Kolya on 22/12/2011 at 12:50
So does the point which was made to you a few times already: Pointing at problems elsewhere doesn't make anything better.
Too keep with the example you brought up: If football coaches abused thousands of children there wouldn't just be a public uproar. People would also demand to change the structural problems that lead to such an accumulation of abuse. And if it was then revealed that the coaches are expected to live their life in celibacy, so they can focus wholly on football, the organisational structure would definitely be changed, by law if necessary.
Similarly democratic organisations will change if the majority demands it. They have a built in mechanism built for that called elections.
Beleg Cúthalion on 22/12/2011 at 13:11
No, the point was that also (democratic) institutions try to enforce their ideas of how the shop's running on their territory. Both a state and a church think they know what's right and what their subjects should (not) do. That's the whole aspect I was trying to cover earlier which seems to have been so cryptic. Plus, both inside clerical and secular institutions you have some ways more or less to change them, even if (the) church(es) seem a bit less influenceable.
That democratic systems IMHO have the flaw that its people don't necessarily vote what's best for them but for the guys who sell them the best story, is a completely different matter.
DDL on 22/12/2011 at 13:43
I'm not sure "democratic institutions are almost but not quite as awful as religious ones" is a persuasive argument in favour of religion.
It could just be me, though.
Thirith on 22/12/2011 at 14:16
Quote Posted by Kolya
Too keep with the example you brought up: If football coaches abused thousands of children there wouldn't just be a public uproar. People would also demand to change the structural problems that lead to such an accumulation of abuse. And if it was then revealed that the coaches are expected to live their life in celibacy, so they can focus wholly on football, the organisational structure would definitely be changed, by law if necessary.
Doesn't this point mostly hold for the
Catholic Church, though? To my understanding, child abuse is mainly a widespread issue in the CC; the Protestant Church doesn't have the whole fixation on celibacy, they have female priests, and as an organisation seems to be more democratic. Or is this (at least to you) a case of, "Yeah, the Protestants are probably the best of a bad bunch"?
CCCToad on 22/12/2011 at 21:18
Interestingly, there were also some unforeseen consequences of the whole thing.
If you will recall, back in the 90s the Catholic Church of America had a lot of internal strife going on. Does anyone else remember how there was a militantly liberal wing of the church, who argued for changes like removing the restrictions on contraception and having female clergy.
Then, This:(
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html)
What that article fails to mention is that a lot of the key leaders who were advocating progressivism in the Church, such as Bishop Robert Mahony of LA, where the same ones who were caught up in the sex scandals.
jay pettitt on 22/12/2011 at 23:06
Quote Posted by "Beleg"
That's the whole aspect I was trying to cover earlier which seems to have been so cryptic
Not cryptic. Just wrong. You're trying to pretend that there aren't differences. There are. Institutions that are accountable and transparent are qualitatively different to those that ain't. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make it.
Beleg Cúthalion on 23/12/2011 at 12:29
I don't know what can be plainer than to say that a certain way of acting of even different institutions can be comparable. Both apples and oranges fall to the ground when ripe (but don't nail me down on the oranges, I've usually only business with apple trees and pears, which is how the proverb goes in German). Just because you don't like the church doesn't mean it must act differently in every aspect towards its subjects, compared to a secular institution (and I was, please read carefully, only refering to the aspect of that it tries to provide every subject with its idea of what is right and wrong, right and duty). You're making up an artificial difference which I can only regard as politically-motivated, in the figurative sense.
jay pettitt on 23/12/2011 at 16:28
Q) Are institutions that are transparent and accountable qualitatively different from those that are not? (Y/n)
If you find that too hard, here's a warm up question to get you in the swing.
Q) Are apples different to oranges? (Y/n)
(hint: claiming that both fall to the ground does not necessarily make them the same if
other differences make them different.)
If you still find that tricky, can I suggest you go read Dr Boli's '(
http://drboli.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/the-duck/) the duck' for an example in why it's silly not to be able to tell the difference between a duck and Cousin Albrecht in a cap holding a feather duster.
Beleg Cúthalion on 23/12/2011 at 19:39
If you promise to post more funny links or even YouTube videos I'll try to further explain to you what's the difference between an institution and the way it works in a certain aspect, just to see you responding that two institutions are not necessarily identical. :p
jay pettitt on 23/12/2011 at 20:52
I promise to post funny links and possibly youtube videos.
