Catholics vs. Hitler

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
YES ! Now you're getting it. The company will be fined or forced to pay restitution or whatever other action the court decides is warranted because of the ACTIONS the corporation took or didn't take. Have you actually never read a newspaper report of these cases or TV news?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of negligent homicide? That's a criminal offense punishable . We're past fines at that point.

[ QUOTE ]
Complex systems can cause things that no one of their parts can, that's the nature of complex systems. The joke a poster made about your cells was to remind you that you are a complex system but your individual parts are not equivalent to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The joke that other poster made was irrelevant to my or the OP's point. You can't morally judge the cells in my fingers because they don't have a choice in whether I type or not. Just as you can't morally judge the lightning bolt for hitting your house.

That is really my whole point for this thread. You can't morally judge any action but purposeful action and purposeful action is performed by individuals. Here's a wiki article that describes the type of individualism that I'm talking about. I didn't just make this stuff up for the purposes of exonerating the actions of those in the Church for past actions.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who disagreed with the church could have started a revolt to stop the wrong doing. The majority of the church at time believed they were doing right. The rest were probally tortured and killed. Only a small majority sat there and felt it was wrong and did nothing. Like i said faith blinds you.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your admiting here the individuals can be included under the cowboys term. Even the janitor no matter how minor his role is.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate this forum, the reason of why catholics arent at the same level as Hitler its obvisouly because catholics have also done good stuff, and somehow someway we have a debate about who was worse hitler or the church during the inquisition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to imply Hitler didn't do good things. This is an interesting point when people call him "pure evil". He was not that by any means. That's part of why he was so dangerous.

Pure evil is quite simple to deal with (not always easy, but simple.) It's part-evil that's so nasty. Hitler did lots of nice things for lots of people. (Kind of like the Catholic Church). He improved the lives of many Germans during some bad times. He also did plenty of bad things, but if you ignore all the good things he did, you won't be able to recognize the next Hitler.

As for the Catholic Church being "highly regarded" - that's pretty debatable. It's powerful, and rich, certainly. (Very "christian" attributes, eh?) But it's only high regarded by a relative minority of dogmatic hypocrites in the world.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YES ! Now you're getting it. The company will be fined or forced to pay restitution or whatever other action the court decides is warranted because of the ACTIONS the corporation took or didn't take. Have you actually never read a newspaper report of these cases or TV news?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of negligent homicide? That's a criminal offense punishable . We're past fines at that point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are the fines not a penalty? imposed on a corporation ( or a church in some cases) because they are held responsible?
I was disputing your claim that organizations can't be held responsible, charged and convicted when in fact that is happening every day at many levels and with all types. What the penalty is doesn't change that responsibility was assigned. When I get a fine it's because I was held responsible.

Organizations can have attributes that are not a personification. The Boy Scouts can be homophobic without having any homophobic members.

luckyme

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your admiting here the individuals can be included under the cowboys term. Even the janitor no matter how minor his role is.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never contended that an individual cannot be included in a group. My point that I think I've been banging pretty hard is that if we are to analyze a group, staying only at the group level without reducing down to the individual gives us no meaning and no way to tell what is being done wrong or what is being done right. How are you to analyze the actions of a game that was lost if you cannot reduce down? If the Cowboys lose, does that mean that every individual that works for the Cowboys is equally responsible for the loss? Or are some more responsible than others?

[dknightx]

hashi, expounding on your "dallas cowboys" example, let's say that from 1950-1960, the dallas cowboys were a disappointing 1-100, they were the worst team in the league by a LARGE margin. I think it is safe to call the 1950-1960 cowboys "losers".

However, by the late 1990s, they had won 10 consecutive superbowls.

Now in the year 2007 (after 7-8 years of mediocrity), do we call the Dallas Cowboys, "losers", "winners", or "just ok"?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowly janitors can be considered part of the team. if they did not clean the stadium or field there is a possiblility that there would be no game.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at best, there's a very indirect benefit that the janitor provides. But when we talk about the "Cowboys losing last week," we are usually talking about just certain members of that organization. Would you fault the janitor for Romo not holding onto the ball during the field goal? Would you fault Steve from accounting if T.O. drops a pass? No, you trace back actions that help and those that don't to winning the game. The actions of the janitor merely play a small role in keeping the organization operating. To extrapolate to the Catholic Church, they might be like a parishoner or maybe a priest in a small town. The actions committed by "the Catholic Church" can and should be traced to those who took those actions. So it would be right to say Pope Urban II deserves at least some part of the blame/responsibility for the Crusades. And we can begin to assign blame to individuals who followed through on Urban's edicts and so on. I think to just leave all the blame at the organization level obscures the issue and those who deserve more blame than others get off easy while those who don't deserve much or any blame are probably not receiving fair treatment. Would you agree with that?

[ QUOTE ]
if you see someone commiting a crime and you look the other way arent you wrong for not stepping forward and preventing it from happening. if you knew that a bomb was going to go off and did nothing your just as guilty as the person who set the bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that you know of the crime and that you have some reasonable option for intervening. Obviously if you are unaware of the crime happening, it would be unfair to blame you for not stopping it. And if the only way you could prevent the crime was to have Superman-like speed, it would also be unreasonable to blame you for not interfering. My contention is that you cannot blame everyone who belonged to the Catholic Church at the time of these atrocities for their occurance and that it is certain individuals are responsible and should receive the brunt of your anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who disagreed with the church could have started a revolt to stop the wrong doing. The majority of the church at time believed they were doing right. The rest were probally tortured and killed. Only a small majority sat there and felt it was wrong and did nothing. Like i said faith blinds you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that there can be evil where good men do nothing to prevent more evil. But let's be honest. You weren't just condemning the Catholic Church of the Crusades/Inquistion. Your OP clearly was trying to condemn the present Catholic Church for the sins committed by other people. But if that's the standard we are to hold people to, anyone who ever had an ancestor who did something wrong should be condemned. I disagree with such a sentiment. I feel you should be responsible for your actions. So even the people who stayed silent while Urban II ordered the Crusades are responsible in part because of their action of doing nothing. The idea that we should condemn the present set of people for the actions of those in the past should lead us to condemn essentially every nation that has ever existed because that nation probably hurt other people. And I ask of what use is such condemnation then?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
hashi, expounding on your "dallas cowboys" example, let's say that from 1950-1960, the dallas cowboys were a disappointing 1-100, they were the worst team in the league by a LARGE margin. I think it is safe to call the 1950-1960 cowboys "losers".

However, by the late 1990s, they had won 10 consecutive superbowls.

Now in the year 2007 (after 7-8 years of mediocrity), do we call the Dallas Cowboys, "losers", "winners", or "just ok"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, net they are above average. If you want to argue that the Catholic Church won more Super Bowls than it lost, that is exactly the type of debate we COULD have been having in this thread all along.