to say much when we all agree; I'm much more inclined to say something when there is disagreement.

Since the children whose bodies have been discovered in multiple locations in unmarked graves all died 'a long time ago' one would think that the Church would have an easy time stepping forward, and expressing remorse for their previously unacknowledged deaths and the callous way their bodies (and lives, and families) were treated so very long ago.

But: crickets.

It is much easier to get over a wrong done to you when that wrong has been acknowledged and there has been some kind of apology and/or remorse expressed.

You think that this all happened a long time ago and no one living actually knew any of the people whose bodies were so buried in unmarked graves. How do we know this? And what difference does it make? The fact that so many children were stolen from their families and forced into residential 'schools' to be made 'good Christian servants' has left an extremely large wound in their families and their nations. We still acknowledge the deaths of soldiers who died in battle. We still acknowledge the Holocaust.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While the murders of hundreds of children (or even one) is far worse than the burning of the churches, I do not think that is "the" real concern. First, because there are more than one thing that concern people here. Second, because clearly different people here are concerned about different things. But if you ask me, from what I'm reading, that is not a threat in the present. It is something that other people did a considerably long time ago. And it is also not something there is disagreement about.

I believe the key words here are disclosure. The churches that caused this weren't up front, and we literally need to unearth their secrets for them to apologize for the next atrocity they were responsible for. The churches apologized for the poor conditions in the 90s. It made the churches sad how much suffering they caused. And now we are about to dig up mass unmarked graves to uncover a mini-genocide. It gets to the point where words won't help, but there should at least be words and actions. But the churches are suffering from grave injustices they have committed over the last couple centuries... and up to the last decade to be able to even have their words mean a thing, to even believe they care about anything but how the atrocities reflect on their image.

Well, I'm mostly concerned with the people on the other end of the fire not deserving it, on the basis of the information available to the arsonists (punishing the perpetrators of the murders would also be bad for them, but I would be in favor of it if they were alive).

Yes, there is marginal harm to others in the form of inconvenience regarding the destruction of churches that are symbolic of heinous acts that the churches tried to hide well into the 21st century, even after they had a chance to come clean.

You have anything to say about the graves?

Not much, as there is agreement here about them.

Agreement that the mass graves were kept secret by the Church into the 21st century?

 

[Gospel]

Angra Mainyu is just here to disagree with things. So don't expect any meaningful contributions from Angra if there is no disagreement.