So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[Hammerskjold]

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes.

You know, I think the 'sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son' etc etc line, has great merit.

However, it's still also true in the real everyday world, that people often represent something other\bigger than themselves, and that is also held accountable.

Both for good and bad, but it does happen and I'm pretty sure you know that.

My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Again I say, look up atrocities like the Rwandan Genocide. Specifically, the use of radio broadcasting.

http://www.rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html

And I'll try to say this as clear as possible. My point is not about stifling free speech. (Did I ever imply that I wanted to do that? ) It's not about 'radio\newspaper\websites is the problem'. That is either naive, or just wanking around the issue.

You don't need to be Rwandan to understand and empathize, to recognize the danger of 'Muh Freedomz' of speech without responsibilities.

This isn't a matter of philosophical circle jerk for some people. My own grandparents, and parents survived similar horrors. So it's not some 'distant' ancestry here, I'm talking about 2-3 generations past. And I can tell you from my own experience, it's not some 'aberrant' individuals.

My own grandmother was put on a death list that was rubberstamped by the CIA, during a coup. Her crime was belonging to the 'wrong ethnic' group, praying to the 'wrong' religion, and working in a book store. (Not a 'radical subversive' book store, it was the 1950-60's equivalent of an Indigo. Just without the loyalty card sales push and 20 dollar soap and knick knacks. When book stores sold mostly, books.) She lived through that horror due to sheer luck\providence.

Often the they are complicit in concealing wrong doing for fear of bad publicity. This is true for more than church organizations. It is true of hospitals, schools, mental health providers, day care, etc.

Why yes, yes they absolutely do. So you obviously understand that aspect. Which makes me more puzzled as to why there seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of your previous points.

Look I'm not interested in a 15 pages philosophical circle jerk debate on "well that depends on the meaning of the word, 'is'..". I'll just say that it's ahem, very puzzling and strange to say that individuals should be held accountable (absolute agreement there). An ir-responsible group or a system should be held accountable as well (agreed again here). But connecting the two, or the idea that a person(s) can build or corrupt a system to do outright evil work. That's somehow...does not compute? That it's stifling 'muh freedom' of expression? Seriously?

Since when is literally, seriously uttering a death threat, covered under the U.S. free speech?

How do you cull the good (parts) philosophies from bad philosophies? There is plenty of debate on the anthropological implications of missionary work.

Leave the 'debate' to master debaters. Ok a more serious reply.

Again, I like certain things to be clear, and simple without crossing into simplistic.

There's one line that I think has held up and is quite good I think.

"whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

I like it because it can be applied in a practical way. Not easy, but practical IMO.

If it's a good philosophy or good application of it, chances are it probably passes that test of 'how do you treat the least of you' line. To be blunt, how does it treat women, children, people in minority positions? I'm saying position, not just 'ethnicity' alone.

Even blunter version: How does the people with power treat those without\with less? How fanatical are they to slavish devotion of doctrine vs actual people?

Really, there is enough obstacles in real life to navigate, that I personally treat it the same way as picking a good apple vs bad apple. Sight, feel, and smell test are pretty good indicators. If it can't pass the smell test, it's usually rotten.

I understand the fear of "hate speech", but I fear more the silencing of dissent.

And from my own experience, I'd say that constant surveillance is a far more chilling and effective method vs silencing dissent outright. The first is not that far off with developing current tech. While the second has the risk of pushing a human's innate 'rebel' button.

It's not really the same as "One World Order" -- the concept would be say to imagine if we did have world wide agreement on Islam, or Buddhism, or democracy.

We seem to be splitting hairs on this one. We can imagine all we want. I can imagine 12 complete random strangers unanimously agreeing on which toppings they'd like for their pizza. Doesn't mean reality will match our imagination.

One thing we can do to reduce violence is to recognize how to negotiate between world views, and show tolerance when they do not match our own.

You know I agree and I have the same scant hope with that. I'd place a thousand bucks easy on humanity murdering each other for petty reasons for quite a while longer. And I'd place 10$ on humans reaching critical mass enlightenment eventually before our sun eventually goes supernova. But hey I'm a pessimist, not a nihilist.

Often it is when the discussion stops (or is censored) that the guns come out.

I however disagree with that , from the experience I've had and heard from my not so distant ancestor. Before the guns come out, it's usually preceded by a yell of 'get those (insert your choice of group here)!Kill and Burn! Take back what is ours!111'. The ones who are doing the slaughtering rarely sees themselves as the more powerful ones. If anything they often see their group as the aggrieved, wronged minority that are oppressed. Or you know, being told and whispered that they are the victims here.


TLDR: Must have been a slow news day at CNN. I can't directly peer into the pope's mind due to his funny hat blocking his brain waves. But I do like that he likes this statue. The artist name is Timothy Schmalz. (The only indicator that the figure is Jesus is the nail holes in his feet. That's a clever artistic twist IMO. Besides, blonde haired blue eyed swimmer's build hunky Jesus is overdone anyway. )

http://www.catholicregister.org/arts/art...he-vatican