Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Elixir]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

Jesus: "What makes you think I like crosses?"

 

[Rhea]

Apologists: get back to me when you can point to evidence that the Catholic church is spending whatever it takes to do the ground penetrating radar at every one of its former indigenous schools immediately and determine whether (more) crimes were commited in its name.

Until then, pound sand. Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

 

[Bomb#20]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

Are there any Catholics on this thread?

 

[Bomb#20]

Apologists: get back to me when you can point to evidence that the Catholic church is spending whatever it takes to do the ground penetrating radar at every one of its former indigenous schools immediately and determine whether (more) crimes were commited in its name.

Until then, pound sand. Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

 

[Jarhyn]

Apologists: get back to me when you can point to evidence that the Catholic church is spending whatever it takes to do the ground penetrating radar at every one of its former indigenous schools immediately and determine whether (more) crimes were commited in its name.

Until then, pound sand. Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

 

[TomC]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

"Catholics"?

Try convincing Lutherans that Martin Luther and his anti-Jewish teachings were Hitler's go to religious justification for the Holocaust. And it worked.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Apologists: get back to me when you can point to evidence that the Catholic church is spending whatever it takes to do the ground penetrating radar at every one of its former indigenous schools immediately and determine whether (more) crimes were commited in its name.

Until then, pound sand. Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Aren't you an American?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Apologists: get back to me when you can point to evidence that the Catholic church is spending whatever it takes to do the ground penetrating radar at every one of its former indigenous schools immediately and determine whether (more) crimes were commited in its name.

Until then, pound sand. Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Only then if America is an argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Aren't you an American?
Tom

Why would that matter? If you can characterize discussions of response actions to untenable and unacceptable activities that involve burning buildings as "Apologetics for arson", then you can characterize discussion of response actions to untenable and unacceptable activities that involve betraying a government as "apologetics for treason".

It doesn't matter where I am from; I can as easily recognize the pattern of bad faith present there.

Now if you wish to spin, I enjoin you to at least, first, sit.

 

[Gospel]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

"Catholics"?

Try convincing Lutherans that Martin Luther and his anti-Jewish teachings were Hitler's go to religious justification for the Holocaust. And it worked.
Tom

One of the above quotes is clearly on topic and the other will need footnotes to tie it in.

 

[TomC]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

"Catholics"?

Try convincing Lutherans that Martin Luther and his anti-Jewish teachings were Hitler's go to religious justification for the Holocaust. And it worked.
Tom

One of the above quotes is clearly on topic and the other will need footnotes to tie it in.

We probably disagree upon which is which.

But, oh well. I don't much care about your personal opinions on this subject.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

One of the above quotes is clearly on topic and the other will need footnotes to tie it in.

We probably disagree upon which is which.

But, oh well. I don't much care about your personal opinions on this subject.
Tom

I presume you changed your mind about quoting me on another platform then. You still have my permission btw.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

An apology is not the same thing as accepting guilt or even responsibility:

It is not the same as accepting guilt, but it entails accepting guilty. It involves accepting guilt + something else, such the implicit premise not to do it again, and an implicit assertion that one regrets having behaved wrongfully.

a·pol·o·gy
/əˈpäləjē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure.
"we owe you an apology"

Yes, they are acknowledging their own offense or failure. And the "we" is alright as long as they all agree to apologize and it is proper to each of them.

Definition of apology
1a: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret
a public apology
b apologies plural : an expression of regret for not being able to do something
I won't be able to attend. Please give them my apologies.
2a: something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize : DEFENSE
The book is an apology for capitalism.
b: EXCUSE sense 2a
3informal : a poor substitute or example : MAKESHIFT
He's a poor apology for a father.
Synonyms

And the one relevant here is 1., which is again an admission of guilt in this context.

A school sends a group of students on a school sanctioned field trip to a museum. All of the students are chaperoned, and have been thoroughly briefed on the conduct expected of them during the outing. Nonetheless, some student or students engage in a bit of horseplay and damage a display.
Obviously, the students owe the museum, their teachers and their school an apology. They or their parents may well also owe for damages.
However, the chaperoning teachers also owe an apology to the museum and to the school for failing in their chaperoning duties. Surely they would be expected to also offer some ways to avoid a similar situation in the future.

But the chaperoning teachers behaved unethically by failing to properly supervise the students - if they failed -. And then, perhaps they owe an apology to those to whom they had made a commitment. Note, however, that the teachers are guilty of failing to supervise, whereas the students are guilty of choosing to engage in horseplay.

Of course, Francis is not guilty of failure to supervise anyone in relation to these schools.

The school itself, by way of principal or other head administrator also owes an apology to the museum.

Who is "the school"?
The principal or whoever engaged in unethical behavior may owe an apology. If she did not engage in such behavior, then she does not owe an apology.

It also owes an apology to the staff and students, parents and community because students under its auspices caused damage at the museum and further damage to the reputation of the school, and by extension, any other school group or students who in the future might wish to go to the museum for a field trip.

No. Consider it this way: If the principal or whatever behaved unethically by giving the green light to the field trip under the given conditions, then she may owe an apology for that. But if she did not, then she will not become retroactively guilty because of the later unethical behavior by the students and/or the chaperons. She owes no apology.

The school might also bear some financial liabilities, depending on the circumstances and state laws, etc.

Yes, but I'm not making a legal argument. Furthermore, one can become in the moral sense financially liable by actions beyond one's control (e.g., insurance companies), regardless of whether one behaves immorally. But I'm talking about moral guilt, not about either a moral or a legal obligation to compensate.

The parents surely bear some responsibility for not raising their children to be respectful of the museum, other people's property or of representing the school when they went on the field trip.

Depending on how they did their parenting, the parents might or might not be guilty for unethical choices when raising their children. However, even if they are guilty, they do not become any more guilty just because their children do some damage. They were already guilty. At most, the damage provides evidence that they were guilty, though it is of course inconclusive - that might or might not be their fault, but regardless, it is a fault that happened before the trip.

During and preceding WWII, many pieces of art owned by Jews were seized by Nazis and used as spoils of war. In the intervening years since, many pieces of art have emerged from...auspices that seemed very likely to have been through the theft of artworks owned or painted by Jews who died in the Holocaust.

Suppose I inherit such a painting. My ancestors had no idea that the artwork was obtained through war crimes or theft--they bought it honestly enough, if somewhat naively. Perhaps they didn't even believe that the piece was authentic but merely a very good copy. In any case, I, born years after WWII, now own the art piece. During a social gathering, an art professor notes the piece and asks me questions about it and expresses suspicions that it might be an authentic piece of art that was stolen during WWII and only years later made its way into the market. He knows some people with expertise, and I agree to have the painting evaluated and the provenance of the painting examined thoroughly by experts. Several noted experts come to the same conclusion: my inherited painting was actually stolen from a Jewish family.

Although I have zero guilt in obtaining this artwork through illgotten means nor did my ancestors who acquired it honestly (or so they believed), I still have an obligation to see that painting returned to any surviving members of that family from whom the painting was stolen. Not because I did something wrong but because it is the right thing to do. In fact, that obligation might well be legal as well as moral.

I'm not making a case against obligations to compensate. I'm making a case against moral guilt. Obligations to compensate are another matter.

You or I or any American or Canadian living today almost certainly had nothing at all to do with such actions taken by the Canadian government, the US government or any of the churches, including the RCC. But we do have the responsibility of acknowledging the grave harm done to these children, these families, these peoples and to do our best to make whatever amends can now be made. That means that we hold our government and our churches accountable for what they did. It means that these bodies all acknowledge what they did, that it was wrong, apologize for these past grievous harms, do the utmost possible to ensure that such atrocities never happen again and to sit with people and try to determine what penance or compensation might help address these terrible wrongs.

Well, I have nothing to do with America or Canada. But that aside, no, you do not have an obligation to try to make amends. Because you did nothing wrong. Whether you have an obligation to pay compensation is a different matter, and a difficult one at that: consider your painting example. Suppose it was stolen art work. Suppose you sold it for a lot of money to a Russian and spent it in a fine college education, as well as trips around the world. Do you still have a moral obligation to pay, even though that would harm you (even ruin you) financially, and even though you were neither negligent nor dishonest?

Regardless, I have not made any claims about whether the RCC should pay compensation.

And no, you should not hold you government and "your" (not "your" at all!!!) churches accountable, if to "hold accountable" means in this context to punish for their wrongdoings. If not, what does it mean?

And yes, what they did was wrong, but "they" is not your government or "your" churches, but some people in past governments/churches.

And no, "these bodies" should not sincerely apologize, as their members did nothing wrong related to these matter.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

Can you identify the Catholics on this thread?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That’s the culpability, that “the church”. Who is the church? “The church” is all of the people who said nothing while grave harm was done, and all of the people who gave aid and comfort to those who did harm. They supported it with their membership and their tithes.

Most of the people who said nothing did not know anything about it, were not in a position to know it, and did nothing wrong in that regard. But those who knew it, or should have known it, etc., are guilty to different degrees for their own choices - not for the choice of kidnapping children, etc., unless they too made that choice.

However, Francis had nothing to do with it.

Now, if they truly didn’t know AND if they truly are innocent, they would be outraged right now that members of their church did this and no church authority cared to monitor or follow up on complaints.

That does not follow. People often tend to be biased towards their ingroup. It's a moral fault, but that does not make them retroactively guilty of whatever it is others did.

Are they? Nope. That’s “aid and comfort.” That’s the protection racket.

Not demanding something is not a protection racket. Suppose some public employees are corrupt. Those who aren't are not guilty of a protection racket just for not going against those who are. They're not the police after all.

Regardless, Francis did not have anything to do with it. And neither did most current priests, parishioners, etc.

That is such a cowardly cop-out on their part.

It's not coward, or on their part. That's a point on my part.

“That was my dad, not me, so I won’t even ask for an investigation, because I care more about avoiding the topic than finding the children.”

Or 'because I'm not the police, and don't make a habit of going around asking for an investigation of other people's immoral behavior', or whatever. But even if some of them are at fault (which would have to be discussed of course on a case-by-case basis), they would not be at fault of kidnapping children or anything like that.

Every Catholic who is NOT demanding that the church spend its money on finding those bodies is currently, today, harboring the criminals and their reputations.

No, that is just not true at all. The criminals are probably dead. And those not demanding stuff may well not even care about the criminals' reputations. They're not the police.

But let us say they had an obligation to demand that. Even then, that would not make them guilty of the crimes of others, and they should not sincerely apologize for them.

He is to blame for not caring to look into the many decades of complaints.
He has the records at his disposal. He has had them since assuming office. Since being a cardinal. He also knows the indigenous people have been complaining about this since it started. He is not ignorant of the schools and what they did on the surface; taking children from their families and culture. He knows this, as we all did. He ALSO knows that they have been appealing to the RCC for answers for 100 years. He, presonally, chose to not care to answer their questions. They have asked him, personally, FOR YEARS to look into this.

I do not know he knows as much as you say, but I haven't followed the details, so sure, let us say he knows all of that. Then, he is guilty of not caring to look, etc. He is still not guilty of kidnapping children, etc. He should then apologize for that of which he is guilty. He should not sincerely apologize for that of which he is not guilty.

He, personally, has refused.
He should apologize for that - for harboring the criminals. He has protected them against investigation in the face of indigenous complaints.

Do you have evidence that he is harboring the criminals? Do you have evidence that they are even alive, and protected by him? But if that is true, then she should apologize for that. And he still should not sincerely apologize for the crimes for which an apology is demanded from him.

But you want to play a shell game of minutiae, and pretend that he is innocent of all wrongdoing.

Of course not. And you have no good reason to even suspect that. It's the opposite, if you read my posts. Here's a wrongdoing: he chose to be pope, and continues to choose to be pope. That's wrong.
On the other hand, he is innocent of the crimes for which an apology is being demanded from him, and he should not sincerely apologize for them.

Yo don’t even see how he uses the power of his office “the church” to shut down the investigations.

No, I have not seen that. But then, there is only one of me, Francis is not in the thread, and I'm busy arguing against the blaming of the innocent (innocent of the crimes under consideration, not of others).
Do you have conclusive evidence, or at least some good evidence that he is using his office to shut down some investigations?
If he is, sure he is guilty of that as well. And he is still not guilty of kidnapping children, etc., and should not sincerely apologize for that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why are you babbling about persons when the discussion is about an institution?.

That's how right wing institutional apologetics work. If you condemn the institution, they point at individuals.
Condemn the individuals and they lament that it's the fault of the institution, and assert that most of its members are very fine people.
That way no institution OR individual ever gets held responsible.

Why do you do that? You accuse me of right-wing apologetics, and make up all of that stuff that I never did, and you never saw me do because I never did it. And you actually believe that you are right. Why don't you set your ideology aside and try to see what your opponents actually say, or at least refrain from making up damaging accusations?

 

[Gospel]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

Can you identify the Catholics on this thread?

It's an allegory.

 

[Bomb#20]

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!
Catholics at large: Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made you all sinners!

Can you identify the Catholics on this thread?

It's an allegory.

Yes, of course it is. But what's it an allegory for?

Because it looks for all the world like it's an allegory for "We don't need to make a case for why we're right if we can show our opponents are wrong. And we can show our opponents are wrong if we catch them in a self-contradiction. And if we can't catch them in a self-contradiction, rhetorically maybe it will serve just as well if we catch two of our opponents contradicting each other, because maybe nobody will notice that two people contradicting each other isn't a self-contradiction."

 

[Gospel]

It's an allegory.

Yes, of course it is. But what's it an allegory for?

Because it looks for all the world like it's an allegory for "We don't need to make a case for why we're right if we can show our opponents are wrong. And we can show our opponents are wrong if we catch them in a self-contradiction. And if we can't catch them in a self-contradiction, rhetorically maybe it will serve just as well if we catch two of our opponents contradicting each other, because maybe nobody will notice that two people contradicting each other isn't a self-contradiction."

Nah it's an allegory about the irony of the arguments being made here that a Catholic Church is not responsible for something a Catholic Church has done in the past.

 

[Toni]

It is not the same as accepting guilt, but it entails accepting guilty. It involves accepting guilt + something else, such the implicit premise not to do it again, and an implicit assertion that one regrets having behaved wrongfully.





Yes, they are acknowledging their own offense or failure. And the "we" is alright as long as they all agree to apologize and it is proper to each of them.

Definition of apology
1a: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret
a public apology
b apologies plural : an expression of regret for not being able to do something
I won't be able to attend. Please give them my apologies.
2a: something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize : DEFENSE
The book is an apology for capitalism.
b: EXCUSE sense 2a
3informal : a poor substitute or example : MAKESHIFT
He's a poor apology for a father.
Synonyms

And the one relevant here is 1., which is again an admission of guilt in this context.

A school sends a group of students on a school sanctioned field trip to a museum. All of the students are chaperoned, and have been thoroughly briefed on the conduct expected of them during the outing. Nonetheless, some student or students engage in a bit of horseplay and damage a display.
Obviously, the students owe the museum, their teachers and their school an apology. They or their parents may well also owe for damages.
However, the chaperoning teachers also owe an apology to the museum and to the school for failing in their chaperoning duties. Surely they would be expected to also offer some ways to avoid a similar situation in the future.

But the chaperoning teachers behaved unethically by failing to properly supervise the students - if they failed -. And then, perhaps they owe an apology to those to whom they had made a commitment. Note, however, that the teachers are guilty of failing to supervise, whereas the students are guilty of choosing to engage in horseplay.

Of course, Francis is not guilty of failure to supervise anyone in relation to these schools.

The school itself, by way of principal or other head administrator also owes an apology to the museum.

Who is "the school"?
The principal or whoever engaged in unethical behavior may owe an apology. If she did not engage in such behavior, then she does not owe an apology.

It also owes an apology to the staff and students, parents and community because students under its auspices caused damage at the museum and further damage to the reputation of the school, and by extension, any other school group or students who in the future might wish to go to the museum for a field trip.

No. Consider it this way: If the principal or whatever behaved unethically by giving the green light to the field trip under the given conditions, then she may owe an apology for that. But if she did not, then she will not become retroactively guilty because of the later unethical behavior by the students and/or the chaperons. She owes no apology.

The school might also bear some financial liabilities, depending on the circumstances and state laws, etc.

Yes, but I'm not making a legal argument. Furthermore, one can become in the moral sense financially liable by actions beyond one's control (e.g., insurance companies), regardless of whether one behaves immorally. But I'm talking about moral guilt, not about either a moral or a legal obligation to compensate.

The parents surely bear some responsibility for not raising their children to be respectful of the museum, other people's property or of representing the school when they went on the field trip.

Depending on how they did their parenting, the parents might or might not be guilty for unethical choices when raising their children. However, even if they are guilty, they do not become any more guilty just because their children do some damage. They were already guilty. At most, the damage provides evidence that they were guilty, though it is of course inconclusive - that might or might not be their fault, but regardless, it is a fault that happened before the trip.

During and preceding WWII, many pieces of art owned by Jews were seized by Nazis and used as spoils of war. In the intervening years since, many pieces of art have emerged from...auspices that seemed very likely to have been through the theft of artworks owned or painted by Jews who died in the Holocaust.

Suppose I inherit such a painting. My ancestors had no idea that the artwork was obtained through war crimes or theft--they bought it honestly enough, if somewhat naively. Perhaps they didn't even believe that the piece was authentic but merely a very good copy. In any case, I, born years after WWII, now own the art piece. During a social gathering, an art professor notes the piece and asks me questions about it and expresses suspicions that it might be an authentic piece of art that was stolen during WWII and only years later made its way into the market. He knows some people with expertise, and I agree to have the painting evaluated and the provenance of the painting examined thoroughly by experts. Several noted experts come to the same conclusion: my inherited painting was actually stolen from a Jewish family.

Although I have zero guilt in obtaining this artwork through illgotten means nor did my ancestors who acquired it honestly (or so they believed), I still have an obligation to see that painting returned to any surviving members of that family from whom the painting was stolen. Not because I did something wrong but because it is the right thing to do. In fact, that obligation might well be legal as well as moral.

I'm not making a case against obligations to compensate. I'm making a case against moral guilt. Obligations to compensate are another matter.

You or I or any American or Canadian living today almost certainly had nothing at all to do with such actions taken by the Canadian government, the US government or any of the churches, including the RCC. But we do have the responsibility of acknowledging the grave harm done to these children, these families, these peoples and to do our best to make whatever amends can now be made. That means that we hold our government and our churches accountable for what they did. It means that these bodies all acknowledge what they did, that it was wrong, apologize for these past grievous harms, do the utmost possible to ensure that such atrocities never happen again and to sit with people and try to determine what penance or compensation might help address these terrible wrongs.

Well, I have nothing to do with America or Canada. But that aside, no, you do not have an obligation to try to make amends. Because you did nothing wrong. Whether you have an obligation to pay compensation is a different matter, and a difficult one at that: consider your painting example. Suppose it was stolen art work. Suppose you sold it for a lot of money to a Russian and spent it in a fine college education, as well as trips around the world. Do you still have a moral obligation to pay, even though that would harm you (even ruin you) financially, and even though you were neither negligent nor dishonest?

Regardless, I have not made any claims about whether the RCC should pay compensation.

And no, you should not hold you government and "your" (not "your" at all!!!) churches accountable, if to "hold accountable" means in this context to punish for their wrongdoings. If not, what does it mean?

And yes, what they did was wrong, but "they" is not your government or "your" churches, but some people in past governments/churches.

And no, "these bodies" should not sincerely apologize, as their members did nothing wrong related to these matter.

How ridiculous. Of course individual Catholic Churches and their priests act under the auspices of THE Catholic Church. This is particularly true in this case as the RCC never objected to the way the local priests and congregations behaved. It is unbelievable that Rome was unaware at all of what was happening. The RCC is nothing if not well organized and certainly does a great deal of documentation. The individual Catholic Churches in Canada acted at the behest and with the full blessing of Rome and whoever was pope at the time.

Of COURSE the RCC has an obligation to supervise its priests and to correct any situation that has gone against Church doctrine or teachings or policies. Or is illegal--which is totally separate. And in this case--whenever people understand and admit they understand better than they did 100 and 200 years ago that it is wrong to kidnap children, to forcibly attempt to convert anyone or to mistreat children under one's care, whether that care is of an individual or in this case, the Catholic Church.