Luis Dias wrote:Next is what, Gawd? You'll say that black skinned people aren't ethnically any different from, say, a blue eyed, white danish?

That we are "all equals"? Gee what a monotonous world you're living in.

Wow, that was definitely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Jörmungandr wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:Next is what, Gawd? You'll say that black skinned people aren't ethnically any different from, say, a blue eyed, white danish?

That we are "all equals"? Gee what a monotonous world you're living in.

Wow, that was definitely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Wrong thread. My bad.

Luis Dias wrote:

Wrong thread. My bad.

That would explain it. I was wondering where that one came from, trying to somehow connect it to what was being said and coming up empty.

After giving it some further thought, I am still not hateful towards ordinary end-user Catholics, but I don't think it is at all unreasonable to hold them morally responsible for the actions of the church as long as they give it support.

What that means is that it is perfectly right and proper to ask them to take a good hard look at balance between the "good" and the "evil" of the church as a whole and make an informed and considered decision as to whether to keep supporting it.

Why is it so unreasonable to hold someone morally responsible for the actions of an organization they're a member of? Catholics know that the Catholic church transferred priests to different parishes and covered up abuse, and they continue to donate their money to that very organization. That's fucked up.

mmmcheezy wrote:Why is it so unreasonable to hold someone morally responsible for the actions of an organization they're a member of? Catholics know that the Catholic church transferred priests to different parishes and covered up abuse, and they continue to donate their money to that very organization. That's fucked up.

But didn't you hear? It's just a "drop in the bucket".

Jörmungandr wrote:

mmmcheezy wrote:Why is it so unreasonable to hold someone morally responsible for the actions of an organization they're a member of? Catholics know that the Catholic church transferred priests to different parishes and covered up abuse, and they continue to donate their money to that very organization. That's fucked up.

But didn't you hear? It's just a "drop in the bucket".

Maybe I'm being "irrational" here, but if I learned that the company I worked for was doing the same thing, I'd alert the police and leave the fucking company. Why is that so outrageous??

mmmcheezy wrote:Why is it so unreasonable to hold someone morally responsible for the actions of an organization they're a member of? Catholics know that the Catholic church transferred priests to different parishes and covered up abuse, and they continue to donate their money to that very organization. That's fucked up.

It's not entirely reasonable, if it's meant as a social pressure. To claim that christians are "actually" responsible for these cover-ups is unreasonable, and to declare hatred on them because of this is purely insane.

I never said they were "actually" responsible, though.

Luis Dias wrote:
It's not entirely reasonable, if it's meant as a social pressure. To claim that christians are "actually" responsible for these cover-ups is unreasonable, and to declare hatred on them because of this is purely insane.

I know exactly how you'll construe the point I'm trying to make here, but I'm going to go ahead and say this anyway. At what point can one contribute to the funding of an institution and not be partly responsible for the actions it takes? If I send money to Al-Qaeda, am I at least partly to blame when they blow up a building?

I think most reasonable people here could agree that paying compulsory income taxes does not make one responsible for the actions of their government, but most would probably agree that in my Al-Qaeda example, the person sending them money ought to be held accountable. Where do we draw that line, and where does the Catholic Church fall on it?

Jörmungandr wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:
It's not entirely reasonable, if it's meant as a social pressure. To claim that christians are "actually" responsible for these cover-ups is unreasonable, and to declare hatred on them because of this is purely insane.

I know exactly how you'll construe the point I'm trying to make here, but I'm going to go ahead and say this anyway. At what point can one contribute to the funding of an institution and not be partly responsible for the actions it takes? If I send money to Al-Qaeda, am I at least partly to blame when they blow up a building?

Nice way to exxagerate an issue. Your example is a failure because there's no way that anyone we know in our western world could advance a case where Al Qaeda was a "benign" institution, given its practices.

Now, your academic question depends upon the definition of "responsibility".

I think most reasonable people here could agree that paying compulsory income taxes does not make one responsible for the actions of their government, but most would probably agree that in my Al-Qaeda example, the person sending them money ought to be held accountable. Where do we draw that line, and where does the Catholic Church fall on it?

What makes you think that the weekly pays aren't compulsory? It's not as if usual xtians send their money via mail you know? And what makes you "not" responsible for your government? That you are forced to pay? So you are in a ransomed position and that makes it okay? What would you do if you were forced to be in an army that did woeful things? Because you are lawfully "ransomed" it's okay if you kill some jews? No, it's not, as we figured it out in Nuremberg, and if you think I'm exxagerating, then you asked for it with your silly Al Quaeda example.

Luis Dias wrote:
Nice way to exxagerate an issue. Your example is a failure because there's no way that anyone we know in our western world could advance a case where Al Qaeda was a "benign" institution, given its practices.

One could also point out that Al-Qaeda's kill count pales in comparison to the Catholic Church's over its lifetime.

At any rate, I'd hardly call the Catholic Church a "benign" institution, as I don't think their charitable works "outweigh" the damage they've done with their anti-condom crusade in Africa, their attempted cover-ups of child abuse, and their repulsive attitude towards homosexuality. Even if you wanted to make the argument that the scales might tip the other way, you're still using their positive works to justify widespread wrongdoing.

What makes you think that the weekly pays aren't compulsory? It's not as if usual xtians send their money via mail you know? And what makes you "not" responsible for your government? That you are forced to pay? So you are in a ransomed position and that makes it okay? What would you do if you were forced to be in an army that did woeful things? Because you are lawfully "ransomed" it's okay if you kill some jews? No, it's not, as we figured it out in Nuremberg, and if you think I'm exxagerating, then you asked for it with your silly Al Quaeda example.

I've already made the distinction between funding wrongdoing (indirectly or directly) and actually performing those acts. In your Nazi Germany example, I don't remember hearing about many ordinary German citizens being tried and convicted for paying taxes to the Third Reich. And moving to a country is still an exponentially more costly and difficult thing to do than switching churches, and still doesn't guarantee that your tax dollars won't be spent on things you don't like.

Jörmungandr wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:
Nice way to exxagerate an issue. Your example is a failure because there's no way that anyone we know in our western world could advance a case where Al Qaeda was a "benign" institution, given its practices.

One could also point out that Al-Qaeda's kill count pales in comparison to the Catholic Church's over its lifetime.

Yes, one can make all the ridiculous irrelevant apples to orange comparisons shit like that, but that only reflects poorly on those who do...

At any rate, I'd hardly call the Catholic Church a "benign" institution, as I don't think their charitable works "outweigh" the damage they've done with their anti-condom crusade in Africa, their attempted cover-ups of child abuse, and their repulsive attitude towards homosexuality.

That's your prerogative and judgement. Still I didn't say that this was the state of affairs. I said "one can make a case", and I don't think many Christian fellows will agree with you on this (obviously).

Even if you wanted to make the argument that the scales might tip the other way, you're still using their positive works to justify widespread wrongdoing.

There you go again with the "justify" thing. There's no justifying. What you are doing is shifting the burden of things. You are the one who has to justify how these wrongdoings tip the balance the other way for what these people perceive as one of their character building blocks.

What makes you think that the weekly pays aren't compulsory? It's not as if usual xtians send their money via mail you know? And what makes you "not" responsible for your government? That you are forced to pay? So you are in a ransomed position and that makes it okay? What would you do if you were forced to be in an army that did woeful things? Because you are lawfully "ransomed" it's okay if you kill some jews? No, it's not, as we figured it out in Nuremberg, and if you think I'm exxagerating, then you asked for it with your silly Al Quaeda example.

I've already made the distinction between funding wrongdoing (indirectly or directly) and actually performing those acts. In your Nazi Germany example, I don't remember hearing about many ordinary German citizens being tried and convicted for paying taxes to the Third Reich. And moving to a country is still an exponentially more costly and difficult thing to do than switching churches, and still doesn't guarantee that your tax dollars won't be spent on things you don't like.

As I said previously, of course the best course of action is not spending one yota of money anywhere, for you can be sure that if you spend money somewhere, there's some evil in the pipeline. Somewhere. And you "caused" it.

Luis Dias wrote:
Yes, one can make all the ridiculous irrelevant apples to orange comparisons shit like that, but that only reflects poorly on those who do...

The point is that the Catholic church has never been a "benign" institution, and it's interesting to consider how many of their older practices they would still employ if they still held the sort of power they once did.

That's your prerogative and judgement. Still I didn't say that this was the state of affairs. I said "one can make a case", and I don't think many Christian fellows will agree with you on this (obviously).

So, in YOUR judgement, is the Catholic church a positive or negative force in the world?

There you go again with the "justify" thing. There's no justifying. What you are doing is shifting the burden of things. You are the one who has to justify how these wrongdoings tip the balance the other way for what these people perceive as one of their character building blocks.

If, tomorrow morning, I go out and kill one man, and then donate a million dollars to charity, am I any less a murderer? Such is the case with the Catholic church, except that their crimes (in the modern age anyway) aren't murder, they are the things I've listed.

As I said previously, of course the best course of action is not spending one yota of money anywhere, for you can be sure that if you spend money somewhere, there's some evil in the pipeline. Somewhere. And you "caused" it.

Right. But since that's not a very reasonable possibility, the next best thing is to not spend money you don't need to in places where you know bad things happen. When I buy consumer products, I try to do my best to make sure I'm not buying products that were tested on animals or are unnecessarily bad for the environment. If I'm having eggs for breakfast, I make sure to buy eggs that came from free-range chickens, as opposed to the more poorly treated caged animals. Why is it so unreasonable to extend that philosophy to a religious institution? If you KNOW that your church is responsible for shielding pedophiles while espousing the virtues of celibacy, why support it?

Jörmungandr wrote:At what point can one contribute to the funding of an institution and not be partly responsible for the actions it takes? If I send money to Al-Qaeda, am I at least partly to blame when they blow up a building?

The catholic church does not actively endorse pedophilia. Al-qaeda actively endorses the use of force to destroy the United States. One is not responsible to the former but is responsible to the latter if donating to the respective organizations.

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:

Jörmungandr wrote:At what point can one contribute to the funding of an institution and not be partly responsible for the actions it takes? If I send money to Al-Qaeda, am I at least partly to blame when they blow up a building?

The catholic church does not actively endorse pedophilia. Al-qaeda actively endorses the use of force to destroy the United States. One is not responsible to the former but is responsible to the latter if donating to the respective organizations.

If Osama Bin Laden came out and renounced terrorism as a tactic, but members of Al-quaeda still openly and blatantly carried out terrorist operations using Al quaeda funds, then you are guilty of supporting terrorism if you send Al quaeda a donation.

How can people who unconditionally support the CC, or any institution, not comprehend that their unconditional support will eventually lead to massive abuses?

Jörmungandr wrote:

Luis Dias wrote:
Yes, one can make all the ridiculous irrelevant apples to orange comparisons shit like that, but that only reflects poorly on those who do...

The point is that the Catholic church has never been a "benign" institution, and it's interesting to consider how many of their older practices they would still employ if they still held the sort of power they once did.

That's your point of view, and quite a subjective one, albeit you can make a case with some substantive supportive "facts". It's your own ideology (which I moderately share, although I think it's beyond silliness to defend, as Dawkins did, that the world would have been better without Christianity), and not their own. They do not believe in that.

That's your prerogative and judgement. Still I didn't say that this was the state of affairs. I said "one can make a case", and I don't think many Christian fellows will agree with you on this (obviously).

So, in YOUR judgement, is the Catholic church a positive or negative force in the world?

Since I'm not contributing to the CC, what relevance has this question? Beyond giving you some kind of an inquisition tone of voice, and pretending you are on to something here?

There you go again with the "justify" thing. There's no justifying. What you are doing is shifting the burden of things. You are the one who has to justify how these wrongdoings tip the balance the other way for what these people perceive as one of their character building blocks.

If, tomorrow morning, I go out and kill one man, and then donate a million dollars to charity, am I any less a murderer? Such is the case with the Catholic church, except that their crimes (in the modern age anyway) aren't murder, they are the things I've listed.

Another ex-rectum analogy. You have pretty bad analogies. First, the chronology is messed up, obviously, and if such a man did in fact commit such a crime, do you honestly believe that the court of room wouldn't take it as a consideration? On what planet you fucking live? It all depends upon the narrative, of course. What man did he kill, what was the motive, did he meant the charity or was it all just guilt induced? And second, of course, is a man equal to an institution? And third, can you come up with a decent case at all?

As I said previously, of course the best course of action is not spending one yota of money anywhere, for you can be sure that if you spend money somewhere, there's some evil in the pipeline. Somewhere. And you "caused" it.

Right. But since that's not a very reasonable possibility, the next best thing is to not spend money you don't need to in places where you know bad things happen.

If you know that bad things do not happen in your local church, or you have no good reason to suspect it, why should you not contribute to it? Because of your over-sensitive appeal to not do so? Puh-lease.

When I buy consumer products, I try to do my best to make sure I'm not buying products that were tested on animals or are unnecessarily bad for the environment.

Your "best"? What the fuck is your "best"? And are all the people that do not do their "best" people that should be morally incarcerated in your personal moral prison, or what? Are you a vegan? Do you eat meat? Where do you draw the line in your purity tests?

If I'm having eggs for breakfast, I make sure to buy eggs that came from free-range chickens, as opposed to the more poorly treated caged animals. Why is it so unreasonable to extend that philosophy to a religious institution? If you KNOW that your church is responsible for shielding pedophiles while espousing the virtues of celibacy, why support it?

You are fine if you want to follow your own philosophy and you are even better if you want to spread it. If you want to ask those questions to a catholic, you are on good tracks here, and even better if you actually make them change their attitudes. What I don't recognize is the fact that these people are automatically morally guilty because they don't follow your own life guidelines. Who are you to judge all the people on the world? At least the Jeebus guy did preach his story with Magdalene. Who would have guessed it? I prefer that guideline to your hollier-than-thou attitude towards the earth-exploting-religious sinners.

I know this is generalizing but i find most dedicated Catholics just get on my nerves. Be careful not to question their beliefs or they will quite happily talk down to do about not understanding their religion and gods complexity. And don't ask where god came from