Catholics vs. Hitler

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like I've explained the disadvantages several times, but I'll give it one more go. I also don't have a problem with people saying "Coke owns a factory in Anytown, USA". In that case, we're not doing much serious analyzing of behavior and action. But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient. I don't think anyone here has any disagreement with the statement "Not every Catholic was involved with the Crusades/Inquistions." Maybe not even every church official. If that's the case, then the comparisons of the Catholic Church to Hitler is a sweeping overgeneralization and is misplacing responsibility. And I think that when you misplace the responsibility, you blame people who deserve less or no blame more and blame people who do deserve blame less. If that's so, then we should be looking at an individual level.

May I turn the question around? What advantages do we have in making comparisons between a person and an organization that we don't have by comparing individuals to individuals (apples to apples)?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]


i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you could phrase everything differently and reduce the discussion to individual people. I just dont see the advantage. I have no problem saying coke owns a factory and I have no problem saying they are expanding their market share or advertising or being sued or any other action (some of which are good, some bad). What advantage is there in not adhering to the conventions of everyday language?

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like I've explained the disadvantages several times, but I'll give it one more go. I also don't have a problem with people saying "Coke owns a factory in Anytown, USA". In that case, we're not doing much serious analyzing of behavior and action. But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient. I don't think anyone here has any disagreement with the statement "Not every Catholic was involved with the Crusades/Inquistions." Maybe not even every church official. If that's the case, then the comparisons of the Catholic Church to Hitler is a sweeping overgeneralization and is misplacing responsibility. And I think that when you misplace the responsibility, you blame people who deserve less or no blame more and blame people who do deserve blame less. If that's so, then we should be looking at an individual level.

May I turn the question around? What advantages do we have in making comparisons between a person and an organization that we don't have by comparing individuals to individuals (apples to apples)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The advantage is that it allows us to consider actions that were taken by people BECAUSE they belonged to a certain group that never would have been taken otherwise. The group itself bears some responsibility, and it simply cannot be divided or segregated entirely to individuals.

[hashi92]

I would like to clear up some points that keep on repeating.

The Catholic Church is highly regarded. It is one of the major religons of the world.


The Catholic Church is a group that has one ideal and view. It is not a collaboration of views it is one view one ideal. America would be an example of many individuals with different views. Therefore you can say the Catholic Church killed. There probally were some people who disagreed with the church but they were the minority. If the majority of people think the same they should all be held responsible.

When i use Hitler i mean Hitler his ideals and his followers. I could use nazi's but it doesnt impart the same effect.

Lastly like i said before we are not splitting atoms here we are just having a friendly debate. The outcome doesnt have to result in any earth shattering revelations.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage is that it allows us to consider actions that were taken by people BECAUSE they belonged to a certain group that never would have been taken otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds close, but you can still remain at the individual level. Any person who takes an action that was influenced by other people from the same organization can still have their action traced to those that influenced them. I don't object to referencing certain policies of an organization as being influential. Those policies were written by people, which is, you guessed it, more individual action. Even granting that this is an advantage, how does it apply to atrocities committed by the Catholic Church? There's no foundation for such atrocities within the New Testament, at least not in the one I have (which is different than a Catholic New Testment. Perhaps Jesus's instructions for waging war are in the books that were left out of the Lutheran bible...). So your advantage is of not an advantage with the OP's comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
The group itself bears some responsibility, and it simply cannot be divided or segregated entirely to individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
But why? Why does "the group" bear responsibility? Why can't actions be traced to individuals? No one has provided a remotely satisfactory answer for this question nor has anyone even really tackled answering the question of who or what the Catholic Church is. Many of you have just assumed the conclusion that "the group bears responsibility".

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]


i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]



If you replace Catholic Church with Iraq i dont think we would be arguing about anything. Like i said before since God is involved everyone is blind. Nobody would elect hitlers great great great grandson as president because he carries the hitler name and legacy. he would not be able to escape from his past. I would never be able to forgive hitler in my lifetime no matter how much good he did.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is highly regarded. It is one of the major religons of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
This will probably seem like a nit, but I think it might go to highlight your misunderstandings about this whole thing. The Catholic Church is not a religion. Catholicism is a major religion. So are you blaming the Catholic Church or Catholicism?

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church is a group that has one ideal and view. It is not a collaboration of views it is one view one ideal. America would be an example of many individuals with different views.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you can go that far. Certainly there are some Catholic officials and priests who have differing views on things, even if they're minor. They are not a hive mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore you can say the Catholic Church killed.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've made a huge leap without any logical reasons to back you up. And you are still falling into the trap of personification.

[ QUOTE ]
There probally were some people who disagreed with the church but they were the minority. If the majority of people think the same they should all be held responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if we accept this, which I don't, does that mean that "they" should be responsible for all time? Only a certain "they" during a certain time? You have to be more specific.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly like i said before we are not splitting atoms here we are just having a friendly debate. The outcome doesnt have to result in any earth shattering revelations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people can see through this smokescreen attempt. It should be fairly obvious to people what your intention was with your OP. You wanted to slander people who belong to the Catholic Church now as being the equivalent of Nazis because of actions of some in the past.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But when you start trying to make comparisons between an organization and an individual, especially when you want to do something like assign responsibility for actions, I think the organizational level is insufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also the other way around. The difficulty seems to be that you do not allow a discussion of causation without intent attached and in that sense you want to take it to an individual level. But in systems, things can be caused totally contrary to the intent of individuals because of the nature of the system. Any individual in it does not need to know the outcome the system is producing and it's possible for the system to be producing an outcome contrary to the intent or desires of the individuals.

An analogy - The situation of selfish genes that create a giant system that produces altruistic actions can't be reversed to claim that it's the genes that are altruistic. The altruism exists only at the holistic level not at the reductionist level of the selfish gene.

Churches, governments, teams, family groups all can have characteristics that cause things to occur that don't transfer in act or intent down to the individuals involved. It may, it may even be more common that it does, but it's not a necessity. It is correct to refer to 'cause' at the holistic level if that's where it occurs, even if moral culpability may sit at a lower individual level if it exists anywhere. It is not letting the individuals off the hook for any actions if they are guilty but that doesn't mean the cause has been properly identified at their level either.

Events occur on many different levels and there is no valid claim that one specific level is THE true level.

luckyme

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP you said that the church cannot kill but you agree with me that the cowboys can win a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The football players who play for the Dallas Cowboys can win a game, with some players contributing more than others. Members or officials of the Catholic Church can and have killed. To kill is an a verb, which means action and action cannot be performed by an abstraction. Whatever references to such action being "done" by abstractions that we make in casual conversation are figures of speech and little more.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly we are having casual conversation. were not splittng atoms here. im glad you finally see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Casual conversation, is it now? I thought it was supposed to be serious debate that you were trying inspire. If it's the latter, then we better start breaking out our nuclear reactors. If not, then I'd like to know what the purpose of your OP was? What do you want us to do if we agree the Church, and not individual people, is responsible for things like the Crusades? It seemed pretty clear to me that you want us to stigmatize the Church the way Hitler is stimatized, which means you believe we should be "punishing" it for actions in the past. Is that what you want?

[/ QUOTE ]


i just had a thought and wanted to see what other people had to say. the church does do good things but isnt it ironic that it is founded on so much violence and lies. Without this evil period in the churches life it would be a totally different organization. I didnt come to the conclusion that the reason the church gets off the hook because faith is blind until after half way through this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you still persist with the claim that anyone is "letting anyone off the hook" with regards to past atrocities? I'm certainly not in favor of letting anyone who was responsible for those atrocities off the hook. I just don't condemn everyone for the sins of one or two or twenty men nor do I try to condemn the current batch for the sins of those in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]



If you replace Catholic Church with Iraq i dont think we would be arguing about anything. Like i said before since God is involved everyone is blind. Nobody would elect hitlers great great great grandson as president because he carries the hitler name and legacy. he would not be able to escape from his past. I would never be able to forgive hitler in my lifetime no matter how much good he did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I could forgive Hitler either. Nor am I sure I could forgive Pope Urban II for starting the Crusades or Pope Innocent IV (ha!) for authorizing torture during the medieval inquistions. But I would be wrong to blame all Catholics now for the crimes of people they never knew or met or could have had any meaningful relationship with. Apparently you subscribe to some "sins of the father" belief system, which I'd say makes you worse than many of the religions you so despise.