Re: Sex abuse and the Catholic Church
Cuauhtla
neo-nazis like David Lane or wife-murder, since a prominent leader of RoT
did so?
I think there is a real issue here worthy of discussion and important, but
to smear Catholicism as a whole overlooks the whole (and the fact that
Catholics were victimized and have led the fight for punishment).
"Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)" <NVN_O...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1148229482.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Comprehensive information about sex abuse of children and young adults
> within the Papist Pedophile Buttfuck Cult at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman.Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>
> Website of definite interest to citizens of Ireland.
>
> Michael Martin - HLF
>
Dirk Bruere
> What would be your opinion of an effort to associate all in Asatru with
> neo-nazis like David Lane or wife-murder, since a prominent leader of RoT
> did so?
>
> I think there is a real issue here worthy of discussion and important, but
> to smear Catholicism as a whole overlooks the whole (and the fact that
> Catholics were victimized and have led the fight for punishment).
The fact that the Catholic Church is a pretty monolithic establishment
lends itself to accurate labelling. The paedophilia and coverups were
not one-off aberrations in one nation at one time. They were chronic and
international. On the whole it is pretty fair to point the finger at the
RC Church as a whole for what went on (or still goes on).
FFF
Dirk
Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)
know very little about why he is / was serving a lengthy jail term. I
know he was involved in a homicide, but I don't know the circumstances,
so I can't comment on his particular case.
But most spokespeople for the Heathen community distance themselves
from Mr. Lane and his political activities. But the upper echolons of
the Roman Catholic Church only started making very half-hearted
attempts to distance themselves from the perverts within their cult
after a lengthy and loud public outcry. And to the very day the
Catholic hierachy still tries to hold a protecting hand over the
mild-molesting priests, trying to make excuses for their vile conduct.
Consequently I think one can't compare the tiny minority of VIOLENT
neo-nazi Heathens with the organized and structured sexual abuse of
minors carried out by numerous priests enjoying the protection from the
Vatican.
Michael Martin - HLF
azure
news:dt1cg.5188$y4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> (and the fact that Catholics [...] have led the fight for punishment).
no, they have not.
the average churchgoing catholic doesn't care. they think it's much ado
about nothing, because they have chosen not to inform themselves about it.
azure
bowman
> The fact that the Catholic Church is a pretty monolithic establishment
> lends itself to accurate labelling.
That is the heart of the matter. The Church is an organization, and it can
be readily labelled. How much paedophilia occurs in the other 30,000 odd
Christian sects? If the pastor of the Upper Poverty Hollow Church of the
Risen Lamb of God molests the children in his case, it is a very local
event. How about day care centers? Or for that matter, public schools? It
is not unheard of for a teacher to be quietly dismissed and rehired in
another school district.
In any case, this discussion belongs in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, where it certainly will not be news.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> The fact that the Catholic Church is a pretty monolithic establishment
>> lends itself to accurate labelling.
>
> That is the heart of the matter. The Church is an organization, and it can
> be readily labelled. How much paedophilia occurs in the other 30,000 odd
> Christian sects? If the pastor of the Upper Poverty Hollow Church of the
> Risen Lamb of God molests the children in his case, it is a very local
> event. How about day care centers? Or for that matter, public schools? It
> is not unheard of for a teacher to be quietly dismissed and rehired in
> another school district.
And fraud in a little company employing a handful of people is,
theoretically, the same as fraud within Enron.
> In any case, this discussion belongs in
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, where it certainly will not be news.
True.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> And fraud in a little company employing a handful of people is,
> theoretically, the same as fraud within Enron.
Agreed, though the situation is often reversed. The sleazy roofing
contractor gets prosecuted to the full extent, while the mega corporation
offers up a couple of sacrificial goats.
Color me cynical, but where there are cash settlements involved memories of
kindly old Father Brown patting a boy on the head may become memories of
him patting the boy on the ass. At least in the US, the Curch is perceived
as immensely wealthy, though the 'wealth' often consists of infrastructure
badly in need of repair.
Cuauhtla
news:4dboivF...@individual.net...
As with issues of war and peace, a wide range of theological and social
views, etc., opinion within the Catholic Church is anything but monolithic.
From Opus Dei to Ploughshares is as huge a distinction as anything in any
religious organization. As regards priests having sex with kids, I think it
rather obvious that the overwhelming majority of Catholics and Catholic
clergy vehemently oppose the very notion. They, in fact, have pointed a
finger at those portions of the priestly establishment which were involved
in, or diminished the importance of, or concealed, the scandal.
An accurate, fair, and effective criticism would be more discriminating and
less sweeping.
--
***
Verso Books
http://www.versobooks.com
My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
With a newsfeed from Information Clearing House
***
Cuauhtla
and organizations with extreme racial politics has been repeatedly and
thoroughly documented (in both the US and UK). Those who wish to smear
Asatru, consequently, have no difficulty in finding ways to do so.
Likewise, Christians and the Catholics. Likewise, Jews. Likewise, Moslems.
Yes, I think all recognize that the pedophilia among a section of the
priesthood has been a problem, and that the dismissive attitude of some in
the hierarchy belongs to an earlier era. One does not solve this problem by
smearing Catholics and the Catholic Church as a whole. The firmest allies,
in fact, in seeking this solution, are Catholics.
--
***
Verso Books
http://www.versobooks.com
My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
With a newsfeed from Information Clearing House
***
"Michael Martin (Heathen Libertarian Forum)" <NVN_O...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1148240939.3...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Bruere
Along the lines that "most Nazis were decent law abiding people who
would never dream of murdering anyone". However, people *do* tend to
point the finger at the NSDAP as whole...
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> In point of fact, the association over the years of leading Asatru figures
> and organizations with extreme racial politics has been repeatedly and
> thoroughly documented (in both the US and UK). Those who wish to smear
> Asatru, consequently, have no difficulty in finding ways to do so.
>
> Likewise, Christians and the Catholics. Likewise, Jews. Likewise, Moslems.
>
> Yes, I think all recognize that the pedophilia among a section of the
> priesthood has been a problem, and that the dismissive attitude of some in
> the hierarchy belongs to an earlier era. One does not solve this problem by
> smearing Catholics and the Catholic Church as a whole. The firmest allies,
> in fact, in seeking this solution, are Catholics.
"...belongs to an earlier era..."
If you are the same age, or older than me, you will recall such phrases
being said almost continuously over the past 40yrs by orgs and govts of
all types. It's not reassuring except when fed to the young and gullible.
FFF
Dirk
Cuauhtla
> Along the lines that "most Nazis were decent law abiding people who
> would never dream of murdering anyone". However, people *do* tend to
> point the finger at the NSDAP as whole...
It would indeed be a mistake to execute every member of the NSDAP for the
crimes of the regime.
Yet, surely we can distinguish between the political goals of the NSDAP,
which were quite distinct, and the variety of goals which pass for
Catholicism? As regards the pedophilia of some priests and the ineffective
response of some in the hierarchy, certainly this cannot be said to have any
relationship to the goals of the world's Catholics, whereas hatred of the
Jews was central to Hitler's ideology.
Cuauhtla
Understand my actual point, then. It is that attitudes toward the notion of
an age of consent are historical variables. In the early-70s, for instance,
many men's magazines included advertisements for nude or sexually-oriented
material involving young people, from places like Sweden, Denmark, and
California. People like Allen Ginsberg were quite open about engaging in
sexual relationships with young boys. In 1975, there was a best-seller in
the US and Europe entitled "Show Me" which was an explicit "sex education"
book, widely lauded though it included explicit pictures of children. It was
not until 1976 or '77 that such materials were made illegal in the US.
Attitudes towards sex with young people have varied widely from age to age.
The attitude that affixed itself in the Catholic Church, as notoriously slow
to change in most times as any traditional organization, tended to view such
relationships as an illness, not all that significant. Meanwhile, attitudes
in the West underwent a sharp change from the early-70s until today, at
times leading to many false arrests as the pendulum swung well in the other
direction. It;s interesting to note that adult women are now being
prosecuted and imprisoned for "abusing" teenaged boys. In my youth, it was
common, chuckled about and a goal that most of us teenagers pursued.
I am not saying that this out-dated perception of such activities as of
limited significance, as best treated like an illness or moral failing, is
proper. I am simply noting that it is so that such attitudes among the
priestly hierarchy had in fact failed to keep up with shifting social views
of the issue.
Dirk Bruere
One might also claim that hatred of heretics was central to Catholicism,
since it murdered so many of them. Also, the decisions to cover up the
paedophilia was taken at 'command level'. It amounted to policy.
FFF
Dirk
Cuauhtla
> I am not saying that this out-dated perception of such activities as of
> limited significance, as best treated like an illness or moral failing, is
> proper. I am simply noting that it is so that such attitudes among the
> priestly hierarchy had in fact failed to keep up with shifting social
views
> of the issue.
Though it should be noted that while fairly common at one point, these were
not dominant to the exclusion of other views. My Southern Baptist
grandmother, for example, was quite scandalized by the art on the album
covers of Led Zeppelin's "Houses of the Holy" and Blind Faith.
When I attended the Kawasaki fertility festival a couple of years ago I
wondered how well it would've gone over in the US or UK to be selling
penis-shaped candies to small children, as happens there. Imagine if a
Catholic festival had had such features, rather than a Shinto one.
Dirk Bruere
Catholics merely hand out crosses with someone nailed to them, dying in
agony.
I wonder which is the more healthy?
FFF
Dirk
Cuauhtla
> Catholics merely hand out crosses with someone nailed to them, dying in
> agony.
> I wonder which is the more healthy?
One of the more rational views of the Mormons is to reject the symbolism of
the cross.
As for your question, it's a good one.
Doug Freyburger
>
> What would be your opinion of an effort to associate all in Asatru with
> neo-nazis like David Lane
Sensible heathens object. The moderated newsgroup is in the
creation process so we can reject false accusations. There
still remains the problem that a small number look the other
way when the ilk of Lane show up. It's a real problem and
denial doesn't help.
> or wife-murder, since a prominent leader of RoT did so?
Did anyone approve of it? At least one attempted suicide to
avoid guilt by association. Has any centralized leadership
conducted planned relocations of perps to alternate sites?
> I think there is a real issue here worthy of discussion and important, but
> to smear Catholicism as a whole overlooks the whole (and the fact that
> Catholics were victimized and have led the fight for punishment).
While few have been involved, a number of leaders within
their organization have been documented as transferring
perps to other locations. The higher up the chain up command
the more the responsibility to clean up such problems not
relocate them. Compare with Asatru - No central authority.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Cuauhtla wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4de4ntF...@individual.net...
> > Along the lines that "most Nazis were decent law abiding people who
> > would never dream of murdering anyone". However, people *do* tend to
> > point the finger at the NSDAP as whole...
>
> It would indeed be a mistake to execute every member of the NSDAP for the
> crimes of the regime.
Yes, but it would *not* be a mistake for you to be leery of anyone who
was a member of the NSDAP... especially if you are Roma, Jew, Slav,
black, gay, pagan, communist...
Cuauhtla
news:1148321981....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Cuauhtla wrote:
> >
> > What would be your opinion of an effort to associate all in Asatru with
> > neo-nazis like David Lane
>
> Sensible heathens object. The moderated newsgroup is in the
> creation process so we can reject false accusations. There
> still remains the problem that a small number look the other
> way when the ilk of Lane show up. It's a real problem and
> denial doesn't help.
Really what I was driving at is that the entire religion ought not be
smeared with the associations and deeds of some.
In this particular issue, we are not dealing with Catholics as a whole. We
are dealing with some pedophile priests and some in the institution who
minimized the significance of the issue (partly by not following shifting
social attitudes), and that is where we should focus- not in polemics in an
Asatru forum against Catholics.
> While few have been involved, a number of leaders within
> their organization have been documented as transferring
> perps to other locations. The higher up the chain up command
> the more the responsibility to clean up such problems not
> relocate them. Compare with Asatru - No central authority.
The manner in which the issue was raised here was not reasonable or
respectful
of the fact that most Catholics bear no responsibility for these deeds. I
personally
find such hostility toward other religions in an Asatru forum as distasteful
and unbecoming as
racial hostility, and so my habit is to seek to bring the issue to a less
generalized, less the-lot-of-them accusation. Not only on this issue, but on
many, there are too many who would define our religion by who we hate, who
we are not.
In a sense, what I am doing when I interject a differing view as racial and
religious hostilities are expressed in Asatru fora, as when I noted
Schmidt's posts
for parents to read when he promoted events in a.r.a., is precisely to poke
holes in any collective
guilt that might be attributed to Asatru.
Dirk Bruere
> The manner in which the issue was raised here was not reasonable or
> respectful
> of the fact that most Catholics bear no responsibility for these deeds. I
> personally
> find such hostility toward other religions in an Asatru forum as distasteful
> and unbecoming as
> racial hostility, and so my habit is to seek to bring the issue to a less
> generalized, less the-lot-of-them accusation. Not only on this issue, but on
> many, there are too many who would define our religion by who we hate, who
> we are not.
You should bear in mind that Michael is from Eire.
Arguably for much of its modern history it's been the Xian equivalent of
the Ayatollah's Iran - a defact theocracy. The influence of the RC
Church in Eire, until relatively recently (1990s) has been enormous and
pathological. Maybe Michael can detail its meddling in every aspect of
life in Eire from the government down to the individual.
FFF
Dirk
Cuauhtla
> was a member of the NSDAP... especially if you are Roma, Jew, Slav,
> black, gay, pagan, communist...
The NSDAP being a political organization with well-defined goals, this would
be the case. But it is interesting how their policies, even in the short
existence of the group and under one leader for the duration, changed. It
was a relatively tolerant group toward homosexuals until that became a
convenient tool to get Roehm. American neo-nazis would be scandalized to
know that an African ambassador was permitted to marry a German woman, and
their child attended Hitler's schools (wasn't allowed in the Hitler Youth,
to his disappointment). Policies toward the Roma and even some Jews (WWI
service, for example) varied. One recent book on "gypsy policy" noted that
"pure" Roma were better regarded than "mixed". The relentless contempt
expressed for the Slavs in Mein Kampf turned quickly enough into Slavic SS
legions when bitter necessity arose. Many "pagans" did quite well, if like
Wiligut they were the "right sort".
But the NSDAP, for all that it seems to arise in most every historical
conversation in this group, has little bearing on the issue being discussed.
Sex between boys and priests is not Catholic dogma. The widespread scandal
should be addressed on its own terms, with institutional and personal
failings properly identified.
Cuauhtla
> You should bear in mind that Michael is from Eire.
> Arguably for much of its modern history it's been the Xian equivalent of
> the Ayatollah's Iran - a defact theocracy. The influence of the RC
> Church in Eire, until relatively recently (1990s) has been enormous and
> pathological. Maybe Michael can detail its meddling in every aspect of
> life in Eire from the government down to the individual.
That's a very good and important point. Being from "The Bible Belt"- and
being a kid who shocked other kids by daring God to strike me down with
lightning- I understand it well. For much the same reason, opinion is
polarized regarding the Church in Mexico and the various revolutions and
rebellions often revolved around the Church's role. When Mexico gained its
independence from Spain, many of the Church lands in Alta California were
seized and "privatized". Good for many (esp the criollos), bad for the
Church, and bad for the natives who theoretically would one day have title
to the lands.
Only tangentally related, it's often been noted that dangerous (as opposed
to LeVeyish drama sorts) "Satanists" generally come from fundamentalist
homes. In youth the choice is presented as obedience to the FundyLord or
hatred, and obedience isn't that great a choice.
Cuauhtla
"Cuauhtla" <Cuau...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8Focg.455$Sf2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
bowman
> Compare with Asatru - No central authority.
No billion members, either. OK, they probably still are counting me, so make
that 999.... One thing the Church does is endure; it has had its share of
very poor leaders and made bad judgments, but it has lasted. Looking at
history since the Reformation, I am not certain that fragmentation is all
that good for society as a whole.
bowman
> Arguably for much of its modern history it's been the Xian equivalent of
> the Ayatollah's Iran - a defact theocracy. The influence of the RC
> Church in Eire, until relatively recently (1990s) has been enormous and
> pathological.
Of course, a few centuries of brutal repression did nothing to mold the
situation?
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Arguably for much of its modern history it's been the Xian equivalent of
>> the Ayatollah's Iran - a defact theocracy. The influence of the RC
>> Church in Eire, until relatively recently (1990s) has been enormous and
>> pathological.
>
> Of course, a few centuries of brutal repression did nothing to mold the
> situation?
No more than it did in Iran or Afghanistan.
Still not very nice places to live no matter what excuses are wheeled out.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> No more than it did in Iran or Afghanistan.
Britain did get around, didn't it? Must have been depressing watching that
repressed Catholic theocracy morph into the Celtic Tiger.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> No more than it did in Iran or Afghanistan.
>
> Britain did get around, didn't it? Must have been depressing watching that
> repressed Catholic theocracy morph into the Celtic Tiger.
A matter of indifference generally.
The added benefit has been that all the EU money pumped into Eire had
the side effect of knocking the RC Church from its privileged position.
That in turn took a lot of the steam out of the NI conflict.
FFF
Dirk
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Cuauhtla wrote:
>
> > > What would be your opinion of an effort to associate all in Asatru with
> > > neo-nazis like David Lane
>
> > still remains the problem that a small number look the other
> > way when the ilk of Lane show up. It's a real problem and
> > denial doesn't help.
>
> Really what I was driving at is that the entire religion ought not be
> smeared with the associations and deeds of some.
There are neo-nazi groups that claim to be Asatru but aren't.
There are individual heathens who state that politics is a
personal choice and look away. There are leaders within
organizations who have a history of such. Doesn't put any
of them in the right. Also doesn't make Asatru a neo-Nazi
faith any more than a few murdercide bombers make Islam
a murder faith. That's why it's important to look at the
written material and the historical record.
I've long faced an effort on ARA by trolls who call Asatru a
neo-nazi faith. Every single regular here today has done
so exactly as I have. Just plain making claims doesn't
make someone right. Pointing at actual events shines the
light of truth on such matters. The sex abuse scandal is
ravaging the Catholic Church right now because leaders in
its heirarchy have been shown to be involved. Leaders
moved offenders from place to place to avoid detection but
not to remove them from potential victims.
If the Catholic Church had maintained an isolated abbey
to isolate pedofiles among their clergy (apparently the
church does have such facilities) and actually sent all
the preps there, the controverty would be tiny compared
to what it is right now. Instead bishop after cardinal is
exposed as having sent preps from parish to parish instead
of to that desert abbey.
> and that is where we should focus- not in polemics in an
> Asatru forum against Catholics.
Because randomly bashing some other religion isn't our
topic here. At least it's not supposed to be.
If some Asatru leader moved a pedofile from kindred to
kindred, would heathens at large string that leader up? I've
seen calls warning that a pedofile warg has tried to join
kindreds. If some Asatru leader moved a neo-nazi from
kindred to kindred then? Looking the other way is a dodge
that none should respectbut actually knowingly foisting off
a known neo-nazi on some kindred isn't something I've
ever heard of. Looking the other way is a slippery slope
to be avoided and condemned.
Dirk Bruere
The big difference is that neoNazis are easy to spot - they advertise
themselves openly. Paedophiles do not.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> Also doesn't make Asatru a neo-Nazi
> faith any more than a few murdercide bombers make Islam
> a murder faith. That's why it's important to look at the
> written material and the historical record.
Right on.
> The sex abuse scandal is
> ravaging the Catholic Church right now because leaders in
> its heirarchy have been shown to be involved. Leaders
> moved offenders from place to place to avoid detection but
> not to remove them from potential victims.
Still quite important to allocate responsibility with precision and
justly.
Dirk Bruere
tightly controlled and hierarchical can ever be responsible for any
action that is not its official written publicly stated policy.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
Organization, certainly, allocated responsibly and justly. Adherents of
that religious organization, no.
"The Catholic Church" refers to a couple of distinct, if obviously
related, things. One is an organization, a hierarchy, a human power
structure. Another is a historical socio-religious entity consisting of
hundreds of millions of adherents. As regards the sex scandal, then,
responsibility can be allocated to those involved, those who
facilitated it (and here responsibility may be legal or ethical, with
punishment decided by law or by the adherents- a point to which I've
returned a few times), and to institutional and structural failures
(which may or may not involve forms of personal responsibility, but
certainly involve financial responsibilities to the victims). It cannot
justly be attributed to Catholics- those millions of adherents- or to
Catholicism.
And, again, my concern takes on a different significance when an Asatru
"place" is used to go after other religions. If we wish to be judged
fairly, we must judge fairly.
Dirk Bruere
And what if we had all pledged our allegience to the Asatru version of
an org with the track record of the Catholic Church? No culpability on
our part?
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
The history of the Catholic Church- beyond my earlier points concerning
its dual nature as a power structure and as the locus of religious
belief- is wide and varied. No, I do not think that most Catholics
today are culpable for the Inquisition, for the persecution of the
Huguenots, or for the actions of the priests in this scandal.
No, I am not culpable for Lindisfarne or the enslavement of Wends, and
would not be even if an Asatru papacy were imaginable and survived in
as radically a different form with as radically a different
perspective, as distinguishes the Catholic Church today from that then
extant.
But beyond this, this admit the grant of the problem of determining
responsibility. The law says, and I concede, that the organization is
financially responsible to the victims- for providing inadequate
protection on its property and a its functions, for transferring
priests who then offended again. Such financial responsibility impacts
those adherents of the Church whose innocence I am defending. Not to
the extent that some have here advocated, but to an extent.
So, the question becomes- what ought we in Asatru do as regards
adherents of other religions, whether the millions in Catholicism or
anyone else? My contention is that we should go ought of our way not to
smear and accuse those of other faiths, that Asatru ought to be more-
ought to be entirely other-than- than terming another faith as a
"buttf*ck" cult.
***
Economic Security: A Human Right; Reclaiming Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's second bill of rights By Cass R. Sunstein
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-economicsecurity.html
The book
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=65-0465083323-2
My links
http://www.ericandsuzanne.com/Links.html
With a newsfeed from Information Clearing House
***
El Barbaro del Ritmo
let's grant the difficulty
> of the problem of determining
> responsibility. The law says, and I concede, that the organization is
> financially responsible to the victims- for providing inadequate
> protection on its property and at its functions, for transferring
> priests who then offended again. Such financial responsibility impacts
> those adherents of the Church whose innocence I am defending. Not to
> the extent that some have here advocated, but to an extent.
>
> So, the question becomes- what ought we in Asatru do as regards
> adherents of other religions, whether the millions in Catholicism or
> anyone else? My contention is that we should go
out
> of our way not to
> smear and accuse those of other faiths, that Asatru ought to be more than-
> ought to be entirely other-than- terming another faith as a
Dirk Bruere
Then even buttfuck cults cannot be so labelled as long as there is one
innocent supporter/member...
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
That wouldn't be my view and runs contrary to what I have written in
this thread (rather too much to repeat again or to reword), though I
have no idea what it is you're talking about.
My point in the paragraph above remains the more important of my
points. If smearing other religions is key to modern Asatru, we have a
problem.
Dirk Bruere
Hardly key.
I used to smear them when I was an atheist.
The question that remains unanswered is at what point does an adherent
to an org become culpable for the crimes of that org simply by offering
it support, esp after *knowing* the crimes it has committed? Why is,
say, the CP of the old USSR is any worse than the RCC? And is a
supporter of one less morally bankrupt than a supporter of the other?
Just how bad does an org have to be?
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> I used to smear them when I was an atheist.
Chesterton painted a good picture when he said an atheist was someone
standing on the steps of a cathedral; he can't open the door and walk in
nor can he get off the steps. I don't see much difference between
jesusneverexisted.com and Fred Phelps' godhatesfags.com or whatever his
latest offering may be. If it's not for you, leave it behind. If there is
something of value, take that with you.
> The question that remains unanswered is at what point does an adherent
> to an org become culpable for the crimes of that org simply by offering
> it support, esp after knowing the crimes it has committed?
How does an adherent affect change? Machinegun the old regime? History shows
the reformers soon are committing their own brand of crimes.
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> El Barbaro del Ritmo wrote:
> > My point in the paragraph above remains the more important of my
> > points. If smearing other religions is key to modern Asatru, we have a
> > problem.
>
> Hardly key.
> I used to smear them when I was an atheist.
A passing reader would be excused for noting that an inordinate amount
of time is spent smearing other religions here. I like to offer a
contrasting opinion, partly to dispel that impression.
I agree that many atheists define themselves by what they are not.
> The question that remains unanswered is at what point does an adherent
> to an org become culpable for the crimes of that org simply by offering
> it support, esp after *knowing* the crimes it has committed? Why is,
> say, the CP of the old USSR is any worse than the RCC? And is a
> supporter of one less morally bankrupt than a supporter of the other?
> Just how bad does an org have to be?
See my posts of 23 and 24 May, and those preceding, which address this
question on a number of levels and from a number of angles. One must
apply questions of guilt and responsibility fairly and justly. The only
way I could give an even clearer idea of my POV would be to discuss
specific individuals, which is the best route toward a fair assessment
in any case and precisely what I am advocating. Institutional
responsibilities have also been discussed, and again, to go more
deeply, we would need to become more precise. The courts and Catholics
are doing quite a bit of this work already. I'm sorry if my answers
haven't been adequate to you, but I feel I have answered.
I also, since you ask, take a nuanced view of members of the world's
various Communist parties (or the West's Cold War crimes),
distinguishing between the various leaders, apparatchiks, members, and
citizens. Both sides in the Cold War committed atrocities, for which
various levels of guilt are rightly assessed, but I daresay that the
overwhelming majority of "American patriots" (one could as easily refer
to the allies of either) and "Soviet comrades"....and American Reds
and Soviet dissidents...were sincere rather than sinister. To think
otherwise is to come to conclusions of collective guilt that have so
often in history been the cause of terrible injustice against the
innocent, whether the fire-bombing in Japan or the massacre of
villages.
For me, no part of my Asatru belief is about the collective guilt of
other religious groups. But in again pursuing the issue in your
preferred direction, we repeatedly neglect my own, which I highlighted
in my two previous posts. It tends to diminish my interest.
In the end, I know and respect a great many Catholics. Good people,
good intentions, whose beliefs are at times bizarre as most religious
beliefs are but do not include any particularly objectionable
objectives and many that are quite noble. I will not call their faith
by the vulgar names used here. I will respect them, as I wish to be
respected. My religion isn't about hating theirs.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> I used to smear them when I was an atheist.
>
> Chesterton painted a good picture when he said an atheist was someone
> standing on the steps of a cathedral; he can't open the door and walk in
> nor can he get off the steps. I don't see much difference between
> jesusneverexisted.com and Fred Phelps' godhatesfags.com or whatever his
> latest offering may be. If it's not for you, leave it behind. If there is
> something of value, take that with you.
>
>> The question that remains unanswered is at what point does an adherent
>> to an org become culpable for the crimes of that org simply by offering
>> it support, esp after knowing the crimes it has committed?
>
> How does an adherent affect change? Machinegun the old regime? History shows
> the reformers soon are committing their own brand of crimes.
How about simply not giving XXXX money, not calling oneself a "xxxxist"
and generally dissociating oneself from it? And that's just the passive
approach.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> I also, since you ask, take a nuanced view of members of the world's
> various Communist parties (or the West's Cold War crimes),
> distinguishing between the various leaders, apparatchiks, members, and
> citizens. Both sides in the Cold War committed atrocities, for which
> various levels of guilt are rightly assessed, but I daresay that the
> overwhelming majority of "American patriots" (one could as easily refer
> to the allies of either) and "Soviet comrades"....and American Reds
> and Soviet dissidents...were sincere rather than sinister.
And committed no crime, nor knowingly supported a crime.
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> How about simply not giving XXXX money, not calling oneself a "xxxxist"
> and generally dissociating oneself from it? And that's just the passive
> approach.
To be "British" has many levels of meaning, and these have changed
considerably over time. Yet, in spite of an often chequered history and
although the British goverment has invaded Iraq, and though members of
the British military have committed atrocities, many still find value
in being "British"- not merely in the sense of having been born there,
but in terms of their own ideas of what "British" is conceptually.
Wilberforce actively opposed the slave trade, in spite of great
opposition, and ultimately was able to ensure that future conceptions
of "British" didn't include the trade and institution. So, today,
people who value their idea of "British" don't reject the term, don't
surrender it to other conceptions of the term, but work actively to
promote their conception. More do nothing but gripe, and even in the
midst of their work offer some sort of support to the war effort
(directly or indirectly, even if merely paying taxes or working in
industry), but retain a notion of what "British" means in opposition to
that being institutionally promoted by government policy. (Though, as
regards the priest scandal, a better example wouldn't be government
policy but a locally corrupt segment of the bureaucracy).
So it is with Catholics today. Their conception of "Catholic" has no
place in it for the deeds about which we have spoken.Many actively
oppose the other conception, whether the deeds or the overly tolerant
response, while others passively maintain their notion of Catholicism,
recognizing that the Church is acting and that the abuses have nothing
to do with meaningful ideas of "Catholicism" but were aberrant and
solvable.
bowman
> How about simply not giving XXXX money, not calling oneself a "xxxxist"
> and generally dissociating oneself from it? And that's just the passive
> approach.
And this does what? I do not give the Republican (or Democratic) party
money, call myself a Republican, nor did I vote for the Republican
candidate in the last US presidential election. However, I am certain
someone I have never met in downtown Tehran would consider me culpable for
all the crimes, imagined or otherwise, of Western liberal democracy.
Would I do better to work for change within an organized party? Or do as
Evola suggests, and jump on the tiger's back and go along for the ride,
paying no attention to what I cannot control?
Dirk Bruere
>> How about simply not giving XXXX money, not calling oneself a "xxxxist"
>> and generally dissociating oneself from it? And that's just the passive
>> approach.
>
> To be "British" has many levels of meaning, and these have changed
> considerably over time. Yet, in spite of an often chequered history and
> although the British goverment has invaded Iraq, and though members of
> the British military have committed atrocities, many still find value
> in being "British"- not merely in the sense of having been born there,
> but in terms of their own ideas of what "British" is conceptually.
I call myself 'English' - not British.
> Wilberforce actively opposed the slave trade, in spite of great
> opposition, and ultimately was able to ensure that future conceptions
> of "British" didn't include the trade and institution. So, today,
> people who value their idea of "British" don't reject the term, don't
> surrender it to other conceptions of the term, but work actively to
> promote their conception. More do nothing but gripe, and even in the
> midst of their work offer some sort of support to the war effort
> (directly or indirectly, even if merely paying taxes or working in
> industry), but retain a notion of what "British" means in opposition to
> that being institutionally promoted by government policy. (Though, as
> regards the priest scandal, a better example wouldn't be government
> policy but a locally corrupt segment of the bureaucracy).
You forget that people who are British generally have little choice in
the matter, unlike Catholics.
> So it is with Catholics today. Their conception of "Catholic" has no
> place in it for the deeds about which we have spoken.Many actively
> oppose the other conception, whether the deeds or the overly tolerant
> response, while others passively maintain their notion of Catholicism,
> recognizing that the Church is acting and that the abuses have nothing
> to do with meaningful ideas of "Catholicism" but were aberrant and
> solvable.
And I'm sure many modern Stalinists, Fascists, Nazis etc regret the
(possibly necessary) excesses of the past and look forward to a better
future once those few contemporary 'rotten apples' have been removed
from the barrel.
FFF
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> How about simply not giving XXXX money, not calling oneself a "xxxxist"
>> and generally dissociating oneself from it? And that's just the passive
>> approach.
>
> And this does what? I do not give the Republican (or Democratic) party
> money, call myself a Republican, nor did I vote for the Republican
> candidate in the last US presidential election. However, I am certain
> someone I have never met in downtown Tehran would consider me culpable for
> all the crimes, imagined or otherwise, of Western liberal democracy.
They may, but you yourself know that you have not given support to the
orgs that do. Unless, of course, you do support the orgs that have
caused them grief, in which case their hatred is quite justified.
> Would I do better to work for change within an organized party? Or do as
> Evola suggests, and jump on the tiger's back and go along for the ride,
> paying no attention to what I cannot control?
I think a simple option is not supporting an org that does things of
which you do not approve. That, in general, has been the response that
has led to the decline of Xianity in most of the West over the past 3
centuries. It's effective, if slow.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> That, in general, has been the response that
> has led to the decline of Xianity in most of the West over the past 3
> centuries. It's effective, if slow.
Your argument would be better served if the decline of Christianity had led
to an advancement of society.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> That, in general, has been the response that
>> has led to the decline of Xianity in most of the West over the past 3
>> centuries. It's effective, if slow.
>
> Your argument would be better served if the decline of Christianity had led
> to an advancement of society.
The decline of Xianity has led to the rise of scitech, and had a
feedback effect that further helped eliminate the influence of the
Church. Win-win IMO, and a vast advancement for Humanity as a whole. The
greatest event in history.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
> I call myself 'English' - not British.
The same process of idea-identity is operable, and your preference for
the one label over the other highlights it.
> You forget that people who are British generally have little choice in
> the matter, unlike Catholics.
A lot of layers here. Both "British" and "Catholic" are institutional
realities and identity concepts, which may be at odds. This was my
primary focus.
"British" is geographical but then, too, in many primarily Catholic
places, the same is true. One's family and community share that
identity and it can't be easily shed. Particularly if one conceives of
the locus of divinity in that identity.
"British" is a State, so has coercive instruments that are superior
than those of the modern RCC State-like institution (though Opus Dei
and similar organizations are said to still practice a measure, the
divide between Vatican sovereignty and the actual distribution of
Catholics gives it a different nature than an actual State, to which it
is of generally inferior strength). That State, however, offers a
political process, an electoral system, whereas the Church relies on
notions of divinity and divine powers, so in that sense the British
have more say.
> And I'm sure many modern Stalinists, Fascists, Nazis etc regret the
> (possibly necessary) excesses of the past and look forward to a better
> future once those few contemporary 'rotten apples' have been removed
> from the barrel.
You're confusing, it seems to me, a few different things. Let's start
with a slightly less polarizing, less emotional example. The FN. Yes,
there are a great many sincere supporters who see in such French
nationalism the defense of many good things against threats, and there
are genuine threats. We can quite rightly criticize their viewpoint and
its implications. We can do so fiercely at times. Yet if a portion of
the FN kills an immigrant, and if a portion of the leadership seeks to
cover it up, both can fairly and justly be held responsible. The
institution, likewise, can be financially penalized to the extent that
it can institutionally be held responsible. FN members may,
nonetheless, rightly oppose these deeds, still sincerely support the
goals they had alll along, and go on. Should the FN gain State power
and institute as its policy acts of genocide, those involved- however
sincere- can be held responsible. And when deposed from power, when the
deeds and policies are known to all, membership in that orgainzation
would be indicative of something quite distinct from what such
membership meant before the policies, before they were revealed.
Catholicism, however, would be more like being "French" than being a
member of the FN. It has the same- actually greater, scope in terms of
identity and in terms of history.
So, to the NSDAP (again)....
Many sincere members were attracted to its nationalism for a variety of
complex historical and ideological reasons. The whole national frenzy
and aggression had long antecedents. One may quite rightly oppose their
views, and point to where such nationalism and paranoia has tended to
go and may go (and did). In the war, a great many sincere people were
guilty of crimes arising from policies instituted by the NSDAP. A great
many others who fought under the flag were no more guilty than their
counterparts under other flags, some less (Curtis LeMay, in my view,
was among the greatest war criminals). After the war, with awareness
now of the policies of the NSDAP, membership in neo-nazi organizations
takes on a whole new meaning. But one may still have a differing
conception- as most do- of being "German" than that defined by the
NSDAP or neo-nazis.
There's a reason why many of us in Asatru oppose racialism and paranoia
and group-hate, even at the low scale level it exists today, but we
don't confuse such things with actual criminal deeds.
Comparing modern Catholics to Nazis in any measure is, however, worse
than a stretch.
Dirk Bruere
Not in NI.
However, if you want an apt anology I'd say that Catholicism is morally
equivalent to the Communist Party of the old USSR. And voluntary
membership of either on a par.
FFF
Dirk
El Barbaro del Ritmo
Do the majority of Irish nationalists not identify somewhat with
Catholicism, and attribute to Protestantism the place of invader and
oppressor? In other words, isn't an identity-conflict at the root of
perception? That Irish Catholicism survived at all under English
domination from Cromwell onwards must have much to do with many things,
good, bad, and indifferent.
I admire the Irish who have risen above communal hatreds, and challenge
the misuse of power or the abuses of all institutions regardless of its
point-of-origin.
> However, if you want an apt anology I'd say that Catholicism is morally
> equivalent to the Communist Party of the old USSR. And voluntary
> membership of either on a par.
Catholicism, in my view, is most often these days a perfectly
respectable religious perspective. The theological disputes are often
too arcane and serpentine, but many looked to the likes of Romero for
hope and strength. Often, its true, the secular is superior to
Christianity. But it is the nature of mankind to stir all simplicities
into a complex brew, and sometimes for a Catholic priest to stand
between the innocent and the bullet, for the secular to rape and
torture.
Don't tell me only if you are Catholic, or Asatru, or Moslem, or more
or less secular. Tell me what is in your heart, and of your deeds.
These are where justice resides.
bowman
> Not in NI.
And what is the comparison for Ian Paisley and his merry men?
> However, if you want an apt anology I'd say that Catholicism is morally
> equivalent to the Communist Party of the old USSR. And voluntary
> membership of either on a par.
The bulk of my ancestors, for the last twelve or thirteen centuries, might
hold a different view. I doubt many of them were particularly good
Catholics, but after some arbitrary point, it was the faith of their
fathers.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Not in NI.
>
> And what is the comparison for Ian Paisley and his merry men?
I don't think the Catholics fear the Church of England quite the same
way as protestants fear the RC Church, and for good reason. Despite what
Britain might be, it has never been a theocracy to match Eire throughout
most of its history.
>> However, if you want an apt anology I'd say that Catholicism is morally
>> equivalent to the Communist Party of the old USSR. And voluntary
>> membership of either on a par.
>
> The bulk of my ancestors, for the last twelve or thirteen centuries, might
> hold a different view. I doubt many of them were particularly good
> Catholics, but after some arbitrary point, it was the faith of their
> fathers.
Time for a change then.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> The decline of Xianity has led to the rise of scitech, and had a
> feedback effect that further helped eliminate the influence of the
> Church. Win-win IMO, and a vast advancement for Humanity as a whole. The
> greatest event in history.
How many died violently in the 20th century, often rather unpleasant deaths
related to scitech weaponry? The century certainly was an event in the
human timeline, and this one is shaping up to be more of the same.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> The decline of Xianity has led to the rise of scitech, and had a
>> feedback effect that further helped eliminate the influence of the
>> Church. Win-win IMO, and a vast advancement for Humanity as a whole. The
>> greatest event in history.
>
> How many died violently in the 20th century, often rather unpleasant deaths
> related to scitech weaponry? The century certainly was an event in the
> human timeline, and this one is shaping up to be more of the same.
The biggest one day military slaughter in history was Cannae - using
swords. Even the much reviled Nazis didn't get to crucify thousands of
prisoners as a warning to others. And when comparing deaths in various
eras one should do it as a percentage of total population.
And on the plus side, how many lives have been saved just from
antibiotic use in the past *half* century? I wouldn't mind betting it
exceeds the all the war dead of the 20th century.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> That Irish Catholicism survived at all under English
> domination from Cromwell onwards must have much to do with many things,
> good, bad, and indifferent.
You could start with Strongbow, though it took a few more centuries for the
Anglo-Normans to inject religion into the mix. Funny that there are
slightly more Catholics than Anglicans in Britain as Anglicans fleeing the
female clergy switched horses.
bowman
> Despite what
> Britain might be, it has never been a theocracy to match Eire throughout
> most of its history.
Does 'most of its history' apply to Britain or Eire? Didn't Cromwell haven't
a little thing for theocracy? Oliver, that is. Thomas just wanted the gold
and land. James I argued kings are gods, so that might be construed to be a
theocracy. 'Dieu et mon droit' indeed.
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Despite what
>> Britain might be, it has never been a theocracy to match Eire throughout
>> most of its history.
>
> Does 'most of its history' apply to Britain or Eire? Didn't Cromwell haven't
> a little thing for theocracy? Oliver, that is. Thomas just wanted the gold
> and land. James I argued kings are gods, so that might be construed to be a
> theocracy. 'Dieu et mon droit' indeed.
I think you'll find that the CoE has never had the same degree of
influence in British government as the RCC does/did in Eire. The whole
point of the CoE was to bring the Church under political control. The
reverse happened in Eire. Ask Michael for the gruesome details. Or Nik,
probably.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> I think you'll find that the CoE has never had the same degree of
> influence in British government as the RCC does/did in Eire.
And how long was that influence? After how many centuries of repression?
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> I think you'll find that the CoE has never had the same degree of
>> influence in British government as the RCC does/did in Eire.
>
> And how long was that influence? After how many centuries of repression?
You mean, how long did the RCC abuse its position in Eire?
FFF
Dirk
bowman
> The biggest one day military slaughter in history was Cannae - using
> swords.
How many of those were civilians? How many died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as
a warning? How many died at Dresden for the hell of it?
> And on the plus side, how many lives have been saved just from
> antibiotic use in the past half century?
Ultimately? Not a damn one. How many will die from the new strains that
shrug off antibiotics, after their fifty year run?
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> The biggest one day military slaughter in history was Cannae - using
>> swords.
>
> How many of those were civilians? How many died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as
> a warning? How many died at Dresden for the hell of it?
>> And on the plus side, how many lives have been saved just from
>> antibiotic use in the past half century?
>
> Ultimately? Not a damn one. How many will die from the new strains that
> shrug off antibiotics, after their fifty year run?
By the same logic:
How many died in hitech wars? None who wouldn't have died anyway.
FFF
Dirk