Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh I get and understand the viotrol towards the CC. It's reprehensible what happened.

That has nothing to do with what Im saying though.

Just because we are mad and have hatred towards something or someone, does not mean we are allowed to light it/them on fire or deface their buildings.

Or if it is, then lets just have vigilante justice for everything and see how that turns out.

If we want true equality in this country, then lets treat everyone equally.

And has been mentioned, it would be really unfortunate if these criminal acts take away the support and awareness that is starting to happen for the indiginous members of this country. Something that is more than likely to happen if its not reigned in.

I would hope people have the mental capacity to both support indigenous communities and also condone burning down churches. Anyone who says they can't was going to end up at that place anyways and was just looking for a reason to justify it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

All of those are bad things, yes. But I don't agree that they amount to "continuing the abuse". There is an enormous difference - worlds apart - between the abuse that was committed and the things that are being done now to fail to acknowledge or deal with it. Those can't be conflated, the one is not a continuation of the other.

I certainly understand how upsetting it is that the Church isn't releasing information or paying what they should be paying in restitution, or that their past apologies for this conduct aren't satisfying, but a) that isn't in any way comparable to the crimes it actually committed, and b) in my view, at least, is nowhere near enough to justify going around vandalizing and burning churches.

The argument about whether I'm right about "b)" is probably academic anyway. Let's face it, people aren't really vandalizing and burning churches to try to spur some action by the Church itself. They're just angry, and want to express that anger by doing some damage to the entity that's making them angry. It's not really complicated. It's understandable, as you've said - human beings do this stuff. But it's not reasonably defensible.

I dunno, a lot of stuff I have read and listened to recently sure sounds like they feel tormented by the Church's refusal to step up. Imagine, if the Church stepped up and took responsibility, released documents, worked with the Indigenous community to find graves, even punish those who may still be alive and responsible. What if they donated some of their funds to Indigenous causes, and supported them in anyway they could? They have no shortage of money to be used for good in this world, right? Would that not be a major benefit?


Would that not help relive some of the mental anguish? The point is they can do many things that would make a difference, but have chosen not too.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Totally. I absolutely wish they'd do all of those things. But I think their failure to do it is not justification in any way for these types of actions, nor do I think it's remotely similar to the issue BLM was trying to solve last year, which involved, in their view, stopping an active country-wide campaign of homicide. That's my point.

[BagoPucks]

There is no amount of stepping up you can do to address the hypocrisy and poor judgment that was. I am not sure a path forward has presented itself, communicated or conceived. Don't think I will be alive to see resolution but would love to be wrong.

[Fuzz]

The point of the comparison was a group of people that felt they had run out of options finding solutions in the conventional way, and their frustration has brought them to more extreme actions.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GGG

How much did you donate?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How much did you donate?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, you didn’t answer how much you donated. How much was it?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am going to assume $0 in contributions from you?

so $0, you contributed $0.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yeah the church sucks, but again the issue is that Canadians didn’t care 150 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or 10 years ago or 5 years ago and won’t care 1 year from now.

When is the last time anyone in Canada voted on religious issues. I mean most Canadians didn’t know these dead kids existed even though it’s been very public since 2015 and well known before hand if you cared to pay attention. This non payment problem started in 2005 and the court case people are talking about is in 2012. And now people care? There was no Calgarypuck thread on it then because no one cared. Not Catholics, Not Canadians.

But no let’s blame the church and it’s parishioners so we can all feel better. A parishioner of the Catholic Church has no more responsibility than any other Canadian. And every Canadian has failed to make this an issue and every Canadian has contributed to the racism against indigenous people.

So when you blame Catholics and not the institution because they continue to fund and go to church well that to me reeks of deflection and hypocrisy when in general Canadians dont care and in October the treatment of Indigenous people won’t matter at all when we are electing a government.

Except some other denominations have paid the monies the Catholic Church is to skint to pay.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The point of the comparison was a group of people that felt they had run out of options finding solutions in the conventional way, and their frustration has brought them to more extreme actions.

I get what you were saying. I was pointing out that there is a huge difference between the thing they're trying to find a solution to. It's not the case that every frustrating inability to achieve a satisfactory outcome makes illegal violence or property damage an understandable reaction. It matters what you're after. The difference between trying to get the Catholic Church to atone for wrongs committed in the past and trying to get police in America to stop killing black people immediately, is an enormous gap. I don't think it's fair to react to them in the same way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh I get and understand the viotrol towards the CC. It's reprehensible what happened.

That has nothing to do with what Im saying though.

Just because we are mad and have hatred towards something or someone, does not mean we are allowed to light it/them on fire or deface their buildings.

Or if it is, then lets just have vigilante justice for everything and see how that turns out.

If we want true equality in this country, then lets treat everyone equally.

And has been mentioned, it would be really unfortunate if these criminal acts take away the support and awareness that is starting to happen for the indiginous members of this country. Something that is more than likely to happen if its not reigned in.

At some point this might push to government buildings, I mean the GOC has an enormous role in this. Where the resentment could turn this into something more wide spread is that this government continues to talk about reconciliations and fails on almost every level. The government takes the pious position that the church needs to take action or apologize or whatever and its literally their bullet shield.



As resentment and anger grows, we don't know how these protests are going to expand or what's going to happen. What happens if a fire kills a person, do we shrug about that?


I am not a proponent of the church, what it did to my parents and my brother was gross and reprehensible and destroyed my mom and dad. They tried to forgive it in the name of their spirituallity, but it eventually drove them a way, as well as the continual priest scandals. I left the church because I saw it for what it really was. A massive money making industry, and I had no interest in pretending to save my soul in the service of something like that.



But there's a bit of sanity here. Burning churches down or pulling down and public defacement isn't going to elicit sympathy or a sense of we all need to work together in the long run.



This government needs to get its shyte together on the whole indigenous file and show some creativity and determination and do more then talking. The Church absolutely needs to come clean and put some real resources whether its cash or (And this is going to go over like a rock) manpower to help solve fundamental issues here.



But when you have protests that start like this, burning buildings vandalism etc and give it a almost atmosphere of permissiveness. "Its ok vent your spleen, its part of your right to hear your truth told". It can tend to spiral out of control quickly.



Also one of the arrests for a burning yesterday? that I saw on line was committed by non natives. That's messed up to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

so $0, you contributed $0.

Yeah, that’s essentially my entire point.

Canadians have never cared about this issue so just blaming catholics is hypocritical.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yeah, that’s essentially my entire point.

Canadians have never cared about this issue so just blaming catholics is hypocritical.

You comment a lot and have many opinions on something you don't care about.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Except some other denominations have paid the monies the Catholic Church is to skint to pay.

Yes, the church sucks. We agree on this point.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I get what you were saying. I was pointing out that there is a huge difference between the thing they're trying to find a solution to. It's not the case that every frustrating inability to achieve a satisfactory outcome makes illegal violence or property damage an understandable reaction. It matters what you're after. The difference between trying to get the Catholic Church to atone for wrongs committed in the past and trying to get police in America to stop killing black people immediately, is an enormous gap. I don't think it's fair to react to them in the same way.

I think that this post is kinda brilliant by the way, but I have to disagree on one thing.



We need to define atonement, and its more then just the church atoning for this. This also comes down to policies set by the government and handed to the Church to execute. So Trudeau sitting there and saying "Well the church needs to apologize" is just a smoke screen. The government needs to do not only the reconciliation things, but actually make proper and trackible policies and efforts. The time for virtual signalling speaking points, and phony sentimental speeches has to be over. Or things are going to outright spiral.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Has Trudeau sat there and said that? If so I haven't seen it. I hope this isn't just taking an opportunity to whack the PM you don't like; that would be pretty abhorrent.

Frankly his dad is pretty culpable for a lot of this stuff too, and I'm surprised no one seems to want to talk about that... but I don't know what you want him to do about this now. Sure, you could say in a broader sense that he hasn't done enough for First Nations people in this country but that's true independent of the discovery of these bodies.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that this post is kinda brilliant by the way, but I have to disagree on one thing.



We need to define atonement, and its more then just the church atoning for this. This also comes down to policies set by the government and handed to the Church to execute. So Trudeau sitting there and saying "Well the church needs to apologize" is just a smoke screen. The government needs to do not only the reconciliation things, but actually make proper and trackible policies and efforts. The time for virtual signalling speaking points, and phony sentimental speeches has to be over. Or things are going to outright spiral.

It was posted earlier:


https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/.../1557511412801


Part of the TRC recommendations were for the Government to work with the church...Trudeau calling for the Church to apologize is exactly what is was asked of them to do, so I don't know how you can turn that into a negative. But the government could do more. They could threaten to remove the Church's tax free status. I'm sure that would provoke action very quickly. Que popcorn gif. It'd never happen, but damn, that would be a good move.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It was posted earlier:


https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/.../1557511412801


Part of the TRC recommendations were for the Government to work with the church...Trudeau calling for the Church to apologize is exactly what is was asked of them to do, so I don't know how you can turn that into a negative. But the government could do more. They could threaten to remove the Church's tax free status. I'm sure that would provoke action very quickly. Que popcorn gif. It'd never happen, but damn, that would be a good move.

Can they though?

Im genuinely asking because I don't know, but would that not open a can of worms that would include every single religion? And would that not then get into charter violations territory? Or am I conflating different things?

[pepper24]

I was out with a group for Canada Day and a friend who is a principal at Catholic elementary school she said attendance had dropped off for next year and it’s happening at most Catholic schools. Her school has been growing every year until now.

That will have a longer and larger impact than burning churches.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can they though?

Im genuinely asking because I don't know, but would that not open a can of worms that would include every single religion? And would that not then get into charter violations territory? Or am I conflating different things?

Yes it would affect every religion. It might be argued as a Charter violation but not very convincingly in my view. What it would involve is removing "advancement of religion" from the pre-approved set of charitable purposes in CRA policy documents.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can they though?

Im genuinely asking because I don't know, but would that not open a can of worms that would include every single religion? And would that not then get into charter violations territory? Or am I conflating different things?

I’m not a constitutional expert, but it can’t possibly be in the charter that churches don’t need to pay property tax. That’s got to be fair game from that standpoint.

[Nufy]

Think the church, any church doesn't have any money ???

Threaten their tax free status and watch the lobbyists and lawyers come out of the woodwork.