Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[FlamesAddiction]

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.

Totally this. The churches were a tool used by the British and Canadian governments to “settle” the land. They didn’t run the country. Canadians putting their ire in the churches, it’s an easy out for the uncomfortable realization that it was all done so our families could come here.

To that point, the colonization of Canada is still in progress whether your family came over recently, or was here since the 1600s. My family came over roughly 40 years ago and while I don’t personally connect our history to the history of Canada before that point!, I acknowledge that everything that happened before that was the mechanism the brought us here, and everything that happens in the future is on us. The blame game is nothing but a distraction from that.

Having said that, I have nothing against indigenous peoples taking the fights to the Churches and find it hard to sympathize with the institutions. The people alive today aren’t the ones that committed the sins though, so they shouldn’t be the targets. Every person should be judged on their own deeds.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

No, but it does impact peoples' ability to worship as they choose to some extent. It's probably less of an issue for major religious entities like the Catholic church as much as minor ones. I would imagine that there are some religious institutions or centers that couldn't survive if they didn't have tax exempt status.

To take an extreme example, if you were to not only remove tax exempt status but say that all religious organizations have to now pay a hundred times as much property tax as any other entity, you wouldn't be discriminating on the basis of religion because it would hit all religions equally... but it'd still probably be contrary to the Charter because it would unduly infringe on peoples' freedom of religion.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by 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.

My buddy sent me those sentiments the other days. We both attended Catholic school, neither of us will send our kids, ever attend church, or have anything to do with being Catholic. My parents no longer attend, same with many of their friends, including people who 20 years ago were key members of the church.

I feel like anyone who still attends, defends, and gives money to the church is part of the problem. Its a terrible organization, the criminality was plainly laid out in the 90s with the pedophilia scandals. The fact the church will litigate obvious cases to the end of the earth tells you everything.

Your local priest and church community might be decent, but the larger organization from the bishops up is rotten. Fred Henry never missed an opportunity to be an ignoramus.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

You appeared to be blaming Catholics not the Catholic chrurch so I assumed you judged Canadians in the same manner for Canadas failure. Various Canadian governments at least one of which you would have voted for over time have hired lawyers to get out of meeting treaty requirements. Cecils post really nails it. It’s always easier to blame Sky Daddy.

If your post was just about the Church than that’s reasonable but then you shouldn’t be using Catholics. Catholics probably represent the greatest portion of the Catholic Churches victims.

There is little that individual Canadians or Catholics can do except raise a stink with those in power to let them know that they are not doing enough. If we’re not doing that then we are part of the problem.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It is dissimilar though, and you've just highlighted why. Take what abuse for so long? What is the ongoing abuse that's still being taken in this case? The BLM protests were about ongoing acts of violence - "the police keep doing this to us, they're still doing it, it needs to stop, so we're going to smash these windows and set that Dairy Queen on fire". Obviously we had a lot of good (and some bad) debate about the merits of that position last year, but I don't think anyone was suggesting that there isn't an ongoing problem with policing in the USA leading to bad outcomes for black people on a large scale.

Here, there are two complaints. One is the behaviour of the people responsible for Residential Schools, including the Catholic Church. That behaviour has stopped. They are no longer engaged in the atrocities we're complaining about. There's no need to vandalize churches to get them to stop doing it - they already have. The second complaint is that they have inadequately apologized for, or addressed, the historical atrocities they've committed. Is that concern, about the Church's half-assed attempt to atone for its past failures, in any way a reasonable basis for vandalism, even if you think vandalism for ideology is sometimes acceptable?

My position was and remains that the vandalism, looting, violence etc. that occurred in response to Floyd and other similar events last year was not justified, but there is an obvious difference between the things these groups are concerned with. One is concerned with stopping what they see as an ongoing project of murdering people who look like them. The other is concerned with getting an adequate apology, and perhaps restitution (financial or otherwise) for conduct that stopped years ago. These are not analogous.

While the current focus is residential schools there are very direct parallels between the way African American and Indigenous people are treated by police and society. Dropping people out of town in the middle of winter is equivalent to knee on neck.

In both cases the vandalism is understandable but illegal and people should be held accountable, including those who perpetrate(d) the acts that trigger the whole thing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That has nothing to do with this conversation though. People aren't vandalizing catholic churches because of starlight tours.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, but it does impact peoples' ability to worship as they choose to some extent. It's probably less of an issue for major religious entities like the Catholic church as much as minor ones. I would imagine that there are some religious institutions or centers that couldn't survive if they didn't have tax exempt status.

To take an extreme example, if you were to not only remove tax exempt status but say that all religious organizations have to now pay a hundred times as much property tax as any other entity, you wouldn't be discriminating on the basis of religion because it would hit all religions equally... but it'd still probably be contrary to the Charter because it would unduly infringe on peoples' freedom of religion.

Couldn't I just decide my house was a church and not pay tax if that was the case and take it to court as a charter violation once its denied?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You... could? You'd obviously lose though. I'm not sure what your logic is here.

If your house actually was a church - like that's what it's used for primarily, and you have a congregation and everything - then you might have a shot, sure.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, but it does impact peoples' ability to worship as they choose to some extent. It's probably less of an issue for major religious entities like the Catholic church as much as minor ones. I would imagine that there are some religious institutions or centers that couldn't survive if they didn't have tax exempt status.

To take an extreme example, if you were to not only remove tax exempt status but say that all religious organizations have to now pay a hundred times as much property tax as any other entity, you wouldn't be discriminating on the basis of religion because it would hit all religions equally... but it'd still probably be contrary to the Charter because it would unduly infringe on peoples' freedom of religion.

Well I guess this is where more lawyerly folks make their arguments. It just seems that this isn't specifically an infringement on their freedom of religion? People can worship as they like and there are no changes there.

Could some organizations be unable to afford their current accommodations? Probably. That's just unfortunate though, and not as a result of religious freedom. It's no different than something like an energy bill rising and causing these groups consternation. It's not related to religious freedom in any way though.

[Manhattanboy]

Vandalism of churches and other monuments is totally unacceptable.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I guess this is where more lawyerly folks make their arguments. It just seems that this isn't specifically an infringement on their freedom of religion? People can worship as they like and there are no changes there.

Could some organizations be unable to afford their current accommodations? Probably. That's just unfortunate though, and not as a result of religious freedom.

Well, apply this principle to abortion. A province implements a bunch of restrictions and financial hurdles that make it more difficult. Some clinics can't afford their current accommodations. You see the problem? The argument "people can still get an abortion, we haven't directly put any restrictions on it and there are no changes there" doesn't really hold water.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, apply this principle to abortion. A province implements a bunch of restrictions and financial hurdles that make it more difficult. Some clinics can't afford their current accommodations. You see the problem? The argument "people can still get an abortion, we haven't directly put any restrictions on it and there are no changes there" doesn't really hold water.

I don't think this is a fair analogy, as in the clinic circumstance, you are imposing financial hurdles not imposed on other businesses, whereas the churches are exempted from financial hurdles other businesses must face.

For either case, I don't see the argument if both businesses (and both are businesses) are treated the same as other businesses.

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Vandalism of churches and other monuments is totally unacceptable.

In a healthy society, this would be a widely shared view.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

In a healthy society, this would be a widely shared view.

Probably could say the same for, you know, genocide.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, apply this principle to abortion. A province implements a bunch of restrictions and financial hurdles that make it more difficult. Some clinics can't afford their current accommodations. You see the problem? The argument "people can still get an abortion, we haven't directly put any restrictions on it and there are no changes there" doesn't really hold water.

What’s the difference between property tax and a utility bill from a crown corp.

I don’t think the Abortion analogy works because in Canada the government has to fund Abortion as part of health care services. In the US without public healthcare I think your argument would be reasonable.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Vandalism of churches and other monuments is totally unacceptable.

Wouldn't it be nice if Canadians cared as much about Indigenous People as they do about inanimate objects like buildings and statues?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Wouldn't it be nice if Canadians cared as much about Indigenous People as they do about inanimate objects like buildings and statues?

What the hell? The Catholic Church has much to answer for here and for the life of me I don’t understand why the Pope is not in this country right now begging for forgiveness. The Church’s response has been disgraceful and totally inadequate to the point that they are deserving of sanctions whether by way of the removal of tax exemptions or otherwise.

That His Holiness was able to find time six months from now to meet with Indigenous leaders in Rome is a joke.

But the burning of churches is inexcusable as well.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Probably could say the same for, you know, genocide.

It is not the prevailing view that genocide is unacceptable?

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

What the hell? The Catholic Church has much to answer for here and for the life of me I don’t understand why the Pope is not in this country right now begging for forgiveness. The Church’s response has been disgraceful and totally inadequate to the point that they are deserving of sanctions whether by way of the removal of tax exemptions or otherwise.

That His Holiness was able to find time six months from now to meet with Indigenous leaders in Rome is a joke.

But the burning of churches is inexcusable as well.

Because if the church had to apologize for all the atrocities they have been a part of in the name of god, they'd need 20 Popes on constant world tours

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by zamler

It is not the prevailing view that genocide is unacceptable?

Depends which side of the genocide you are on……..