Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

Is that what you think it is? That in itself is curious because people have explained their point of disagreement, and that is NOT my point of disagreement.

They have not explained it very well or much, but when they did explain their views, and I keep disagreeing with them, because they keep blaming the innocent, if not explicitly, by means of demanding an explanation.

The disagreement is whether you can elevate people to positions of leadership, and support their continued elevation, while being unconnected to their crimes.

No, that is not the disagreement (though to be fair, there is disagreement about more than one thing; I was talking about the one that I consider central), though that is obscure, because "unconnected" is ambiguous. If you elevate a person to a position of leadership - how? -, then that does not mean at all that you are guilty of their crimes of course. You are guilty perhaps of choosing people who you should have expected would commit crimes. But whether you are actually guilty depends on the circumstances. For example, if you rationally expect Biden to commit some immoral actions as POTUS, but you rationally expect Trump to do much worse, it is not immoral all other things equal to vote Biden (suppose you also rationally reckon it's going to be one of them), and you do not become guilty of Biden's crimes if he commits some.

Moreover, people who voted Trump are also not guilty of his [moral, regardless of the law] crimes. Indeed, they cannot be made guilty retroactively (again, I'm talking morality, not legality). Suppose Karen voted Trump, and later Trump committed such-and-such moral offenses in office. Now, Trump could have chosen not to commit them. Whether Karen is guilty at the time of voting does not depend what Trump might decide in the future. And she cannot be made guilty retroactively.


So, in short, no, you do not become guilty of their crimes, future or past.

And if by "unconnected" you meant something else, whatever you mean it is not what this part of the debate is about.


That said, in any event, this is not what the debate is about, because it is not about elevating people to positions of leadership, but about being blamed for crimes other people committed.

It is about whether to can hang out regularly in a Nazi bar, filled with nazi sympathysers, and still claim to not be one yourself.

No, it is not about that - though of course one can do that, and perhaps rationally depending on context.

But in any case, it's more like whether one can hang out regularly in a Nazi bar, filled with Nazi sympathizers, and still claim rationally to not be guilty of the Holocaust. And of course, one can definitely do that too.

It is about whether you can give money to the coffers of those who commit heinous crimes, and claim to be innocent.

No, it is not about that. But yes, of course, if you give money to the coffers of those who committed heinous crimes in the past, you are not innocent of the crimes they committed before you gave them money. And also of course, you are also innocent of the crimes that they commit after that, as they cannot make you retroactively guilty. However, if you choose to give them money when you know of their crimes and you predict or should predict that they will commit more, while not guilty of their crimes you might be guilty of making a choice you predict or should predict would likely facilitate those crimes. Or you might not be guilty at all, if giving them money was a rational way of preventing something worse (e.g., donate to funding the government, police, etc., even though some members of those organizations will commit crimes in the context of their duties).

It is about whether you can learn of the heinous crimes supported by your money, your time, your membership, and then say, “it wasn’t me.”

No, it is not about that, as the crimes committed in those schools were not supported by the money of the parishioners and priests of today - at least not in general, and surely the people in this thread who demand apologies and the like did not investigate who had given money to the RCC long ago.

But of course, if you want to debate that too, then yes, of course you can rationally and sincerely say it was not you if it was not you. Now, if you pay money so that the crimes would be committed you are guilty of a different offense, but just as bad. On the other hand, if your money was misused and you did not intend to be used for such crimes but something much less evil, you certainly are not guilty of a crime about as evil as the crimes committed with your money.

It is about whether you can work to support a structure that gives power to these criminals and then say their power does not depend on you.

No, it's not about that. Of course, in that case their power would at least partially depend on you, though it might be a tiny contribution. But their crimes would be theirs, not yours. Whether you are guilty for helping them gain power depends on factors such as what information was available to you, what your intent was, whether you should have expected something worse if they did not gain power, and so on. These are all complicated matters that one should assessed on a case-by-case basis, but it is not what this debate is about. The parishioners and priests did not in general gave power to the criminals who committed those crimes in the past. And if some did, before you blame them you should investigate who did that, why, etc.

The disagreement is about WHETHER they are innocent people.
You seem to be claiming that point is settled. It is not.

Actually, your first sentence here is true. The second one is not. When I say that the disagreement is about blaming the innocent, of course I realize that those who blame them claim that those are not innocent people - it goes with the meaning of 'blaming'. But sometimes, people to realize and acknowledge that someone is not guilty of some crimes, and then they keep implying they are, without realizing the inconsistency.

Indeed there is disagreement. About how closely you can socialize and conspire with the doers of heinous crime, and still avoid all culpability, legally and morally.

No, there is not. Morally, of course you would be guilty of conspiracy. Whether they later choose to commit the heinous crime is their choice, not yours, and cannot make your action more unethical retroactively. But of course, that is not what the disagreements are about here, as none of the people from whom an apology is demanded conspired with those who committed the heinous crimes under consideration, on the basis of the available evidence.

The crimes of organizations, whether it is a mob, a corporation, a religion, a “sun down town,” or the Catholic church, the ongoing crimes of these organizations depend upon the power of organization to be repeated decade after decade.

The thousands of rape cases against priests, who used the social and legal power of the church to avoid detection and to moe to a new place and victimize new people, required that power to get away with it. That power came from the parishioners. That ability to to continue was built by the voluntary contributions of money and membership that made the church big enough to be used for evil. Many of those leaders are still in place, and the people who give them legitimacy are the parishioners.

Which parishioners? The parishioners of today? No, unless perhaps they were parishioners back when the crimes were committed.
The parishioners of that time?
Well, they certainly are not guilty of abuse or murder they did not commit. They are guilty of giving money to the Catholic Church willingly - if they did so willingly - and how guilty they are depends on their intent, the information available to them, etc. Now I do think giving money to any church is usually immoral. But there are different degrees of immorality, and one should assess the matter of guilt on a case-by-case basis.

You continue to argue that giving them money does not contribute to the crime. You continue to argue that being a member, and allowing them to say, “we have a billion members to give us power” does not contribute ot the cover up.

I do not argue that it does not contribute. I point out that:

1. There is no good evidence that present-day parishioners contributed money to the crime. There is conclusive evidence that most of them did not.
2. Contributing money to the crime does not make you guilty of that crime (again, moral crime, not legal crime). It might make you guilty of contributing money, depending on the information available to you, your intent, what one should expect if the money is used in a different manner, and so on, all mothers that one should assess on a case-by-case basis.

Ask yourself WHY are these crimes still uncovered? WHO is responsible for the wall of silence? They are guilty.

You tell me, why? Is it because Francis is covering them up? Is it because the parishioners and/or priests in the burned churches covered them up?
If you have conclusive evidence of that - but where is it - then sure, it is rational to blame them for the coverup, not for the crimes.

Every word you write is an argument that this should be shrugged off because you don’t think anyone should be made to look for more recent murders.

Not a single word I write is an argument for that. I am not against looking for more recent murders. Whether the police should do that depends on the probability of such crimes vs. the availability of limited police resources that need to be used to prevent other crimes, considering also factors like violent uprisings if they do not look for them, etc. It's a complicated matter, but I'm inclined to think they probably should look for more recent crimes, on the basis of the available evidence. Of course, this is not even connected with my arguments against blaming the innocent.

No one should be able to force the church to check they back yards for bodies.

Who is "the churce"? But yes, that would be wrong. Granting than looking for newer crimes is justified, forcing third parties to do the search would be unjust. The police should do that. Of course, this is a very different matter from whether some people in the church should look for that.

. “Hey, you have to give me an actual murderer before anyone is culpable. And without that, we sweep it under the rug… still.

I keep reading what you write and while you say, “someone did something heinous,” you follow it up by saying, but they are probably dead and since no one else is responsible, you people are wrong to force the Catholic Church to be treated as a suspect.

No, I'm not saying that. Well, I wasn't. Since you bring that up, yes, I think you should not treat "the Catholic Church" as a suspect. That is group thinking. Sure Francis is not a suspect of those crimes. Who is, on the basis of the available evidence? Some Catholics? Well, then treat them as suspect, not as already proven guilty - which is what you do when you blame someone.

A landlord owns a thousand proprties, the first two have bodies in them. But we can’t claim the superintendant should be arrested because…. They succeeded in distancing themselves. “Nice tribe you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.” But, who, me? I didn’t do anything worong.

That depends on the evidence against the superintendent. If, say, hundreds of people live in those properties, arresting one just because they're bodies in them seems like a clear injustice. You need more evidence, even for a preventive arrest. But to (properly) blame them, you need far more evidence.

It’s really really disturbing how little you have cared to discuss what should be done about the thousands of murdered children who are still missing, and the RCC who refuses to look for them.

Again, there is no disagreement about that!! Or rather, so far, there wasn't; given your latest post, there might be. But my time is limited. Maybe later.

And you say, “Yeah, I agree they shouldn’t have to look. I have all these little explanations for why they are not culpable, if you hold it just so and shine a blacklight on it from a 20 degree angle at sunset.”

Please do not do use quotation marks when I did not say it, without making it clear that I did not say it.

Also, no, I said nothing implying that.

I find your energy in making sure no one is examined to be very disturbing.

I find your energy in blaming the innocent due to group think and vastly misconstruing what your debate opponents say...ubiquitous. I used to find those disturbing. Now I've seen them so many times that I just think it must be Tuesday...or any other day of the week.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you think morality has a universal standard, I have some bad news for you. In fact it's pretty subjective as fuck.

Then why are you even arguing? It's perhaps immoral to you, but not to me. And your morality is not better than mine in a sense of 'better' that is based on a universal standard. Or do you think there is, say, a culture-based standard and we're both in the same culture, or something like that?

But of course, the fact that you got the wrong metaethics is not good reason to reject your first-order ethical claims or arguments - though there are plenty of good reasons to reject them, in this case.

You seem to be awfully dismissive of the event that led to the burning of said churches.

I am not. I'm pointing out that the wrong people are being blamed, among other things.

Guilt, accountability and responsibility are three very different things. The Catholic Church should be held accountable for their actions.

What does "held accountable mean" if not punished for the things of which they are guilty?
No, the Catholic Church is not a person, and some of the people in the Catholic Church (maybe some still alive) are guilty and should be held accountable.

As the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope is responsible for what the church does.

Responsible? As in he has a moral obligation to pay compensation? Well, no. Or rather, it depends on the case. Certainly he has no such responsibility for these cases.

You mean something else, like guilty?. Then no.

Pope Francis specifically isn't guilty of murdering children and putting them in a mass grave. The Catholic Church's handling of this entire atrocity is sub par. It is unsurprising this has lead to outrage.

What if Francis guilty of, in this case?

If you take a leadership role in an organization you are accountable for what that organization does.

Accountable? As in to blame? No, you are to blame for your choices, not for those of others. I'm talking morality, not legality.

The measure and extent of accountability varies but that doesn't make it any less real. As Pope Francis is in charge, he is very much responsible for what he Catholic Church collectively does.

Responsible? As in he has a moral obligation to pay compensation? Well, no. Or rather, it depends on the case. Certainly he has no such responsibility for these cases.

You mean something else, like guilty?. Then no.

 

[Angry Floof]

As long as that belief in the moral authority of a fraudulent, corrupt organization prevails, the least among us will continue to be abused and killed and the evidence buried. Indigenous people, poor people, young unwed mothers, the sick, desperate, and disabled, will always be targets of such an institution while the authority pays lip service to humane ideals. People who can't or won't fight back will always be the first targets of corrupt powers and corrupt powers will always claim to be helping.

That belief is held by millions, giving real power to the fake authority. And there will always be those who insist that the least among us and the massive authority be morally evaluated as being on the same playing level.

If imbalance of power is not recognized in your analysis of an organization that continues to abuse and the powerless victims of that abuse, then your moral code or principles, or whatever you want to call the values that uphold your world view, and you defend the organization because new (but not changed) authority figures hold that power, you will always serve as a cancer cell in that malignant tumor of humanity. Your morals are not moral, in other words.

This is not an absolute morality. It's just a humane one. If you're a human and your world view is not humane and does not value protecting the least among us, recognize how power and lack of accountability affects human behavior, and holding power accountable, you may not consider that immoral per se, but it is clearly inhumane.

I have no idea what "absolute morality" really means or if it's a real thing, but I do know that my own world view is humane and as a human being, I don't know what other kind of morality would be superior to that, but it seems that people who "just want to feel superior" and not recognize humanity in their abstractions will claim that the RCC and the indigenous people and other powerless people it abuses and murders and tries to genocide out of existence are on the same playing field in terms of accountability.

 

[Toni]

I'm trying to use historical data.

Like the schools were government schools.
Tom

And the murders were Roman Catholic murders.

I don't know with certainty that all of those dead bodies belonged to people who were murdered. I think that it is quite feasible that there were massive outbreaks of disease that carried off children who were debilitated by neglect, abuse, malnutrition, grief over being away from their families. Or because they were children. I think the Church definitely bears responsibility for the conditions under which the children were held and any role that played in their deaths. I don't know what is being done to determine cause of death so it is possible that we will never know. But the fact that the Catholic Church was responsible for their care and feeding and education and failed to notify parents when their children died or to tell them where they were buried is 100% on the Catholic Church.

If I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church and all of its churches and schools have been noted for making copious records so the particulars of any such outbreak and the names, ages, and reasons for death for any of the children who perished under their care.

 

[Toni]

That's a lot of words to say "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility".

Which should also apply to the arsonists of course.

The burning of the churches, during which time no one was injured or killed because the arsonists took great care to ensure that no one would be killed is dramatically less horrible a crime than the abduction of hundreds children who were badly mistreated, malnourished, abused, neglected and prevented from maintaining a relationship with their families or even their siblings if they were also interred at these schools.

I think the burning of the churches is less bad than burying the bodies of children in shallow, unmarked graves and failing to notify their families of their deaths and the manner of their deaths.

 

[laughing dog]

Your conclusion is not at all derived from that premise.

It was not a deduction. It was an assessment on the basis of the irrational behavior of many people.

It is an irrational assessment.

Again, who is the RCC? ...

Please this pretend obtuseness is pointless - the RCC is an institution. It has been an institution over 1000 years - something anyone who is contributing to the discussion ought to know.

Now, if you think that Francis should acknowledge they were wrongs done by other people in the Catholic Church, that's a very different matter. He certainly should not deny it (but he does not), and if asked, arguably he should acknowledge that it happened. But he should not apologize - not sincerely - because it is not his fault. And saying that it was someone else's fault is not an apology.

Apologizing for the wrong done in the name of the RCC or under the aegis of the RCC is exactly what the Pope ought to do. In 2015 the Pope apologizes for the RCC's role in oppression in Latin America, so the Pope and the RCC disagrees with your irrational position. And if the Pope can apologize for that, the Pope can apologize for this horrific tragedy.

 

[Patooka]

That's a lot of words to say "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility".

Which should also apply to the arsonists of course.

The burning of the churches, during which time no one was injured or killed because the arsonists took great care to ensure that no one would be killed is dramatically less horrible a crime than the abduction of hundreds children who were badly mistreated, malnourished, abused, neglected and prevented from maintaining a relationship with their families or even their siblings if they were also interred at these schools.

I think the burning of the churches is less bad than burying the bodies of children in shallow, unmarked graves and failing to notify their families of their deaths and the manner of their deaths.

Don't be so fucking dense. The bodies in those mass grave were from indigenous people. Derec could probably explain this better than me, but it's common knowledge that white men > property > everybody else.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As long as that belief in the moral authority of a fraudulent, corrupt organization prevails, the least among us will continue to be abused and killed and the evidence buried. Indigenous people, poor people, young unwed mothers, the sick, desperate, and disabled, will always be targets of such an institution while the authority pays lip service to humane ideals. People who can't or won't fight back will always be the first targets of corrupt powers and corrupt powers will always claim to be helping.

That belief is held by millions, giving real power to the fake authority. And there will always be those who insist that the least among us and the massive authority be morally evaluated as being on the same playing level.

If imbalance of power is not recognized in your analysis of an organization that continues to abuse and the powerless victims of that abuse, then your moral code or principles, or whatever you want to call the values that uphold your world view, and you defend the organization because new (but not changed) authority figures hold that power, you will always serve as a cancer cell in that malignant tumor of humanity. Your morals are not moral, in other words.

This is not an absolute morality. It's just a humane one. If you're a human and your world view is not humane and does not value protecting the least among us, recognize how power and lack of accountability affects human behavior, and holding power accountable, you may not consider that immoral per se, but it is clearly inhumane.

I never met a kid who cared about AM's metaethics either. But they must be out there, you know, those kids who understand the world as AM understands it. I'll keep looking.

 

[Derec]

The burning of the churches, during which time no one was injured or killed because the arsonists took great care to ensure that no one would be killed is dramatically less horrible a crime than the abduction of hundreds children who were badly mistreated, malnourished, abused, neglected and prevented from maintaining a relationship with their families or even their siblings if they were also interred at these schools.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Burning down buildings because of bad things done many decades ago is not justified. 9/11 was much more recent, but that does not give anybody the right to go around burning down mosques.
According to your world view, burning mosques would not be a big deal because murdering thousands of people in a terrorist attack is much worse. Or does your moral calculus only apply to Catholics, but not Muslims?

I think the burning of the churches is less bad than burying the bodies of children in shallow, unmarked graves and failing to notify their families of their deaths and the manner of their deaths.

Both are bad. One happened recently, the other many decades ago.
Do you think the arsonists should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

 

[Derec]

Don't be so fucking dense. The bodies in those mass grave were from indigenous people. Derec could probably explain this better than me, but it's common knowledge that white men > property > everybody else.

Your idiotic statements are quite insulting.

 

[bilby]

The burning of the churches, during which time no one was injured or killed because the arsonists took great care to ensure that no one would be killed is dramatically less horrible a crime than the abduction of hundreds children who were badly mistreated, malnourished, abused, neglected and prevented from maintaining a relationship with their families or even their siblings if they were also interred at these schools.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Burning down buildings because of bad things done many decades ago is not justified. 9/11 was much more recent, but that does not give anybody the right to go around burning down mosques.
According to your world view, burning mosques would not be a big deal because murdering thousands of people in a terrorist attack is much worse. Or does your moral calculus only apply to Catholics, but not Muslims?

You aren't aware of what the US military did in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last two decades in retaliation for 9/11, mostly against people who had very little to do with the hijackings that destroyed the twin towers?

I think the burning of the churches is less bad than burying the bodies of children in shallow, unmarked graves and failing to notify their families of their deaths and the manner of their deaths.

Both are bad. One happened recently, the other many decades ago.
Do you think the arsonists should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Do you think that the US servicemen who killed around 200,000 Iraqi civilians (none of whom were likely involved in the 9/11 attacks, which by the way happened decades ago) should be arrested and prosecuted? Should their commanders? The politicians who ordered the invasion of Iraq?

 

[Derec]

You aren't aware of what the US military did in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last two decades in retaliation for 9/11, mostly against people who had very little to do with the hijackings that destroyed the twin towers?

The Taliban gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, which makes them accomplices. Too bad Biden is fixing to let Taliban reconquer Afghanistan.

Iraq is more complicated. It was not about 9/11 directly, even if 9/11 meant that a war against Iraq would be easier to get through Congress.

Do you think that the US servicemen who killed around 200,000 Iraqi civilians (none of whom were likely involved in the 9/11 attacks, which by the way happened decades ago) should be arrested and prosecuted? Should their commanders? The politicians who ordered the invasion of Iraq?

People die in wars (although your numbers are suspect. How do you define "civilian"?) If any servicemembers violated the laws of war, they should be prosecuted, otherwise not.

What does that have to do with people like Toni defending arson? If it's ok for individual Indians to burn down Catholic churches because they are angry over these old graves, would it not be ok for individual Americans to burn down mosques because they are angry over 9/11? I was talking individual criminal action that Toni et al are defending, not official government action.

 

[bilby]

You aren't aware of what the US military did in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last two decades in retaliation for 9/11, mostly against people who had very little to do with the hijackings that destroyed the twin towers?

The Taliban gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, which makes them accomplices. Too bad Biden is fixing to let Taliban reconquer Afghanistan.

Iraq is more complicated. It was not about 9/11 directly, even if 9/11 meant that a war against Iraq would be easier to get through Congress.

Do you think that the US servicemen who killed around 200,000 Iraqi civilians (none of whom were likely involved in the 9/11 attacks, which by the way happened decades ago) should be arrested and prosecuted? Should their commanders? The politicians who ordered the invasion of Iraq?

People die in wars (although your numbers are suspect. How do you define "civilian"?) If any servicemembers violated the laws of war, they should be prosecuted, otherwise not.

What does that have to do with people like Toni defending arson? If it's ok for individual Indians to burn down Catholic churches because they are angry over these old graves, would it not be ok for individual Americans to burn down mosques because they are angry over 9/11? I was talking individual criminal action that Toni et al are defending, not official government action.

I am sure that you see individual action and official government criminal action as completely separate and unrelated issues.

I am also sure that you are deeply wrong in doing so.

The Catholic church gave a lot more than just aid and comfort to the killers of these children. The destruction of a few buildings seems like a very small price for their involvement.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is an irrational assessment.

That is false. I invite readers to take a look at the relevant part of the exchange.

Please this pretend obtuseness is pointless - the RCC is an institution. It has been an institution over 1000 years - something anyone who is contributing to the discussion ought to know.

This is not obtuness, pretend or otherwise. It is key, crucial, the most important point. Who is the RCC? What is an institution, but some of the activity of some humans?

People may say that 'The Catholic Church did this...' as short hand for what some of the members did in the context of the activities connected to what we call 'the church'. But even though the name of an institution may be preserved across time, and even if there is some causal continuity that justifies said usage in some contexts, but there is no continuity of the individuals, and there no guilt passed on to the next generation. People are born not guilty, and cannot be made retroactively guilty for things that happened before they were born - or, for that matter, for the choices or failures to make choices of other people.

Apologizing for the wrong done in the name of the RCC or under the aegis of the RCC is exactly what the Pope ought to do.

He ought not to do that sincerely, for the reasons I have been explaining. If he were to apologize sincerely, he would be implicitly saying that he is to blame. Why? Because that is what it is to apologize. He would not at all be apologizing if he were to state that horrible crimes were committed in the past in the name of the RCC but that he is not guilty of them, or that he is not at fault, etc., but that would be true. And if he were to leave the part about his not being guilty at all and he just stated "horrible crimes were committed in the past in the name of the RCC", that too would not be an apology. And if he were to say "I'm sorry that we did that", then he would either be insincere or confused, since he has nothing to apologize for (not in relation to these crimes), since he did nothing wrong.

In 2015 the Pope apologizes for the RCC's role in oppression in Latin America, so the Pope and the RCC disagrees with your irrational position. And if the Pope can apologize for that, the Pope can apologize for this horrific tragedy.

Of course he can apologize. He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally. As for the 2015 apology, I do not know whether it was insincere or sincere and irrational.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As long as that belief in the moral authority of a fraudulent, corrupt organization prevails, the least among us will continue to be abused and killed and the evidence buried. Indigenous people, poor people, young unwed mothers, the sick, desperate, and disabled, will always be targets of such an institution while the authority pays lip service to humane ideals. People who can't or won't fight back will always be the first targets of corrupt powers and corrupt powers will always claim to be helping.

That belief is held by millions, giving real power to the fake authority. And there will always be those who insist that the least among us and the massive authority be morally evaluated as being on the same playing level.

If imbalance of power is not recognized in your analysis of an organization that continues to abuse and the powerless victims of that abuse, then your moral code or principles, or whatever you want to call the values that uphold your world view, and you defend the organization because new (but not changed) authority figures hold that power, you will always serve as a cancer cell in that malignant tumor of humanity. Your morals are not moral, in other words.

This is not an absolute morality. It's just a humane one. If you're a human and your world view is not humane and does not value protecting the least among us, recognize how power and lack of accountability affects human behavior, and holding power accountable, you may not consider that immoral per se, but it is clearly inhumane.

I never met a kid who cared about AM's metaethics either. But they must be out there, you know, those kids who understand the world as AM understands it. I'll keep looking.

You don't have the slightest idea how I understand the world, going by your failure to even approximately understand my posts, so chances are you will not find them.

 

[Toni]

The burning of the churches, during which time no one was injured or killed because the arsonists took great care to ensure that no one would be killed is dramatically less horrible a crime than the abduction of hundreds children who were badly mistreated, malnourished, abused, neglected and prevented from maintaining a relationship with their families or even their siblings if they were also interred at these schools.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Burning down buildings because of bad things done many decades ago is not justified. 9/11 was much more recent, but that does not give anybody the right to go around burning down mosques.
According to your world view, burning mosques would not be a big deal because murdering thousands of people in a terrorist attack is much worse. Or does your moral calculus only apply to Catholics, but not Muslims?

Absolutely no where have I said that I thought that it was OK to burn down churches.

One of those things is way worse than the other, though, or do you not agree that forcibly removing children from their families, placing them in 'residential schools' where they are abused, physically, emotionally, and sexually, forbidden to speak their own language or engage in their own cultural practices, forbidden from seeing their own families, being inadequately fed and nourished and when they die, not notifying their family or giving them a proper burial is more wrong than burning down a few buildings that are empty of human inhabitants at the time?

We do not know how long ago those children died. The last school only closed in 1996.

We do know that the wrong of not notifying the families or providing information about where the children were buried has been ongoing and is still unacknowledged by those responsible for their mistreatments and deaths.

I think the burning of the churches is less bad than burying the bodies of children in shallow, unmarked graves and failing to notify their families of their deaths and the manner of their deaths.

Both are bad. One happened recently, the other many decades ago.
Do you think the arsonists should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

We don't know how long ago those children whose bodies have recently been discovered and are still being discovered died or how long ago they were stolen from their families, abused and neglected and when they died, buried in shallow, unmarked graves. We don't know how they died.

I think that the Church should be made to pay for its crimes first.

As to how I feel/what I think about this:

The homes of serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gacy have been destroyed because of the horrors that were committed there.
How many people do you think the US is responsible for killing and imprisoning since 9/11?

Please do not further hurl disgusting insults at me by imagining what my world view is.

 

[laughing dog]

That is false. I invite readers to take a look at the relevant part of the exchange.

And they will see it is irrational.

This is not obtuness, pretend or otherwise. It is key, crucial, the most important point. Who is the RCC? What is an institution, but some of the activity of some humans?

Any horrific act done under the name of the RCC places responsibility and/or guilt on the the RCC. That is the real world.

He ought not to do that sincerely, for the reasons I have been explaining. If he were to apologize sincerely, he would be implicitly saying that he is to blame.

When the spokesperson for an institution apologizes, no rational individual thinks the spokesperson is to blame. Unsurprisingly, your claim is ridiculous.

Of course he can apologize. He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally. As for the 2015 apology, I do not know whether it was insincere or sincere and irrational.

Rational people understand your presented an irrational false dichotomy.

 

[TomC]

Any horrific act done under the name of the RCC places responsibility and/or guilt on the the RCC. That is the real world.

I see "collective guilt" as a primitive ethical notion.

I know some people(I'm related to them by marriage,sigh) who firmly believe that Trump was the best president ever and the election of 2020 was fraudulent. That doesn't make them guilty concerning Jan 6.
Tom

 

[crazyfingers]

/Mod

 

[laughing dog]

Any horrific act done under the name of the RCC places responsibility and/or guilt on the the RCC. That is the real world.

I see "collective guilt" as a primitive ethical notion.

I know some people(I'm related to them by marriage,sigh) who firmly believe that Trump was the best president ever and the election of 2020 was fraudulent. That doesn't make them guilty concerning Jan 6.
Tom

This is not about collective guilt - it is about the RCC taking responsibility for actions done under its name.