Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

But the people who are not apologizing are not the wrongdoers. Why should they apologize?

You should sell this argument to corporate polluters who had to clean up decades after their offense. They’ll be thrilled to get refunds. Call IBM first.

There is a huge difference between moral guilt and an obligation to pay (even from a moral perspective, legality aside). When companies engage in contracts, humans are actually making those contracts, and humans (the owners, who sometimes the same who make those contracts) have an obligation as a result. Why is that so? Because they agreed by buying shares of the company and entering an agreement - at least that's the short version; laws regulating companies have an impact on obligations too.

As for companies that pollute, the matter would have to be considered on a case by case basis (e.g., what was the law; what did the present-day shareholders agree to? etc.). But what should be clear is that the present-day shareholders or managers cannot properly apologize for the actions of past ones.

It could be argued that the Catholic church owes money to the victims of past official Catholic actions; that is a more difficult matter to ascertain, because what is morally obligatory in cases like this much depends on the links between different people in the Church, branches of the church, etc. But this is not about that. It's about burning churches and taking revenge. It's about a demand for an apology.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Who is "they"?
Are the people who continue to insist that they are righteous the same people who stole and murdered children?

Actually those people would be the ones responsible for creating the cover for the systemic child abuse by those in the Catholic Church. They never stopped being a danger.

Who? Could you please give a name?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Regarding coverups of molestation? Yes. Oh, you are talking the abuse and deaths of aboriginal children stolen from their families so they could be dehumanized and reborn as Christians. I'm not aware of his direct involvement there.

I do not believe the goal was to dehumanize them, but yes, I am talking about the abuse and sometimes murder of those children. And no, of course he was not involved, directly or otherwise (If you're saying the pope should apologize for the coverups; maybe. I haven't followed the news in detail, but for all I know he may well be guilty of that. He's definitely guilty of many things. But not this one).

Aren't we beyond this point? The Churches that ran these schools already made with some level of 'we're sorry', and then it just continues to unravel as more and more truth gets exposed. These schools were crimes against humanity. No, not quite Nazi bad, but is that really the bar?

No, I'm saying there is no bar. It's a misplaced, improper apology. That is so even at Nazi level. The apology would never be proper because it was other people. Now, in some cases, the apology would be rational if it is insincere, as a means to appease those who demand an apology and have a lot of power and willingness to cause destruction, for example. But there is no place by a proper apology. It would be either insincere, or confused.

When are we allowed to say an apology is worthless?

Worthless to whom? It may be of value to those who demand it. I'm saying the apology would be either insincere or confused.

Clearly the institution isn't sorry. Sure, individuals can and are, but the organization that is the Catholic Church (among others) has committed intentional acts that have either killed or traumatically scarred countless children.

Is the institution the kind of entity that has feelings, independently of the feelings of its members? Clearly not. It's not an alien from another planet. It's a bunch of human activity - relations, properties, etc. The Catholic church is not the sort of thing that can be sorry or commit intentional acts, except in the sense some humans feel that/do that.

The Church should be begging for forgiveness, yet, they are up high on their pedestals, knowing that admitting to these crimes would be devastating, because you can always say bad apples molested children. You need a whole orchid to hide hundreds of children in the soil.

Again, who should be begging for forgiveness? Who is this entity "Church"?
Guilty people should sometimes (depending on the case) beg for forgiveness (some are so guilty that begging for forgiveness would only add insult to injury so to speak, and they should not). We could extend this to other guilty monkeys. But the Church? Well, only when represented by guilty people.

 

[Rhea]

Again, who should be begging for forgiveness? Who is this entity "Church"?
Guilty people should sometimes (depending on the case) beg for forgiveness (some are so guilty that begging for forgiveness would only add insult to injury so to speak, and they should not). We could extend this to other guilty monkeys. But the Church? Well, only when represented by guilty people.

Clearly, if there is no entity “church,” then there is no one to complain when one burns to the ground.

 

[Rhea]

It is worth asking, IMHO, why the catholic heirarchy wears gowns and shawls and conical hats and golden trinkets.
WHY do they use altar scarves embroidered with specific symbols?
WHY do they have such a specific style to their buildings, with a steeple, or stained glass windows?

The Church does this because it derives its present day authority and holiness from the actions of the past.
The church wants to gain the fame and power that was built in the past.
The church wants to known as a monolith because that brings following and momentum and a seat at government tables.

The church WANTS to be an entity of its own. It wants the fame of being associated with its past self. It wants to be able to say - as a corporation - these are my values, these are my belongings, these are my people, and we behave the way we behave (oh! All good!) because our teachings which are rooted in millenia, make us different.

WHY do they gather on Sundays, and on Wednesdays as well?
WHY do the parishioners recite centuries-old verses in unison?

They do it because they want to be known as one of that group, that set of beliefs, that set of actions. They want to belong to that corporation.

WHY do they venerate Francis? Because they like Francis? No. It’s because he holds the title of “Pope,” and he represents the enduring ongoing stewardship of the flock, and a title that connects him to, and builds his authority on, the actions of the past.

So they build their pride on this ongoing connection. They build their power on this ongoing connection. They build their entire reputation as an extension of their own past.

…. Until a boy shows up, raped. Until a girl shows up raped. Until a native child is discovered as murdered.

And then it’s all, “yeah, how can we be held morally responsible for our past? The one we embrace every day and tell everyne we’re better because of?

They speak with a forked tongue. It is a repulsive lie. “Oh, who, us? No. We didn’t do that. Infact, there’s no ‘we’ at all. We aren’t a coherent organization that uses the past to make ourselves powerful. No, oh, pisssshh, no, we’re just a randome collection of unconnected people here. But - don’t burn down our church, that’s ours. Well, except for the moments when we advocated killing in it. I’m not sure that even happened. What church?”

 

[Gospel]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

 

[Angry Floof]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

The RCC still carries on the institution that gives rise to atrocity. Today, they can't get away with killing children en masse, so they just murder their childhoods by raping them. And the RCC will continue to give rise to atrocity until they give away all their money and reform their inhumane, stunted religion into a force for good, or at best, a force that has little or no influence on the world if they can't figure out how to do better.

But, as someone else said earlier, as rich and entrenched and powerful as the RCC is, it would take a hell of a lot more churches burned down to get their attention in any meaningful way. This kind of stuff is just grease for their PR machine.

That said, I'm glad the RCC's seeds were removed from a few tribal lands. May they one day be removed from all lands.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

As a very general comment... I really don't understand the rationalization and justification for current-day, extra-judicial, violent, retaliation against current-day entities... for wrongs done to one's ancestors by that entity's ancestors.

So you see no connection between the entity (in this case the Church) & the people who committed those wrongs using the entity but you do somehow manage to see a connection between the fire and the people who started it. Interesting.

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

By the instances you give in this post, (and I will add the Stolen Generations in Australia and the denials of systematic child abuse all over the world) the Catholic Church can be seen as an institution with a deep historical and ongoing pattern of prioritising its power and financial structures over the welfare of its congregants.

This fire is not about revenge against individuals, it seems to be about hitting a corrupt organisation in the only way it is possible to hit it. Normal, legal avenues have not affected the Church. They suppress all opposition, they have the money to do it and have always chosen to use that money to hide truths and accumulate possessions in preference to helping parishioners.

Note that no-one died. No individual lost their home.

This fire has gotten the issue out in the open.

Public discussion may act like clean air through the charnel house that is the current Church's warped morality.

Personally, I doubt it.

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).

I think everyone here agrees that the genocidal aspects of those schools was morally appalling.

But the deaths need to be put in perspective. Nowadays we take super low child mortality rates for granted. Things didn't used to be that way. We take nutrition and hygiene and medical care for granted, when it just didn't exist back then. They just didn't have vaccination and tetracycline. They didn't even have aspirin or vitamin supplements or Bactine. This was true for everyone, not just poor kids in a crowded boarding school, although I'm sure it hit them harder. White kids didn't fare any better.

People might be shocked by how much of the inhabited world is an unmarked grave of a child.
Tom

This argument wouldn't fall so much on its face had the graves been marked.

Back when child mortality rates were well into double digits, how many poor kids do think got headstones?
Tom

The Catholic Church is a religious institution. If these children were valued, cared for and regretted why were they not buried in formal graveyards according to the rites of the Church with a small marker of their passing in the care of the institution best placed to do that little thing for them?

I suggest it was because the Church didn't care for them and that the individuals involved, and the Church as a monolith, were keen to hide the numbers of deaths due to neglect and abuse.

 

[Rhea]

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today.

Wait. I just noticed this. Do you really have so little regard for these victims that you have not read the stories about them? You really have not heard the FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS of indigenous people who are ALIVE TODAY who saw their siblings and friends beaten and then disappear?

I guess it is handy to aviod the trauma and blurt out, “none of them or their immediate family are alive,” because then you can argue no one needs to have any shame, or responsibility.


But you are dead flat wrong that no one alive today was witness to this atrocity.
Do a little bit of research, it won’t take you long.

The double tragedy is that they have been telling us all along and our white system would not believe them or honor their claim. Back when all the perpetrators were alive, we didn’t listen. How much of a monster are we if we say, “yeah, I successfully ignored you so long that now I can claim it doesn’t matter any more. Hah. See what I did there?”


Shame on you for not even bothering to look for their stories, for claiming that they are not even alive. For dehumanising them further.

https://www.wkar.org/post/survivors-indian-boarding-schools-tell-their-stories#stream/0

Edith Young is a native of Alaska who now lives in Michigan. As a child, she was forced to leave her parents to live at an Indian Boarding School in Seattle. In the film, she says although she's 80 years old, the memories still hurt.

"We were yelled at and slapped. In the 3rd grade, I asked the teacher why she was teaching that Columbus discovered America when Indians were here first. She came over and slapped me across my face. To be humiliated in front of the class, I'll never forget that."

Young and others are part of a "talking circle" at American Indian Services in Lincoln Park. Fay Givens directs the agency. She says the people in the "talking circle" inspired the film.

"They started sharing stories with each other," says Givens. "As time went on, I realized that this story needed to be taken to a broader audience, and that most people in this country had never heard about what happened to native people and the requirement that they go to these boarding schools. These are the survivors of those schools."

 

[Rhea]

It took one search on living victims of tribal schools to find the stories. You can see videos of them on tiktok and youtube.


It is SO EASY t find their stories, if you care enough to even spend 10 seconds typing a search.


https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...umatic-legacy-indian-boarding-schools/584293/

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/03/stories-of-life-in-indian-boarding-schools

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

Most holidays don't really make sense.

 

[bilby]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

^this.

Corporate entities such as nation states and religious organisations are real and have moral rights and responsibilities.

 

[Gospel]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

Most holidays don't really make sense.

The constitution was written by a bunch of dead people. None of you alive today was alive when it was written or became law, as such none of you are bound by the constitution. A child born in America today has nothing to do with America as it was founded 89,487 days ago.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Clearly, if there is no entity “church,” then there is no one to complain when one burns to the ground.

First, you seem to be equivocating between the Catholic Church and the actual buildings. The buildings are burned or vandalized, not the Catholic Church.

Second, the Catholic Church exists, is such an entity, but it's the activity of many people, not some entity beyond that.

Third, the buildings exist, and there are people who use them and complain when they are burned to the ground. The Church can also complain, but - guess what - that too actually refers to some individual humans doing the complaining.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

Why would you bring that up?
It is not related to any of my points.

Anyway. they are celebrating what others did, because they like it, because of what it brought about, or because of what they believe it brought about, or something like that. The rationality of the behavior depends on the person, motivation, etc. But that is not related to my point about not being guilty (or for that matter worthy of praise) for what happened before. What would be irrational would be to sincerely take credit for something that happened on the fourth of July centuries ago, or apologize for something that happened then, things like that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Typing from my phone. The people alive in today's Catholic church has as much to do with the activities of the past Catholic church as today's Americans have to do with it's war of independence. None of y'all was alive back then, so why the fuck yall celebrating the 4th?

Most holidays don't really make sense.

The constitution was written by a bunch of dead people. None of you alive today was alive when it was written or became law, as such none of you are bound by the constitution. A child born in America today has nothing to do with America as it was founded 89,487 days ago.

Well, a child born today, when she grows up, should not go around taking credit or what happened back then. Or praising other living people for it. Or blaming then, etc.

As to whether they have something to do with it, well, in which sense? There is a causal connection that goes from then to now. So, in that sense, they have "something to do" with it. But certainly the "something to do" has nothing to do with what the people living today deserve.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is worth asking, IMHO, why the catholic heirarchy wears gowns and shawls and conical hats and golden trinkets.
WHY do they use altar scarves embroidered with specific symbols?
WHY do they have such a specific style to their buildings, with a steeple, or stained glass windows?

You could ask each of those making the choices above (from what to wear to whether to order a building) their reasons, and maybe some of them will be honest, so that might satisfy your curiosity.

The Church does this because it derives its present day authority and holiness from the actions of the past.

You mean, Church officials? Alternatively, they wear gowns and the like because that is expected of them, in their job. They consider their authority to be from God by the way, though the capitalized Tradition of the Catholic Church is a source of dogma in their beliefs (not of authority).

The church wants to gain the fame and power that was built in the past.
The church wants to known as a monolith because that brings following and momentum and a seat at government tables.

You mean church officials want to do that? Or do you think there is a non-human mind lurking in the shadows and who has those wants?
At any rate, do you think there is a self-aware non-human entity at play? Or at least a conscious one, with a complex mind? If not, who has those wants, if not humans?

The church WANTS to be an entity of its own. It wants the fame of being associated with its past self. It wants to be able to say - as a corporation - these are my values, these are my belongings, these are my people, and we behave the way we behave (oh! All good!) because our teachings which are rooted in millenia, make us different.

Again, are you talking about what some human church leaders want? Or do you think there is an entity "church" above human activity, and who has those desires? The claim "The church WANTS to be an entity of its own" suggests a non-human mind at play. Is that what you are talking about?

WHY do they gather on Sundays, and on Wednesdays as well?
WHY do the parishioners recite centuries-old verses in unison?

Notice how you now shifted from "it" back to "they". You are jumping back and forth. Is the "it" not just the "they", that is the activity of individual humans?

They do it because they want to be known as one of that group, that set of beliefs, that set of actions. They want to belong to that corporation.

Yeah, that sounds more like it: humans, not a weird nonhuman mind. Sure, they want many things. But they - the ones living today - are not guilty for the actions of dead people, of course, regardless of what they want.

WHY do they venerate Francis? Because they like Francis? No. It’s because he holds the title of “Pope,” and he represents the enduring ongoing stewardship of the flock, and a title that connects him to, and builds his authority on, the actions of the past.

So they build their pride on this ongoing connection. They build their power on this ongoing connection. They build their entire reputation as an extension of their own past.

…. Until a boy shows up, raped. Until a girl shows up raped. Until a native child is discovered as murdered.

And then it’s all, “yeah, how can we be held morally responsible for our past? The one we embrace every day and tell everyne we’re better because of?

They cannot be morally guilty for what people did before they were born, or after that but not connected to them. Now they can be morally guilty for believing that Catholicism is true; alright, maybe that's immoral (I think it depends on the person, but sure, that's common enough).

They speak with a forked tongue. It is a repulsive lie. “Oh, who, us? No. We didn’t do that. Infact, there’s no ‘we’ at all. We aren’t a coherent organization that uses the past to make ourselves powerful. No, oh, pisssshh, no, we’re just a randome collection of unconnected people here. But - don’t burn down our church, that’s ours. Well, except for the moments when we advocated killing in it. I’m not sure that even happened. What church?”

Who speaks with a forked tongue? I'm the one saying that they can't be guilty for the actions of others. But see what you're doing here. You say "except for the moments when we advocate killing in it". No, Francis and others do not advocate killing in the church. At all. They are not guilty. Now if you find that they speak with a forked tongue, make your case if you like. And if you are right about that, well that is a good reason to blame them for that, and so they should apologize for that, that is for what they did, not for what others did.

 

[Toni]

You could ask each of those making the choices above (from what to wear to whether to order a building) their reasons, and maybe some of them will be honest, so that might satisfy your curiosity.



You mean, Church officials? Alternatively, they wear gowns and the like because that is expected of them, in their job. They consider their authority to be from God by the way, though the capitalized Tradition of the Catholic Church is a source of dogma in their beliefs (not of authority).

The church wants to gain the fame and power that was built in the past.
The church wants to known as a monolith because that brings following and momentum and a seat at government tables.

You mean church officials want to do that? Or do you think there is a non-human mind lurking in the shadows and who has those wants?
At any rate, do you think there is a self-aware non-human entity at play? Or at least a conscious one, with a complex mind? If not, who has those wants, if not humans?

The church WANTS to be an entity of its own. It wants the fame of being associated with its past self. It wants to be able to say - as a corporation - these are my values, these are my belongings, these are my people, and we behave the way we behave (oh! All good!) because our teachings which are rooted in millenia, make us different.

Again, are you talking about what some human church leaders want? Or do you think there is an entity "church" above human activity, and who has those desires? The claim "The church WANTS to be an entity of its own" suggests a non-human mind at play. Is that what you are talking about?

WHY do they gather on Sundays, and on Wednesdays as well?
WHY do the parishioners recite centuries-old verses in unison?

Notice how you now shifted from "it" back to "they". You are jumping back and forth. Is the "it" not just the "they", that is the activity of individual humans?

They do it because they want to be known as one of that group, that set of beliefs, that set of actions. They want to belong to that corporation.

Yeah, that sounds more like it: humans, not a weird nonhuman mind. Sure, they want many things. But they - the ones living today - are not guilty for the actions of dead people, of course, regardless of what they want.

WHY do they venerate Francis? Because they like Francis? No. It’s because he holds the title of “Pope,” and he represents the enduring ongoing stewardship of the flock, and a title that connects him to, and builds his authority on, the actions of the past.

So they build their pride on this ongoing connection. They build their power on this ongoing connection. They build their entire reputation as an extension of their own past.

…. Until a boy shows up, raped. Until a girl shows up raped. Until a native child is discovered as murdered.

And then it’s all, “yeah, how can we be held morally responsible for our past? The one we embrace every day and tell everyne we’re better because of?

They cannot be morally guilty for what people did before they were born, or after that but not connected to them. Now they can be morally guilty for believing that Catholicism is true; alright, maybe that's immoral (I think it depends on the person, but sure, that's common enough).

They speak with a forked tongue. It is a repulsive lie. “Oh, who, us? No. We didn’t do that. Infact, there’s no ‘we’ at all. We aren’t a coherent organization that uses the past to make ourselves powerful. No, oh, pisssshh, no, we’re just a randome collection of unconnected people here. But - don’t burn down our church, that’s ours. Well, except for the moments when we advocated killing in it. I’m not sure that even happened. What church?”

Who speaks with a forked tongue? I'm the one saying that they can't be guilty for the actions of others. But see what you're doing here. You say "except for the moments when we advocate killing in it". No, Francis and others do not advocate killing in the church. At all. They are not guilty. Now if you find that they speak with a forked tongue, make your case if you like. And if you are right about that, well that is a good reason to blame them for that, and so they should apologize for that, that is for what they did, not for what others did.

If the Catholic Church and its leadership do not wish to be tarnished with the brush of racism, child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, bigotry, genocide and other sins attributable to historic Church stances and actions, then they can quit engaging in such and even step up, acknowledge past sins and make their penance. After all, isn't that part of the Catholic teachings: acknowledge and confess your sins, make your penance, sin no more?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If the Catholic Church and its leadership do not wish to be tarnished with the brush of racism, child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, bigotry, genocide and other sins attributable to historic Church stances and actions, then they can quit engaging in such and even step up, acknowledge past sins and make their penance. After all, isn't that part of the Catholic teachings: acknowledge and confess your sins, make your penance, sin no more?

No, because past immoral behaviors are not their immoral behaviors (not the ones we are talking about).

And see the claim you make here: "they can quit engaging in such "...well, they aren't. Some are guilty of some of those things. None is guilty of all. And none is guilty of genocide (i.e., no present-day leader of the Catholic Church). And who is the Catholic Church, which you separate from its leadership? If you're talking about the actions of all other members, well, guilt depends on the member.

 

[Angry Floof]

If the Catholic Church and its leadership do not wish to be tarnished with the brush of racism, child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, bigotry, genocide and other sins attributable to historic Church stances and actions, then they can quit engaging in such and even step up, acknowledge past sins and make their penance. After all, isn't that part of the Catholic teachings: acknowledge and confess your sins, make your penance, sin no more?

No, because past immoral behaviors are not their immoral behaviors (not the ones we are talking about).

And see the claim you make here: "they can quit engaging in such "...well, they aren't. Some are guilty of some of those things. None is guilty of all. And none is guilty of genocide (i.e., no present-day leader of the Catholic Church). And who is the Catholic Church, which you separate from its leadership? If you're talking about the actions of all other members, well, guilt depends on the member.

The RCC, like much of religious organizations everywhere, is an environment where abusers can thrive. Not everyone abuses, but everyone contributes to that environment, including parishioners, regardless of what good people they are or how much they oppose child abuse.

And until those aspects of the religious tenets and social framework that allow for abuse are acknowledged and eradicated from the belief system, that abuse will continue. Various levels and kinds of obstacles may be placed here and there to obstruct abusers from abusing, but that changes all the time, and when accountability and transparency are higher, that's almost always, if not always, due to secular society impinging.

The RCC will always serve as a massive source of abuse of authority because it is designed and structured to protect authority figures, not to impose boundaries on them. Without seriously drastic, as in wipe clean and start over, reform, the RCC will always, always harm children to whatever extent wider society allows them to hide from accountability.