• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
If I were to build a structure on your property, would you have the right to burn it down

Who is "I" and"your" in this sentence?
If some Catholics, with Native American heritage, are using a building as a place of worship they have the right to their property. Violent ideologues don't have any right to burn it down.
Tom

Ahh, they don't have the right to burn it down no matter the nationality of its users. I think you're just upset that I'm not angry about it being burned down. It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason. I also sympathize with the people affected by the destruction who aren't at fault.

What is so hard to swallow about that?

The churches were on FIrst Nations land. Perhaps they DID have the right to burn down the churches. I don't know much about Canadian law. But here in the US, if someone built a church or a dog house or put up a sign on my land and I didn't want it there, I could remove it or destroy it or, assuming I had appropriate permits, burn it down.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Ahh, they don't have the right to burn it down no matter the nationality of its users. I think you're just upset that I'm not angry about it being burned down. It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason. I also sympathize with the people affected by the destruction who aren't at fault.

What is so hard to swallow about that?

The churches were on FIrst Nations land. Perhaps they DID have the right to burn down the churches. I don't know much about Canadian law. But here in the US, if someone built a church or a dog house or put up a sign on my land and I didn't want it there, I could remove it or destroy it or, assuming I had appropriate permits, burn it down.

I agree with that but I feel like a point was just abducted. :alien:
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Apparently, the Pope is now moved to agree to receive representatives of First Nations and other tribal leaders in December.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/world/canada/pope-francis-residential-schools-apology.html


It's a long piece but interesting enough to give it a read. I have a NYT subscription so I can read it but for those who don't have one, I used to simply use a private browser to get around paywalls. If people have problems, please let me know and I'll see if I can help.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,263
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason.

So it's hard for you be angry with the people who burned down the churches of Native American people because you sympathize with people who hate them?

That's what you're saying here.
Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason.

So it's hard for you be angry with the people who burned down the churches of Native American people because you sympathize with people who hate them?

That's what you're saying here.
Tom

No, it's not.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,263
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason.

So it's hard for you be angry with the people who burned down the churches of Native American people because you sympathize with people who hate them?

That's what you're saying here.
Tom

No, it's not.

It's not?

Who are the people who used the buildings?

They were on aboriginal land. What makes you think that the buildings were being used regularly by other folks?
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,263
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
It's hard for me to be angry with the people who burned it down because I sympathize with their reason.

So it's hard for you be angry with the people who burned down the churches of Native American people because you sympathize with people who hate them?

That's what you're saying here.
Tom

I have no more interest in continuing this discussion with you until you at least attempt to explain in better detail how what I said means what you think I said.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What, does the circumstance that many of the local Metis converted to the oppressors' religion make their descendants hereditary race traitors who don't qualify to have an equal say over who has permission to have a building on the tribal lands of First Nations people?

That's what this thread is mostly about. Hating Catholics.

If child mortality rates in the 19th century doesn't work, switch to grave markers. If grave markers don't work, switch to parental notifications.

If your goal is to hate Catholic people you'll find a way.
Tom
If your goal is to minimize the damage the Catholic Church has inflicted, you will fling all sort of nonsense to deflect from the discussion.

No one in this thread has advocated burning down these churches. No one. All that some people have done is to acknowledge that they don't have any sympathy for the Catholic Church on this issue.

This nothing to do with the Holocaust and burning houses of Holocaust deniers. It has nothing whatsover with the "whataboutisms" of mistreatment of other ethnic minorities in other countries.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'm missing the part where anyone hates anyone else?

Reread the thread.
Hatred of Catholics is all over the place.
Tom

I don't see that at all. This is generally an atheist forum so most people posting are not terribly inclined to love any church.

Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment, not because of any issues of faith but more because of some of the church's stances --anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, kidnapping children and forcing them to attend residential schools where they faced a great deal of abuse, were not allowed to speak their own language, practice their own religion or culture, see their parents or family--that sort of thing. Only the last is featured in this thread and since it's the topic of discussion, I think it's pertinent.

FWIW, I think that exactly the same sentiments would be expressed if the institution which kidnapped children, etc. were Methodist or LDS or Baptist or Lutheran. I can only imagine if the institutions had been Jewish or Muslim...

In particular, Gospel hasn't written anything that appears anti-Catholic or to express hatred of Catholics, Catholicism or the Catholic Church. So I'm a little confused by your assertion.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment...

Yeah. Me too.
And, arguably, a few statements that might constitute incitement to violence in certain jurisdictions.

If an anti-abortionist said the same sort of things about fire bombing abortion clinics they would get a visit from law enforcement. And rightly so.

In Victoria, pursuant to section 321G of Victoria’s Crimes Act, where a person incites any other person to pursue conduct that will involve the commission of an offence, if it is acted on in accordance with the intention of the inciter, the inciter is guilty of an offence.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,263
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
It's your neurotransmitters not the thread.

Show me why I should believe that.
Tom

So you can materialize another meaning out of thin air? No thanks.

Do you think black folks have a right to choose the religion of slavers? And remain safe from arson?

Really, I have trouble understanding why people who are the descendants of white EuroColonialist slaves adopt the religion of the slavers. But they do, in droves.


I don't think that torching their houses of worship is OK either. I don't believe in collective punishment. I don't think that anybody has a right to punish people for belonging to a religion that they hate.

I have little interest in anybody's house of worship. I'm not a theist. But I do believe in having the same moral code for everyone. Burning down somebody else's house of worship is abominable.

If you disagree, please say why.
Tom
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Okay, I get your motivation. :)

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

Exactly. The acts are very wrong but this is basically a sins of the father case.

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

Yup. If any of the perpetrators are still alive they should spend the rest of their years in jail. I just very much doubt any are.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,287
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I'm missing the part where anyone hates anyone else?

Reread the thread.
Hatred of Catholics is all over the place.
Tom

The Catholic church isn't the same thing as Catholics.

I hate the Catholic church, as an institution. I pity Catholics, I don't hate them (unless they do something to make me hate them. Being Catholic isn't one of those things).

Your loyalty to your abusers is sad, but understandable. But you really should try harder to grasp that the institution isn't just the individuals who subscribe to and support it.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,708
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I'm missing the part where anyone hates anyone else?

Reread the thread.
Hatred of Catholics is all over the place.
Tom
I see a lot of well deserved criticism directed at the Catholic Church, and I know at least one of those critics in this thread is a catholic who went to de LaSalle schools in primary and high school. I don't see a lot of hatred directed towards catholics.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
So you can materialize another meaning out of thin air? No thanks.

Do you think black folks have a right to choose the religion of slavers? And remain safe from arson?

Really, I have trouble understanding why people who are the descendants of white EuroColonialist slaves adopt the religion of the slavers. But they do, in droves.


I don't think that torching their houses of worship is OK either. I don't believe in collective punishment. I don't think that anybody has a right to punish people for belonging to a religion that they hate.

I have little interest in anybody's house of worship. I'm not a theist. But I do believe in having the same moral code for everyone. Burning down somebody else's house of worship is abominable.

If you disagree, please say why.
Tom

So my saying I sympathize with the people who burned down the churches where unmarked graves of children were found because I understand their reason = I want to burn all catholic churches down. Nice one.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment...

Yeah. Me too.
And, arguably, a few statements that might constitute incitement to violence in certain jurisdictions.

If an anti-abortionist said the same sort of things about fire bombing abortion clinics they would get a visit from law enforcement. And rightly so.

In Victoria, pursuant to section 321G of Victoria’s Crimes Act, where a person incites any other person to pursue conduct that will involve the commission of an offence, if it is acted on in accordance with the intention of the inciter, the inciter is guilty of an offence.

Nice blanket accusation. Can you site the post. Something tells me you're doing the Tomc and logic boogieing your way to that sentiment.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment...

Yeah. Me too.
And, arguably, a few statements that might constitute incitement to violence in certain jurisdictions.

If an anti-abortionist said the same sort of things about fire bombing abortion clinics they would get a visit from law enforcement. And rightly so.

In Victoria, pursuant to section 321G of Victoria’s Crimes Act, where a person incites any other person to pursue conduct that will involve the commission of an offence, if it is acted on in accordance with the intention of the inciter, the inciter is guilty of an offence.

Well, if someone built an abortion clinic on my property without my permission, I would be within my rights to remove it, even by burning, assuming I got the appropriate burn permits.

This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,287
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment...

Yeah. Me too.
And, arguably, a few statements that might constitute incitement to violence in certain jurisdictions.

If an anti-abortionist said the same sort of things about fire bombing abortion clinics they would get a visit from law enforcement. And rightly so.

In Victoria, pursuant to section 321G of Victoria’s Crimes Act, where a person incites any other person to pursue conduct that will involve the commission of an offence, if it is acted on in accordance with the intention of the inciter, the inciter is guilty of an offence.

Nice blanket accusation. Can you site the post. Something tells me you're doing the Tomc and logic boogieing your way to that sentiment.

I suspect he's referring to this post, which I was asked to edit to clarify that it wasn't intended as an incitement to violence. As the request was made after the regular edit window had expired, the mods kindly made my edit offline, and reinstated it, but it wasn't visible for a short time while this was done.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
So you can materialize another meaning out of thin air? No thanks.

Do you think black folks have a right to choose the religion of slavers? And remain safe from arson?

Really, I have trouble understanding why people who are the descendants of white EuroColonialist slaves adopt the religion of the slavers. But they do, in droves.


I don't think that torching their houses of worship is OK either. I don't believe in collective punishment. I don't think that anybody has a right to punish people for belonging to a religion that they hate.

I have little interest in anybody's house of worship. I'm not a theist. But I do believe in having the same moral code for everyone. Burning down somebody else's house of worship is abominable.

If you disagree, please say why.
Tom

I believe that the individuals who burned those churches down were within their rights as the churches were on First Nations property.

If I built a shed or a church or a dog grooming business on your property without your permission, you would have every right to remove it, in any fashion you chose. Including burning it down, assuming you have the appropriate burn permits.

Those responsible for the burning down of the churches did so in such a way as to ensure that no living person was harmed by their actions.

If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.
If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
If I were to build a structure on your property, would you have the right to burn it down (assuming you had appropriate fire permits)?

If TomC had native title over the land, it wouldn't be his decision to make, but his entire tribe or nation. So no--I don't think TomC would have the right to burn it down.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.

At the time the churches were built, were they built legally?

Why do you think having native title entitles an individual to do what they want as if they were the sole freehold owner of land? Did the person or persons who burned down the churches consult with and get the endorsement of their nation to do so?
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.
If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. And yes I totally misread who you were quoting.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.

At the time the churches were built, were they built legally?

Why do you think having native title entitles an individual to do what they want as if they were the sole freehold owner of land? Did the person or persons who burned down the churches consult with and get the endorsement of their nation to do so?

Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.

At the time the churches were built, were they built legally?

Why do you think having native title entitles an individual to do what they want as if they were the sole freehold owner of land? Did the person or persons who burned down the churches consult with and get the endorsement of their nation to do so?

Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.

In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.
If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.

In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.

The very first sentence in what you linked:

Aboriginal rights are collective rights which flow from Aboriginal peoples’ continued use and occupation of certain areas.

Is a person acting alone exercising their collective right?

Some areas of land in Australia are under native title. Native title is not freehold title.

Your link says:

Although these specific rights may vary between Aboriginal groups, in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion.

I don't see anything in there about "person or persons unknown torching buildings".
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The very first sentence in what you linked:

Aboriginal rights are collective rights which flow from Aboriginal peoples’ continued use and occupation of certain areas.

Is a person acting alone exercising their collective right?

Some areas of land in Australia are under native title. Native title is not freehold title.

Your link says:

Although these specific rights may vary between Aboriginal groups, in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion.

I don't see anything in there about "person or persons unknown torching buildings".

Good for Australia for beating down its indigenous peoples more than Canada?

Whoever burned down the churches remains unknown. It could have been people acting under individual initiative or perhaps with the approval of the tribal governments. We dont know.

Please note that there is nothing stating that the Catholic Church has a right to maintain buildings on tribal lands.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's not either/or. It's and/too.
Inciting ppl to fire bomb abortion clinics churches is morally wrong because it endangers life in addition to whatever other property crime is being committed.

If someone is responsible for "the deaths of hundreds (so far) of children", they are just as morally culpable as an abortionist who I would view thru the exact same lens. And no, I do not support the death penalty for either. Why?
...because I'm pro-life.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's not either/or. It's and/too.
Inciting ppl to fire bomb abortion clinics churches is morally wrong because it endangers life in addition to whatever other property crime is being committed.

If someone is responsible for "the deaths of hundreds (so far) of children", they are just as morally culpable as an abortionist who I would view thru the exact same lens. And no, I do not support the death penalty for either. Why?
...because I'm pro-life.

Who is inciting anyone to fire bomb anything?

Not me. Not whoever burned down those churches.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,184
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
FYI anyone who still thinks those children died hundreds of years ago,and the pain and suffering of the victims faded away:

With Discovery of Unmarked Graves, Canada’s Indigenous Seek Reckoning


The New York Times said:
MUSKOWEKWAN FIRST NATION, Saskatchewan — At age 6, Ken Thomas said he was put in a van, driven two hours from his home and dropped on the steps of the Muskowekwan Indian Residential School. The nuns immediately shaved off his braids, and he soon learned that whenever he spoke his Indigenous language they would wash out his mouth with soap.

During his 10 years there he experienced many more searing horrors. He recalled a friend committing suicide after being stripped naked and locked into a dorm after trying to escape. Mr. Thomas and the other boys found their friend hanging lifeless in the shower.

And like many other students, he says he saw human bones being unearthed by unsuspecting contractors connecting a water line on school grounds. Some students had gone missing and he had heard rumors that they had died and been buried there.

From the 1880s through the 1990s, the Canadian government forcibly removed at least 150,000 ​Indigenous children like Mr. Thomas from their homes and sent ​them t​o residential schools ​designed to sever them from their culture and assimilate them into Western ways — a system that a ​National Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008 ​called “cultural genocide.” At the schools, which were mostly run by the Catholic Church, sexual, physical and emotional abuse and violence were commonplace. Thousands of children went missing.

We're not talking about some long ago trauma, although that would be bad enough. We're talking about that and what happened to our contemporaries within our lifetimes.

We're talking about what might still be happening in Catholic institutions because gawd knows the Church didn't reform itself when the first child abuse scandal broke, or the second, or the third, or the hundredth, or the discovery that 796 babies and young children were "indecently buried in a defunct sewage system" in Tuam between 1925 and 1961, or any of the many other examples easily found with minimum of effort..

In fact, instead of reforming, the Church recently made one of the most notorious abusers of Native Americans a saint.

I don't know who set those fires that burned down those churches but I do know we can't rule out someone who personally suffered at the hands of Catholic priests, nuns, and lay teachers at those schools, or someone who lost a child to them.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,227
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.
So in your view, the aboriginal people who worshiped in those churches don't qualify as "Original"? They -- the people who actually use the land the church is on -- don't have ownership of their lands? Some random hothead offended by the church's presence is more "Original" and has more "ownership" than his cousins who like going to church?

Your link says of aboriginal rights,

"in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion."​

So I take it you figure the "one" in "one’s own culture and customs including language and religion" refers to the arsonist. I take it you figure Canada is respecting and guaranteeing the right of Catholic aboriginals to practice the arsonist's own religion. I take it when an aboriginal parishioner wants to practice Catholicism, you're defining that as not her own religion. I take it you figure Canada isn't guaranteeing her right to practice somebody else's religion, and you figure it's up to you and the arsonist, and not up to her, to decide whether Catholicism is her own religion.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Toni said:
Since the children whose bodies have been discovered in multiple locations in unmarked graves all died 'a long time ago' one would think that the Church would have an easy time stepping forward, and expressing remorse for their previously unacknowledged deaths and the callous way their bodies (and lives, and families) were treated so very long ago.
Expressing remorse?

But why would people who are not guilty express remorse?

They might if they mistakenly believe they're guilty, or if they fake remorse because if they fail to express remorse other people will hurt innocent people - for example -, or for some other reason. But people who are not guilty - and who do not have reason to believe themselves guilty - have no good reason to express remorse.


Toni said:
It is much easier to get over a wrong done to you when that wrong has been acknowledged and there has been some kind of apology and/or remorse expressed.
That depends on the case. But again, an apology implies a recognition of guilt. People who are not guilty should not sincerely apologize, unless they rationally but mistakenly believe themselves to be guilty.
Granted, it is possible that people who are not guilty should insincerely apologize under certain circumstances - e.g., to prevent something worse, like violence by people who fail to realize that the people from whom they demand an apology are not guilty, as long as the threat of violence is bad enough. But that depends on the circumstances. I do not see a justification here for an insincere apology. A sincere one would be irrational.


Toni said:
You think that this all happened a long time ago and no one living actually knew any of the people whose bodies were so buried in unmarked graves.
I do not know that. I said probably the perpetrators of the murders are dead. But also I reckon that if the murders happened until more recently, then some of them are probably alive. Then they deserve to be punished, of course. If they murdered a child for fun or to impose their religion, I think they deserve to be executed though Canadian law does not allow it.

Toni said:
The fact that so many children were stolen from their families and forced into residential 'schools' to be made 'good Christian servants' has left an extremely large wound in their families and their nations. We still acknowledge the deaths of soldiers who died in battle. We still acknowledge the Holocaust.
Yes, some of us at least recognize that historical events did happen. This one too. But that is not a challenge to anything I've said.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Angra Mainyu is just here to disagree with things. So don't expect any meaningful contributions from Angra if there is no disagreement.

There is more than enough disagreement for me to contribute.

On the other hand, I have plenty of work and my health is not so good these days, so my contributions are pretty limited I will grant.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jimmy Higgins said:
I believe the key words here are disclosure. The churches that caused this weren't up front, and we literally need to unearth their secrets for them to apologize for the next atrocity they were responsible for. The churches apologized for the poor conditions in the 90s. It made the churches sad how much suffering they caused. And now we are about to dig up mass unmarked graves to uncover a mini-genocide. It gets to the point where words won't help, but there should at least be words and actions. But the churches are suffering from grave injustices they have committed over the last couple centuries... and up to the last decade to be able to even have their words mean a thing, to even believe they care about anything but how the atrocities reflect on their image.
What is a church, or churches, etc., or generally some institution?

If we're not talking about the buildings, we're talking about a subset of the activity of some people. 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, as long as there is no continuity of the individuals, there is no 'their' atrocity. There is no guilt passed on to the next generation.

I do not know who apologized for what. Give me a link, and I can assess whether it was a proper apology, or one that was either irrational or rational but insincere.


Jimmy Higgins said:
Yes, there is marginal harm to others in the form of inconvenience regarding the destruction of churches that are symbolic of heinous acts that the churches tried to hide well into the 21st century, even after they had a chance to come clean.
The harm of innocent people, happening now, and defended in this thread now.
It's not only the parishioners and priests, though. It's the very idea of collective guilt, punishment for past actions of 'the church', etc., and other sorts of group-thinking that concern me.


Jimmy Higgins said:
Agreement that the mass graves were kept secret by the Church into the 21st century?
Who is the Church? Mr. Ibekwe ? Mr. Bergoglio aka Francis? Someone else kept it a secret in this century?

Well, there is no disagreement for sure. Which is not to say there is agreement. I would have to get more precision on the charge and the evidence before making an assessment.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,287
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
What is a church, or churches, etc., or generally some institution?

If we're not talking about the buildings, we're talking about a subset of the activity of some people. 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, as long as there is no continuity of the individuals, there is no 'their' atrocity. There is no guilt passed on to the next generation.

I do not know who apologized for what. Give me a link, and I can assess whether it was a proper apology, or one that was either irrational or rational but insincere.



The harm of innocent people, happening now, and defended in this thread now.
It's not only the parishioners and priests, though. It's the very idea of collective guilt, punishment for past actions of 'the church', etc., and other sorts of group-thinking that concern me.


Jimmy Higgins said:
Agreement that the mass graves were kept secret by the Church into the 21st century?
Who is the Church? Mr. Ibekwe ? Mr. Bergoglio aka Francis? Someone else kept it a secret in this century?

Well, there is no disagreement for sure. Which is not to say there is agreement. I would have to get more precision on the charge and the evidence before making an assessment.

Corporate entities have responsibilities (and indeed an existence) that are not attributable to their members, nor to a specific subset of their members.

It's quite possible for the Catholic church to be guilty of killing children in their care, even if no current member of the Catholic church is personally guilty of that offence. However in this case it's highly likely that both the church and a subset of its current members are guilty.

The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.

This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.

This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
bilby said:
Corporate entities have responsibilities (and indeed an existence) that are not attributable to their members, nor to a specific subset of their members.
Legally, you mean, or morally?

When it comes to morality, only individual humans (well, and some other monkeys) can be guilty of things, deserve punishment, etc. (well, at least on Earth, in the real world; there are other possible entities that have such properties, and perhaps some other real ones). Organizations can be said do be so only in the secondary sense that some of their members are guilty, etc., in connection to their activities related to the organization.

Also, when it comes to owing things (morally too), guilt is not necessary (e.g., if you get insurance for your car and it's damaged as specified, the insurer owes you money even though they're not guilty), but even then, those obligations are the obligations of some people. It's just that they do not have an obligation - moral or legal - to respond with all of their money, but with some they dedicated to some activity.


bilby said:
It's quite possible for the Catholic church to be guilty of killing children in their care, even if no current member of the Catholic church is personally guilty of that offence. However in this case it's highly likely that both the church and a subset of its current members are guilty.
No, that is not possible. Not in the moral sense of 'guilty', i.e., blameworthy. More to the point, some members would be guilty of something like choosing to kill a child, or choosing to deprive them of food, or whatever. But guilt is - in the end - for choices, not for results.


bilby said:
The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.
No. And who is "the church"? Who are the people you say should act in such and such way guilty of?


bilby said:
This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.
On the contrary, the idea that something other than a mind can be morally guilty is dangerous nonsense (except in a figurative sense, or in a secondary sense that refers even if indirectly to a mind or minds). It is one thing to use it as a legal fiction to attribute compensations - which do not require moral guilt to be owed, even in the moral sense; see again insurance -, but actually believing this entity is guilty is nonsense.

Now, given that organizations are the activity of some people, and of course people can act immorally, then sure, there are in that sense immoral organizations. But the behavior cannot be immoral without a corresponding immoral behavior of the people involved.

(organizations can be criminally guilty if the law says so of course, but that's another matter).

bilby said:
This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.
No, "the organization" only "holds itself up..." in the sense that some members of it do that, in the context of the activities that constitute the church. And many people engage in vile, hypocritical, corrupt, behavior when acting in the context we say the church is acting. Others are not. But the organization can be said to be vile, etc., only in the secondary sense that some of the members (many, most, etc.) are engaging in such behavior when acting in the capacity of church officials. It's all anchored in individual behavior.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,287
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Legally, you mean, or morally?
Both.
When it comes to morality, only individual humans (well, and some other monkeys) can be guilty of things, deserve punishment, etc. (well, at least on Earth, in the real world; there are other possible entities that have such properties, and perhaps some other real ones). Organizations can be said do be so only in the secondary sense that some of their members are guilty, etc., in connection to their activities related to the organization.
No. Organisations are quite capable of guilt.
Also, when it comes to owing things (morally too), guilt is not necessary (e.g., if you get insurance for your car and it's damaged as specified, the insurer owes you money even though they're not guilty), but even then, those obligations are the obligations of some people.
No!!

This is a particularly clear example of a case where the obligation falls on the corporate entity, not on any individual(s). An insurance company pays claims. Using the insurance company's money. No individual employee pays from his own funds.
It's just that they do not have an obligation - moral or legal - to respond with all of their money, but with some they dedicated to some activity.



No, that is not possible. Not in the moral sense of 'guilty', i.e., blameworthy. More to the point, some members would be guilty of something like choosing to kill a child, or choosing to deprive them of food, or whatever. But guilt is - in the end - for choices, not for results.


bilby said:
The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.
No. And who is "the church"? Who are the people you say should act in such and such way guilty of?


bilby said:
This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.
On the contrary, the idea that something other than a mind can be morally guilty is dangerous nonsense (except in a figurative sense, or in a secondary sense that refers even if indirectly to a mind or minds). It is one thing to use it as a legal fiction to attribute compensations - which do not require moral guilt to be owed, even in the moral sense; see again insurance -, but actually believing this entity is guilty is nonsense.

Now, given that organizations are the activity of some people, and of course people can act immorally, then sure, there are in that sense immoral organizations. But the behavior cannot be immoral without a corresponding immoral behavior of the people involved.

(organizations can be criminally guilty if the law says so of course, but that's another matter).

bilby said:
This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.
No, "the organization" only "holds itself up..." in the sense that some members of it do that, in the context of the activities that constitute the church. And many people engage in vile, hypocritical, corrupt, behavior when acting in the context we say the church is acting. Others are not. But the organization can be said to be vile, etc., only in the secondary sense that some of the members (many, most, etc.) are engaging in such behavior when acting in the capacity of church officials. It's all anchored in individual behavior.

You are assuming your conclusion. And you are wrong.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
bilby said:
No. Organisations are quite capable of guilt.
No, they aren't, except in the sense one or more of their members are guilty.

Think about it: suppose you believe the Catholic Church is guilty, and deserves to be punished. What do you have in mind, if not some people behaving immorally, and deserve punishment? If you feel moral outrage, think about your own moral outrage: is it not directed to people? I can feel moral outrage directed at people. Or monkeys. Or angels if I believed they existed. But what is it that you would feel outraged against? What is the Catholic Church, if not the activity of some people? And how can it be guilty?

You believe the Catholic Church can be morally guilty, deserve punishment, etc., without any individual member be guilty, deserve punishment, etc.? Could you give an example of that? I mean, any historical instance that you know of? Or a hypothetical scenario, that will do.


bilby said:
No!!

This is a particularly clear example of a case where the obligation falls on the corporate entity, not on any individual(s). An insurance company pays claims. Using the insurance company's money. No individual employee pays from his own funds.
That is not true. While the company is made by activity of some people. And the funds of the company are funds of the shareholders, alocated for the purposes of that activity. Of course, no employee pays, unless of course the employee is also a shareholder, in which case she pays indirectly from the money she alocates to the company.


bilby said:
You are assuming your conclusion. And you are wrong.
I'm not assuming my conclusion more than you are assuming yours. And you're wrong. But I actually, I'm now arguing for it, by asking you to think about it (see above), and try to construe it in a different manner.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,020
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Good for Australia for beating down its indigenous peoples more than Canada?

One wonders how you go from A to Z, Toni. Native title is not freehold title, and I am certain that Aboriginal rights in Canada is also not freehold title.

One wonders at how you conflate Australia with Canada.

Actually, in Australia, at least some lands are freehold with respect to aboriginal peoples.

https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-te... Rights Act provides,as collateral for a loan.

Here is a discussion of property rights held by First Nations peoples in Canada:

https://www.uoguelph.ca/fare/FARE-talk/transcripts/beyond-indian-act.html
 
Top Bottom