Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
Scout outing.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
> Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> the family.
That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
not
have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
chance
of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
the
church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
themselves
appear to be separate. http://www.eaglescout.org/ Mormon scouts: http://www.mormonscouting.com/ - the Eagle Scout is mentioned on the LHS of the page.
> On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
“…But, you'd think that their legal consultant would not have allowed
them to even take this on unless he felt they had a chance of
success….” – Phil
I’m a bit more cynical about the legal system than that. My guess is
that most lawyers can guess the outcome of any suit long before it
goes to trial. If that is the case, exactly ½ of them are taking cases
they know they will lose. I won’t venture a guess as to their motives.
And, since I come from a linage of attorneys, it is easy for me to say
this.
All of the scout info at the site you posted is ‘regular’ Boy Scout
stuff. I know this because I spent years as a member. And, even if the
step father was a member of and even an officer/representative of the
church, I don’t see how that would make much if any difference. An
analogy would be if my step dad (hypothetical) were a grill cook or
even a manager at MacDonald’s and helped sponsor a scout outing. I
just don’t see MacDonald’s being sued because my dad worked there…
mainly because it was he who would have been involved. Also, as I
understand it, this was an ongoing issue…at least 10 years I seem to
remember. A boy scout outing wouldn’t be material at all.
Oh, Eagle scouts are for the older boys…and those with a lot of
‘awards’. Starts out with cub scouts, then boy scouts then eagle
scouts. There are other minor divisions involved in the hierarchy too.
On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > the family.
> That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> not
> have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> chance
> of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> the
> church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
> themselves
> appear to be separate. http://www.eaglescout.org/ > Mormon scouts: http://www.mormonscouting.com/ > - the Eagle Scout is mentioned on the LHS of the page.
> > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=... Hide quoted text -
On Nov 20, 2:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…But, you'd think that their legal consultant would not have allowed
> them to even take this on unless he felt they had a chance of
> success….” – Phil
> I’m a bit more cynical about the legal system than that. My guess is
> that most lawyers can guess the outcome of any suit long before it
> goes to trial. If that is the case, exactly ½ of them are taking cases
> they know they will lose. I won’t venture a guess as to their motives.
> And, since I come from a linage of attorneys, it is easy for me to say
> this.
Well, if that's the case, I am sure that they will not be taking their
clients on a pro bono basis.
> All of the scout info at the site you posted is ‘regular’ Boy Scout
> stuff. I know this because I spent years as a member. And, even if the
> step father was a member of and even an officer/representative of the
> church, I don’t see how that would make much if any difference. An
> analogy would be if my step dad (hypothetical) were a grill cook or
> even a manager at MacDonald’s and helped sponsor a scout outing. I
> just don’t see MacDonald’s being sued because my dad worked there…
> mainly because it was he who would have been involved. Also, as I
> understand it, this was an ongoing issue…at least 10 years I seem to
> remember. A boy scout outing wouldn’t be material at all.
Given that, there is no case.
> Oh, Eagle scouts are for the older boys…and those with a lot of
> ‘awards’. Starts out with cub scouts, then boy scouts then eagle
> scouts. There are other minor divisions involved in the hierarchy too.
I didn't know about the eagle scouts. Thanks for filling me in.
When I was a kid all I knew about was the Guides and the Scouts,
non of the rest of the stuff.
> On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > the family.
> > That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> > not
> > have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> > chance
> > of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> > the
> > church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> > talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> > is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
> > themselves
> > appear to be separate. http://www.eaglescout.org/ > > Mormon scouts: http://www.mormonscouting.com/ > > - the Eagle Scout is mentioned on the LHS of the page.
> > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=... quoted text -
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> the family.
This paragraph appears to be the key:
"All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
the 70s and 80s."
So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
became their step-father and they are alleging that both these organizations
(Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and covered
up the sexual abuse.
If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon and
the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > Scout outing.
> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > the family.
> This paragraph appears to be the key:
> "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
> allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
> scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
> the 70s and 80s."
> So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
> became their step-father and they are alleging that both these organizations
> (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and covered
> up the sexual abuse.
> If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon and
> the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > Scout outing.
> >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them though.
The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
that they are above the law.
And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card that
Religion has played.
These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no special
privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow secular
law.
This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
successes in this area.
I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these types
of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which has
a lot of lawyers).
I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that we
should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > the family.
> > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
> > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
> > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
> > the 70s and 80s."
> > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
> > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> organizations
> > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> covered
> > up the sexual abuse.
> > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon
> and
> > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > Scout outing.
> > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=.
> ..
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > --
> > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > God Is A Ribbon!
> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
associated with the psyche of the upper class.
“Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
__
On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them though.
> The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> that they are above the law.
> And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card that
> Religion has played.
> These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no special
> privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow secular
> law.
> This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
> successes in this area.
> I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these types
> of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which has
> a lot of lawyers).
> I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
> required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
> It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that we
> should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
> forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> > On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > > the family.
> > > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
> > > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
> > > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
> > > the 70s and 80s."
> > > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
> > > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> > organizations
> > > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> > covered
> > > up the sexual abuse.
> > > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon
> > and
> > > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > > Scout outing.
> > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=.
> > ..
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > --
> > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> > text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
> organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
> of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
> corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
> associated with the psyche of the upper class.
No disagreement there, and I'm as opposed to them playing this special
privilege card as I am to Religion doing it.
Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the law
either and there are those who think it does.
Some seem to think that this fact somehow excuses Religion when they do it
though, with the claim that "See, we're not the only ones."
What it really does is simply mean that they're both wrong.
It also doesn't change the fact that this is a clearly stated belief (both
through doctrine and acts) of Religion.
At least when they wealthy and well-connected do it, they know it's wrong
and don't try to justify by saying that they're entitled.
In addition, when they get caught they do go to jail.
We're still waiting for this to happen where Religion is concerned.
> “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
> __
> On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <
> ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> > These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> > IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them
> though.
> > The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> > that they are above the law.
> > And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card
> that
> > Religion has played.
> > These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no
> special
> > privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow
> secular
> > law.
> > This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
> > successes in this area.
> > I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these
> types
> > of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which
> has
> > a lot of lawyers).
> > I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
> > required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
> > It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that
> we
> > should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
> > forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> > > On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside
> of
> > > > > the family.
> > > > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > > > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America
> for
> > > > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church
> bishop,
> > > > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in
> Sunnyvale in
> > > > the 70s and 80s."
> > > > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader
> *before* he
> > > > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> > > organizations
> > > > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> > > covered
> > > > up the sexual abuse.
> > > > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the
> Mormon
> > > and
> > > > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual
> Abuse
> > > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI
> Agent.
> > > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on
> a
> > > > > > Scout outing.
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > > --
> > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide
> quoted
> > > text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > --
> > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > God Is A Ribbon!
> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
Trance, while I can only guess that we are ‘on the same side of the
fence’ here, I find much to comment about on your most recent post.
The overview of my commentary is that religion is not different from
other groups when it comes to the sense of entitlement. It has always
been the view of most of the elite that they are just that, elite and
have all of the associated ‘rights and privileges’. This can be
observed throughout most cultures and historical eras including the
current time. Here I am not just pointing fingers because I have lived
with and in such small and influential groups. It takes a lot to
deprogram those who hold such views in most cases as does it for those
indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
the populace too.
In the case of historical theological influence, in many cases their
power even usurped that of leaders of countries. Today, when it comes
to socioeconomic influence of the entitled view of the elite, not only
do they overall control and set law (something that when studied is
set to their advantage), but in recent decades, the most powerful
institutions globally, corporations, not only buy and sell influence
in all countries worldwide, but have no allegiance to any nation or
doctrine other than that of ‘the bottom line’.
In short, on the whole I do not believe that “they know it's wrong and
don't try to justify by saying that they're entitled.” Nor do I
believe that “when they get caught they do go to jail”. At least I
don’t feel either is the case any more so than it is the case for
theological institutions and their members.
----
“Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
On Nov 20, 7:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
> > organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
> > of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
> > corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
> > associated with the psyche of the upper class.
> No disagreement there, and I'm as opposed to them playing this special
> privilege card as I am to Religion doing it.
> Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the law
> either and there are those who think it does.
> Some seem to think that this fact somehow excuses Religion when they do it
> though, with the claim that "See, we're not the only ones."
> What it really does is simply mean that they're both wrong.
> It also doesn't change the fact that this is a clearly stated belief (both
> through doctrine and acts) of Religion.
> At least when they wealthy and well-connected do it, they know it's wrong
> and don't try to justify by saying that they're entitled.
> In addition, when they get caught they do go to jail.
> We're still waiting for this to happen where Religion is concerned.
> > “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> > only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> > the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
> > __
> > On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> > > These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> > > IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them
> > though.
> > > The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> > > that they are above the law.
> > > And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card
> > that
> > > Religion has played.
> > > These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no
> > special
> > > privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow
> > secular
> > > law.
> > > This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
> > > successes in this area.
> > > I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these
> > types
> > > of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which
> > has
> > > a lot of lawyers).
> > > I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
> > > required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
> > > It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that
> > we
> > > should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
> > > forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> > > > On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside
> > of
> > > > > > the family.
> > > > > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > > > > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America
> > for
> > > > > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church
> > bishop,
> > > > > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in
> > Sunnyvale in
> > > > > the 70s and 80s."
> > > > > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader
> > *before* he
> > > > > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> > > > organizations
> > > > > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> > > > covered
> > > > > up the sexual abuse.
> > > > > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the
> > Mormon
> > > > and
> > > > > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual
> > Abuse
> > > > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI
> > Agent.
> > > > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on
> > a
> > > > > > > Scout outing.
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > Groups
> > > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > > > --
> > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide
> > quoted
> > > > text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > --
> > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> > text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Trance, while I can only guess that we are ‘on the same side of the
> fence’ here, I find much to comment about on your most recent post.
Yes I think so. We may not agree on specific details but I think we agree
overall.
Our difference of opinion lies in my claim that Religion thinks it has a
legitimate right to be above the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves
above the law because they know they have the resources to cover up their
crimes and others can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure
in their ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught.
It's possible I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this
claim.
I'm simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
difference.
> The overview of my commentary is that religion is not different from
> other groups when it comes to the sense of entitlement. It has always
> been the view of most of the elite that they are just that, elite and
> have all of the associated ‘rights and privileges’. This can be
> observed throughout most cultures and historical eras including the
> current time. Here I am not just pointing fingers because I have lived
> with and in such small and influential groups. It takes a lot to
> deprogram those who hold such views in most cases as does it for those
> indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> the populace too.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the word
"should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain elements
believe they are above the law but they receive support for that belief
through individuals in certain institutions.
For example, when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he
has the resources to cover up the crime by not only obtaining cooperation
through bribery from those who commit the actual crimes on his behalf but
can do the same with individuals in any institutions that may expose the
crime and hold him accountable (as he should be held accountable).
He's well aware he's committing a crime and is also well aware that it needs
to be covered up.
Examples of wealthy well-connected people being caught and going to jail.
Enron executive
Madoff
World Corp
Conrad Black
Martha Stewar
et al.
I'm sure that there are others who haven't been caught and as long as there
are people willing to be bribed and/or willing to cover up for the wealthy
this will continue.
> In the case of historical theological influence, in many cases their
> power even usurped that of leaders of countries. Today, when it comes
> to socioeconomic influence of the entitled view of the elite, not only
> do they overall control and set law (something that when studied is
> set to their advantage), but in recent decades, the most powerful
> institutions globally, corporations, not only buy and sell influence
> in all countries worldwide, but have no allegiance to any nation or
> doctrine other than that of ‘the bottom line’.
Agreed.
> In short, on the whole I do not believe that “they know it's wrong and
> don't try to justify by saying that they're entitled.” Nor do I
> believe that “when they get caught they do go to jail”. At least I
> don’t feel either is the case any more so than it is the case for
> theological institutions and their members.
See above.
Why hasn't the Catholic Church been charged with obstruction of justice and
harboring criminals for not turning pedophiles over to the police. Anyone
else (wealthy or not) would have been. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize
that they've done anything wrong. They are very quick to ex-communicate
priests who have sexual relationships with women but I haven't heard of a
pedophile priest being ex-communicated for raping little children.
On Nov 20, 9:42 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
> organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
> of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
> corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
> associated with the psyche of the upper class.
> “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
why do you lie to us and claim such a complete revers of the truth as
" true anarchism, which stands for freedom " when we KNOW it is not
even able to stand as clear about itself! Freedom is something I
found 99% of the humans do not even understand and in your small mind
you think freedom is anything RANDOM and EXTREME that are random and
extreme and so not freedom that is to be APART to be SELF and so a
cell or membrane is needed to be free and that is why freedom is about
being inside and is not about being outside in the random and extreme
to be it and not freedom.
As for logic or order or even a plan there is nothing anything close
to logic in anarchism as it has no foundation and nothing that is not
opposed by its own and so is nothing but random and extreme itself and
useless to humanity. it is the lets change things but we have no clue
how or why sickness to make more random and more extreme but no
solution and sure as heck no freedom.
> On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> > These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> > IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them though.
> > The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> > that they are above the law.
> > And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card that
> > Religion has played.
> > These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no special
> > privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow secular
> > law.
> > This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
> > successes in this area.
> > I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these types
> > of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which has
> > a lot of lawyers).
> > I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
> > required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
> > It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that we
> > should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
> > forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> > > On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > > > the family.
> > > > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > > > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
> > > > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
> > > > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
> > > > the 70s and 80s."
> > > > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
> > > > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> > > organizations
> > > > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> > > covered
> > > > up the sexual abuse.
> > > > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon
> > > and
> > > > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > > > Scout outing.
> > > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=.
> > > ..
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > > --
> > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> > > text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
your problem is that you want to mix with all kinds and then complain
about them over sorting all kinds and all kinds have not the others to
complain about...till your mind can sort out good from random and
extreme you will continue to complain and die doing so as all you
comp0lain about will NEVER end till you give place to each kind to be
that kind away from others that do the same...capitalism must die and
world order must come to be so no merchants and no politics can
exist...just spiderweb like cities that solve all you can think of
that is wrong...exactly as given in the scriptures from the dawn of
them to this day...if you can set people apart from other kinds..you
are fool mixing all then cry over the mixing AND too dim to solve it
or do anything towards it and so contribute to it proving Dante's
inferno was a dream of reality you live!
if you are not part of the cure, you are the problem!
When will you learn it is the form and function of your cities that
count and not the form and function of your RANDOM and EXTREME
groupings? When will you wake up and stop being upset about things you
make and support by the very way you live AND refusing to learn the
ways to stop it all and make all happy at the same time!
I can tell you a thousand good things about the perfect city template
and you can find a thousand things wrong by your cities to match my
list.
You watch TV and see MERCHANTS lead you and have no clue they don't
belong and so steal the place of real broadcasting that should be data
on how things are going on the planet and math games and all kinds of
education because you are like bird in a cage given re runs as
entertainment so you not act like a human and will be like an ape in a
cage...so they can be in power! You don't need money or merchants or
politics because they imposed themselves into power to prevent cities
that simply are machines and like machines they work! They work so
well they don't need politics because the simple cycles make all
equals and so all has a time and no need to have any kind of politics
as choices are given in base of equality and humans rights and so no
need of merchants or politics..Just cycles and contributions to cycles
of others.
Pointing and "being against" is a sickness side effect of the
ignorance of knowing the answer. If it is not pointed correctly and
for good reasons based in good math and physics you simply lower
yourself to less than your true potential.
1) [the first seal] Children belong in the core to live in the seal of
the core. This permits the children to face the garden of Eden each
day and have full support on a massif scale by the focus of the
community.
2) [second seal] Mothers and care givers have the the second floor and
the out facing lower part. They overlook and support each child
individually in groups! Some record and some support information and
some are present to keep order and guide them. ALL is recorded so
children don't ever die..they are recorded all the time, and so are
like a living book.
LAND, ROAD LAND
3) [seal of the women] so women can be "free" and so function and be
able to do great things as well as reflect the lands to themselves.
4)[seal of the men] they have the same and reflect the same.They that
are matched with mate have a door to het that she can open for him or
lock him out if they are in dispute so HER freedom is intact at all
times.
LAND ROAD LAND
5) [Seal of the older ones] After years of being couples in private a
strong bond is made and so now they can ether live together or SIDE BY
SIDE and work as a team to serve the seal of the visitors and be
filter of all that can change the inside of the community in any ways
negative...the immunity system of the community. Because the old ones
get exposed to the random and extremes of the other cities and
populations they understand why they are apart of the others and
sacrifice innocence to filter out corruption. The old can grasp and
tolerate where the young just be corrupt and focused away from the
order of education/INCUBATION, and stable good conditions of the
breeding community (not all communities breed).
6) [seal of the visitors] The flow comes of populations and things,
and even with great effort to warn to not bring specific things to the
seal, some do. A city that simply does not have caffeine will not let
any kind of it in. The city that does not smoke will not let it in
(the old that smoke do so at their own risk and can't do any such
things in front of others....a sort of freedom of choice). The
visitors will come and go and some will stay and some will drop off
and pick up...the seal is all the services the city offers and all the
world offer it. It is a busy seal that needs the older ones to keep
from letting in the random and extremes so it be balanced and stable
and as perfect for children and parents as possible inside.
LAND ROAD LAND
7) [Seal of the domestic] limits the city itself and the creatures
rights of place and function linked to the city in a sort of symbiotic
relationship.
This permits creatures to have high quality lives in service to humans
and humans to have high quality lives in a stable functional FORM.
........................................................................... ...............
8) [seal of the wild] Like a fleet of ships the cities are all closed
off with a giant wall to keep the wild out and apart. In space it
keeps the void from the inside conditions same as it does on all the
other worlds we will soon come to dominate. The wild has the RIGHT to
same land as inside given as a MINIMUM and the maximum has no limit.
This makes each city a sort of pearl set in the wild in full balance
and order with nature and NUMBERS.
then populations self balance, crime? What is crime? bad childhood?
What is that? Kind of logic comes to the population...money? what is
that used for? politics? I am free and have all free and live happy
life...choose who? for what? For less than best of the best?
The form of the seals are formed as simple arched roof construction
(and so vary in size and materials over the planet) usually 2 stories
tall with a first floor and a second floor with one as work or storage
and the other for living. Some units have built in tools set cycles of
materials...units match what your duties and functions are.
The massif form itself of the seals is usually a giant passive
collector that makes hot water or heat or power to make the city
itself as self sufficient as possible...Like a flower the cities bloom
and close up and change with weather and seasons. The cities are
physical order and so the crank device is very popular in the future
as a duty/function to open and close
It is not about how you feel you mixed up world is built how inferior
it is to the perfection that should exist...then you will understand
what is what on this planet and just how bad things are and just how
good they can be. With the city template you can end wars, stop
sickness spreads, give real rights and not fake them, heal the planet
and make all mankind work on great things like seed new world or
explore them...what is important to humans is to see the universe and
go into it to see things and learn...they thrive to make progress and
that is where it must be as it be stable here and permit robots to be
as humans on other worlds and do tasks to prepare for life come and
maybe the humans some with them. Reality is that much better than what
humans have done exist it is a simple thing to support and build them
and simply win the war over the planet for the good side and life over
doom to come in the random and extreme prone to create it.
On Nov 20, 10:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
> > organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
> > of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
> > corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
> > associated with the psyche of the upper class.
> No disagreement there, and I'm as opposed to them playing this special
> privilege card as I am to Religion doing it.
> Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the law
> either and there are those who think it does.
> Some seem to think that this fact somehow excuses Religion when they do it
> though, with the claim that "See, we're not the only ones."
> What it really does is simply mean that they're both wrong.
> It also doesn't change the fact that this is a clearly stated belief (both
> through doctrine and acts) of Religion.
> At least when they wealthy and well-connected do it, they know it's wrong
> and don't try to justify by saying that they're entitled.
> In addition, when they get caught they do go to jail.
> We're still waiting for this to happen where Religion is concerned.
> > “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> > only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> > the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
> > __
> > On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> > > These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> > > IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them
> > though.
> > > The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> > > that they are above the law.
> > > And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card
so dummy why do you pay it as religious act when it 9s a common Human
act and atheist abuse children just as much...you seam to not be very
bright and because of it you slant things to wards religion when it is
not a religious thing.
On Nov 19, 3:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
you are fools as the law of 2 witness still stands and they have 3 and
so they stand as more valid than the step father alone. It is also not
a religious thing and common in atheist too and all others...it is a
sexual crime and they are HUMAN and not having anything to do with
religions.
On Nov 19, 11:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “…But, you'd think that their legal consultant would not have allowed
> them to even take this on unless he felt they had a chance of
> success….” – Phil
> I’m a bit more cynical about the legal system than that. My guess is
> that most lawyers can guess the outcome of any suit long before it
> goes to trial. If that is the case, exactly ½ of them are taking cases
> they know they will lose. I won’t venture a guess as to their motives.
> And, since I come from a linage of attorneys, it is easy for me to say
> this.
> All of the scout info at the site you posted is ‘regular’ Boy Scout
> stuff. I know this because I spent years as a member. And, even if the
> step father was a member of and even an officer/representative of the
> church, I don’t see how that would make much if any difference. An
> analogy would be if my step dad (hypothetical) were a grill cook or
> even a manager at MacDonald’s and helped sponsor a scout outing. I
> just don’t see MacDonald’s being sued because my dad worked there…
> mainly because it was he who would have been involved. Also, as I
> understand it, this was an ongoing issue…at least 10 years I seem to
> remember. A boy scout outing wouldn’t be material at all.
> Oh, Eagle scouts are for the older boys…and those with a lot of
> ‘awards’. Starts out with cub scouts, then boy scouts then eagle
> scouts. There are other minor divisions involved in the hierarchy too.
> On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > the family.
> > That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> > not
> > have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> > chance
> > of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> > the
> > church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> > talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> > is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
> > themselves
> > appear to be separate. http://www.eaglescout.org/ > > Mormon scouts: http://www.mormonscouting.com/ > > - the Eagle Scout is mentioned on the LHS of the page.
> > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=... quoted text -
On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > the family.
> That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> not
> have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> chance
> of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> the
> church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
Eagle Scouts are Boy Scouts that have advanced to the top of the
ladder, the creme of the crop so to say.
> > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
> why do you pay it as religious act when it 9s a common Human
> act and atheist abuse children just as much...you seam to not be very
> bright and because of it you slant things to wards religion when it is
> not a religious thing.
> On Nov 19, 3:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
> On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > the family.
> > That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> > not
> > have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> > chance
> > of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> > the
> > church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> > talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> > is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
> Eagle Scouts are Boy Scouts that have advanced to the top of the
> ladder, the creme of the crop so to say.
Thanks Ed. Yes, Ornamentalmind put me straight on that one.
I had not realized.
> > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=...
“… my claim that Religion thinks it has a legitimate right to be above
the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves above the law because
they know they have the resources to cover up their crimes and others
can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure in their
ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught. It's possible
I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this claim. I'm
simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
difference.” – TG
Yes, your claim is clear. And, yes we disagree to some extent. Some
observations include:
“Religion” is not a monolith, therefore generalizations about ‘it’
fail actual scrutiny. The same can be said for the ‘elite/wealthy’…
each individual differs to some extent and the same person even
changes over time.
Accepting this caveat, it is my observation that in both cases,
(theological groups and economic groups) the same attitudes prevail
for the most part. And, both wield influence, partially economic but
political and social influence too. My claim is that this is more
important than a more naïve (as I see it) approach attributing
religion as feeling above the law for tenet reasons rather than the
more pragmatic reasons of influence…including power based on
economics.
One thinks of the Star Chamber…here, no matter what is professed as to
the support and basis for acting in that way, without the political
power and influence, it just would not have been possible. That is but
one extreme example.
As to studies, my guess is that there are many studies and most likely
that would support both of our claims. I’m not going to do that
research now though.
…
> indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> the populace too.
“…I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?...” – TG
I will assume you are asking about the small part I left of my post
above.
I was referring to your previous post of:
“Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the
law
either and there are those who think it does.” – TG
I was referring to your use of ‘should’ here. Doing so implies an
ethical stance. It also, as I see it, means you want a different
reality. I could be wrong. I hope that answers your inquiry.
“…My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the
word "should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain
elements believe they are above the law but they receive support for
that belief through individuals in certain institutions. For example,
when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he has the
resources to cover up the crime by not only obtaining cooperation
through bribery from those who commit the actual crimes on his behalf
but can do the same with individuals in any institutions that may
expose the crime and hold him accountable (as he should be held
accountable). He's well aware he's committing a crime and is also well
aware that it needs to be covered up…” – TG
All of this may be the case. My points are few. First, any time one
uses the term ‘should’ an alternative and most likely preferable
reality is being suggested. Secondly, I suggest that the powerful, in
all camps, have the resources be they political, economic or otherwise
to easily afford to hold a caviler attitude. My contention is that in
many (most?) cases it is not just or even necessarily mostly an
attitude of feeling the need to cover up a ‘wrong’ or a crime as you
call it. Instead, I am suggesting that the entitled, (all people and
classes we have been discussing) on the whole hold an aloof attitude
and as often as not do not even consider the possibility that they are
committing a ‘crime’. Yes, exceptions occur. So, IF ‘tenets’ are
involved, I think they more often than not are based on attitudes of
entitlement than mere theological dogma. Most people I know have this
capability.
“…Examples of wealthy well-connected people being caught and going to
jail…” – TG
Yes, I know the recent and some of the historical high profile cases.
What I contend is that the list of those prosecuted doesn’t even
express the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For every one just charged,
not found guilty, my best guess is that there are dozens or even more
who never receive public scrutiny. I could give lists…but from your
list, Stewart is one of countless inside traders and she is one of the
very few to have even been charged. And, even though she ‘served her
time’, like Oliver North, another convicted felon, she now is back in
full swing, on TV, heading an empire, holding as much influence as
ever. One could ask why this is, but that would be yet another topic.
Simple examples of those not charged (at least not within the USA) are
people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, CEOs of industry and other members of
the military industrial complex who are in fact both guilty as the law
goes of war crimes but of war profiteering too. Which Pope has been
even charged with sodomy let alone found guilty? This has little to do
with theological tenets and/or beliefs. It has more to do with simple
and raw power and influence associated with a hold harmless attitude.
(entitlement)
“…Why hasn't the Catholic Church been charged with obstruction of
justice and harboring criminals for not turning pedophiles over to the
police. Anyone else (wealthy or not) would have been. The Catholic
Church doesn't recognize that they've done anything wrong. They are
very quick to ex-communicate priests who have sexual relationships
with women but I haven't heard of a pedophile priest being ex-
communicated for raping little children. …” – TG
Your argument by question could just as easily be extended to the Bush
administration and their crimes. So, not ‘anyone else’ would have been
turned over. And, I do agree that ‘they’ (church) “doesn’t recognize
that they’ve done anything wrong.” This is my point. Today Alexander
Haig, Henry Kissinger, Blair, CEO’s of Dow Chemicals, Coke, heads of
the CIA, FBI and countless others hold similar views and often express
them. This even though they have been charged with crimes by other
countries.
Of course, we are now veering into the area of pure politics and
governance. The above people in my list are not presented in any sense
of my holding any conspiracy theory views. Rather, it is based on the
comparison of actions with law…and/or law without things like
executive orders which are perfect examples of the sense of
entitlement. And, this all is the case even though most such laws can
be used to shelter the elite!
So, overall we both agree that there are at least two realities and
many people, perhaps even us, are hypocrites. When it comes to
governments, as is widely known there are two democracies. The
following is a short audio from the 8th most quoted person of all
time.
“Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
On Nov 20, 3:31 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > Trance, while I can only guess that we are ‘on the same side of the
> > fence’ here, I find much to comment about on your most recent post.
> Yes I think so. We may not agree on specific details but I think we agree
> overall.
> Our difference of opinion lies in my claim that Religion thinks it has a
> legitimate right to be above the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves
> above the law because they know they have the resources to cover up their
> crimes and others can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure
> in their ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught.
> It's possible I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this
> claim.
> I'm simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
> difference.
> > The overview of my commentary is that religion is not different from
> > other groups when it comes to the sense of entitlement. It has always
> > been the view of most of the elite that they are just that, elite and
> > have all of the associated ‘rights and privileges’. This can be
> > observed throughout most cultures and historical eras including the
> > current time. Here I am not just pointing fingers because I have lived
> > with and in such small and influential groups. It takes a lot to
> > deprogram those who hold such views in most cases as does it for those
> > indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> > In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> > at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> > behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> > would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> > the populace too.
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
> My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the word
> "should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain elements
> believe they are above the law but they receive support for that belief
> through individuals in certain institutions.
> For example, when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he
> has the resources to cover up the crime by not
“…why do you lie to us and claim such a complete revers of the truth…”
– STB
"When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining
flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge,
while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda
- - - --
“Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
On Nov 20, 4:02 pm, STB <Savingthefut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:42 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:> As to special privilege, I can’t think of an institution or
> > organization that doesn’t hold the same sense of being beyond the arm
> > of the law. Any review of members of congress, the president’s office,
> > corporations, banks etc. seems to support the view of entitlement
> > associated with the psyche of the upper class.
> > “Do not be alarmed, I have no dynamite in my pocket…Education is the
> > only bomb sanctioned by true anarchism, which stands for freedom in
> > the truest and highest sense.” – Emma Goldman
> why do you lie to us and claim such a complete revers of the truth as
> " true anarchism, which stands for freedom " when we KNOW it is not
> even able to stand as clear about itself! Freedom is something I
> found 99% of the humans do not even understand and in your small mind
> you think freedom is anything RANDOM and EXTREME that are random and
> extreme and so not freedom that is to be APART to be SELF and so a
> cell or membrane is needed to be free and that is why freedom is about
> being inside and is not about being outside in the random and extreme
> to be it and not freedom.
> As for logic or order or even a plan there is nothing anything close
> to logic in anarchism as it has no foundation and nothing that is not
> opposed by its own and so is nothing but random and extreme itself and
> useless to humanity. it is the lets change things but we have no clue
> how or why sickness to make more random and more extreme but no
> solution and sure as heck no freedom.
> > On Nov 20, 6:09 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > True. I still wouldn't want to be their attorney.
> > > These cases are never easy and there is never any guarantee of success.
> > > IMO, it's quite important that the lawyers are trying to fight them though.
> > > The reason I say that is because most Religions appear to hold the belief
> > > that they are above the law.
> > > And up until recently, Society has accepted this special privilege card that
> > > Religion has played.
> > > These law suits are sending a message to Religion that there is no special
> > > privilege card and they are as obligated as everyone else to follow secular
> > > law.
> > > This makes them very important IMO and I hope they start having some
> > > successes in this area.
> > > I also believe it's why so many lawyers are starting to take on these types
> > > of cases and often doing them pro bono (I also come from a family which has
> > > a lot of lawyers).
> > > I'm aware that a few Religious sects do take the position that they are
> > > required to follow the law but they are a small minority.
> > > It's this special privilege card that is behind Religions to demand that we
> > > should accept Catholic cover ups of pedophilia or Protestant claims of
> > > forgiveness or Islams Sharia law and attitudes towards women, etc.
> > > > On Nov 20, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > > > > the family.
> > > > > This paragraph appears to be the key:
> > > > > "All three are suing the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America for
> > > > > allowing Bill Knox to molest them while serving as their church bishop,
> > > > > scoutmaster and later as their stepfather when they lived in Sunnyvale in
> > > > > the 70s and 80s."
> > > > > So, it seems that he was a Mormon Bishop and Boy Scout leader *before* he
> > > > > became their step-father and they are alleging that both these
> > > > organizations
> > > > > (Mormon Church *and* Scouts as separate entities) were aware of and
> > > > covered
> > > > > up the sexual abuse.
> > > > > If they can prove this then they may have a case against both the Mormon
> > > > and
> > > > > the Boy Scouts as well as the step-father.
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > > > > Scout outing.
> > > > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=.
> > > > ..
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > Groups
> > > > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > > > --
> > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted
> > > > text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
“All companions are given both eyes and ears, But each man differs in
his quickness of mind. There are some who are like deep refreshing
lakes, and yet others like shallow pools of water.” Rig-Veda
> you are fools as the law of 2 witness still stands and they have 3 and
> so they stand as more valid than the step father alone. It is also not
> a religious thing and common in atheist too and all others...it is a
> sexual crime and they are HUMAN and not having anything to do with
> religions.
> On Nov 19, 11:46 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > “…But, you'd think that their legal consultant would not have allowed
> > them to even take this on unless he felt they had a chance of
> > success….” – Phil
> > I’m a bit more cynical about the legal system than that. My guess is
> > that most lawyers can guess the outcome of any suit long before it
> > goes to trial. If that is the case, exactly ½ of them are taking cases
> > they know they will lose. I won’t venture a guess as to their motives.
> > And, since I come from a linage of attorneys, it is easy for me to say
> > this.
> > All of the scout info at the site you posted is ‘regular’ Boy Scout
> > stuff. I know this because I spent years as a member. And, even if the
> > step father was a member of and even an officer/representative of the
> > church, I don’t see how that would make much if any difference. An
> > analogy would be if my step dad (hypothetical) were a grill cook or
> > even a manager at MacDonald’s and helped sponsor a scout outing. I
> > just don’t see MacDonald’s being sued because my dad worked there…
> > mainly because it was he who would have been involved. Also, as I
> > understand it, this was an ongoing issue…at least 10 years I seem to
> > remember. A boy scout outing wouldn’t be material at all.
> > Oh, Eagle scouts are for the older boys…and those with a lot of
> > ‘awards’. Starts out with cub scouts, then boy scouts then eagle
> > scouts. There are other minor divisions involved in the hierarchy too.
> > On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 7:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Since it was their stepfather, I wonder how any suit goes outside of
> > > > the family.
> > > That I don't know. But, you'd think that their legal consultant would
> > > not
> > > have allowed them to even take this on unless he felt they had a
> > > chance
> > > of success. My only thought is that the stepfather being a member of
> > > the
> > > church, may, at the time of abuse, be representing the church. They
> > > talk of the boy scouts. My understanding of the Mormon boy scouts
> > > is that it's called the Eagle Scouts. However the Eagle Scouts
> > > themselves
> > > appear to be separate. http://www.eaglescout.org/ > > > Mormon scouts: http://www.mormonscouting.com/ > > > - the Eagle Scout is mentioned on the LHS of the page.
> > > > On Nov 19, 12:16 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > Three brothers file a suit against the Mormon Church for Sexual Abuse
> > > > > when they were children, Two are dentists and one is an FBI Agent.
> > > > > The church is not admitting to any blame because the kids were on a
> > > > > Scout outing.http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=... text -
> “… my claim that Religion thinks it has a legitimate right to be above
> the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves above the law because
> they know they have the resources to cover up their crimes and others
> can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure in their
> ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught. It's possible
> I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this claim. I'm
> simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
> difference.” – TG
> Yes, your claim is clear. And, yes we disagree to some extent. Some
> observations include:
> “Religion” is not a monolith, therefore generalizations about ‘it’
> fail actual scrutiny. The same can be said for the ‘elite/wealthy’…
> each individual differs to some extent and the same person even
> changes over time.
Agreed.
> Accepting this caveat, it is my observation that in both cases,
> (theological groups and economic groups) the same attitudes prevail
> for the most part. And, both wield influence, partially economic but
> political and social influence too. My claim is that this is more
> important than a more naïve (as I see it) approach attributing
> religion as feeling above the law for tenet reasons rather than the
> more pragmatic reasons of influence…including power based on
> economics.
I agree to a point but not completely.
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power".* --Eric
Hoffer*However,
the tenet that religious dogma follows which allows them to consider
themselves above the law is the doctrine itself.
And this is how many Christian institutions (not just the Catholics) justify
their harboring, and cover ups of behalf of pedophiles, for example. (God
has forgiven them, so have we).
That said, I agree that *any* belief system which holds dogmatic beliefs has
the same problems as religion whose beliefs, for the most part are dogmatic.
(I agree that there are exceptions to this such as a few forms of buddhism
and jainism).
> One thinks of the Star Chamber…here, no matter what is professed as to
> the support and basis for acting in that way, without the political
> power and influence, it just would not have been possible. That is but
> one extreme example.
> As to studies, my guess is that there are many studies and most likely
> that would support both of our claims. I’m not going to do that
> research now though.
> …
> > indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> > In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> > at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> > behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> > would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> > the populace too.
> “…I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?...” – TG
> I will assume you are asking about the small part I left of my post
> above.
> I was referring to your previous post of:
> “Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the
> law
> either and there are those who think it does.” – TG
> I was referring to your use of ‘should’ here. Doing so implies an
> ethical stance. It also, as I see it, means you want a different
> reality. I could be wrong. I hope that answers your inquiry.
In my reality, no-one would be above the law and everyone would be subject
to the same scrutiny.
Punishments for abuse of power would be severe, and would include life
sentences in jail as well large amounts of financial compensation to the
victim(s), there would be zero tolerance and there would be a requirement
that all complaints regarding abuse of power complaints would be thoroughly
investigated. It would be illegal to dismiss or ignore them and doing so
would result in further charges of abuse of power.
> “…My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the
> word "should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain
> elements believe they are above the law but they receive support for
> that belief through individuals in certain institutions. For example,
> when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he has the
> resources to cover up the crime by not only obtaining cooperation
> through bribery from those who commit the actual crimes on his behalf
> but can do the same with individuals in any institutions that may
> expose the crime and hold him accountable (as he should be held
> accountable). He's well aware he's committing a crime and is also well
> aware that it needs to be covered up…” – TG
> All of this may be the case. My points are few. First, any time one
> uses the term ‘should’ an alternative and most likely preferable
> reality is being suggested. Secondly, I suggest that the powerful, in
> all camps, have the resources be they political, economic or otherwise
> to easily afford to hold a caviler attitude. My contention is that in
> many (most?) cases it is not just or even necessarily mostly an
> attitude of feeling the need to cover up a ‘wrong’ or a crime as you
> call it. Instead, I am suggesting that the entitled, (all people and
> classes we have been discussing) on the whole hold an aloof attitude
> and as often as not do not even consider the possibility that they are
> committing a ‘crime’. Yes, exceptions occur. So, IF ‘tenets’ are
> involved, I think they more often than not are based on attitudes of
> entitlement than mere theological dogma. Most people I know have this
> capability.
Okay I see where coming from and we actually aren't that far apart.
I would only say that I believe they are based on a theological dogma which
states that the religious are answerable to their god and not to man and
that the religious are "saved" and therefore special.
This in and of itself creates an elitist mind set where placing oneself
above the law becomes quite easy to justify.
> “…Examples of wealthy well-connected people being caught and going to
> jail…” – TG
> Yes, I know the recent and some of the historical high profile cases.
> What I contend is that the list of those prosecuted doesn’t even
> express the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For every one just charged,
> not found guilty, my best guess is that there are dozens or even more
> who never receive public scrutiny. I could give lists…but from your
> list, Stewart is one of countless inside traders and she is one of the
> very few to have even been charged. And, even though she ‘served her
> time’, like Oliver North, another convicted felon, she now is back in
> full swing, on TV, heading an empire, holding as much influence as
> ever. One could ask why this is, but that would be yet another topic.
> Simple examples of those not charged (at least not within the USA) are
> people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, CEOs of industry and other members of
> the military industrial complex who are in fact both guilty as the law
> goes of war crimes but of war profiteering too. Which Pope has been
> even charged with sodomy let alone found guilty? This has little to do
> with theological tenets and/or beliefs. It has more to do with simple
> and raw power and influence associated with a hold harmless attitude.
> (entitlement)
> “…Why hasn't the Catholic Church been charged with obstruction of
> justice and harboring criminals for not turning pedophiles over to the
> police. Anyone else (wealthy or not) would have been. The Catholic
> Church doesn't recognize that they've done anything wrong. They are
> very quick to ex-communicate priests who have sexual relationships
> with women but I haven't heard of a pedophile priest being ex-
> communicated for raping little children. …” – TG
> Your argument by question could just as easily be extended to the Bush
> administration and their crimes. So, not ‘anyone else’ would have been
> turned over. And, I do agree that ‘they’ (church) “doesn’t recognize
> that they’ve done anything wrong.” This is my point. Today Alexander
> Haig, Henry Kissinger, Blair, CEO’s of Dow Chemicals, Coke, heads of
> the CIA, FBI and countless others hold similar views and often express
> them. This even though they have been charged with crimes by other
> countries.
> Of course, we are now veering into the area of pure politics and
> governance. The above people in my list are not presented in any sense
> of my holding any conspiracy theory views. Rather, it is based on the
> comparison of actions with law…and/or law without things like
> executive orders which are perfect examples of the sense of
> entitlement. And, this all is the case even though most such laws can
> be used to shelter the elite!
> So, overall we both agree that there are at least two realities and
> many people, perhaps even us, are hypocrites. When it comes to
> governments, as is widely known there are two democracies. The
> following is a short audio from the 8th most quoted person of all
> time.
Here's a few interesting quotes for you to think about ;-)
"The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the
greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves
like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or
maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold
suffering to a large portion of mankind." -- Eric Hoffer.
"A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them
but
...
Trance, when you say “In my reality, no-one would be above the law and
everyone would be subject
to the same scrutiny.”, what methodology would you use to determine
what is placed into and kept as law?
I ask because recently I have begun to lean more towards the skeptical
aspect of social institutions including all things legal.
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:26 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > “… my claim that Religion thinks it has a legitimate right to be above
> > the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves above the law because
> > they know they have the resources to cover up their crimes and others
> > can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure in their
> > ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught. It's possible
> > I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this claim. I'm
> > simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
> > difference.” – TG
> > Yes, your claim is clear. And, yes we disagree to some extent. Some
> > observations include:
> > “Religion” is not a monolith, therefore generalizations about ‘it’
> > fail actual scrutiny. The same can be said for the ‘elite/wealthy’…
> > each individual differs to some extent and the same person even
> > changes over time.
> Agreed.
> > Accepting this caveat, it is my observation that in both cases,
> > (theological groups and economic groups) the same attitudes prevail
> > for the most part. And, both wield influence, partially economic but
> > political and social influence too. My claim is that this is more
> > important than a more naïve (as I see it) approach attributing
> > religion as feeling above the law for tenet reasons rather than the
> > more pragmatic reasons of influence…including power based on
> > economics.
> I agree to a point but not completely.
> "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power".* --Eric
> Hoffer*However,
> the tenet that religious dogma follows which allows them to consider
> themselves above the law is the doctrine itself.
> And this is how many Christian institutions (not just the Catholics) justify
> their harboring, and cover ups of behalf of pedophiles, for example. (God
> has forgiven them, so have we).
> That said, I agree that *any* belief system which holds dogmatic beliefs has
> the same problems as religion whose beliefs, for the most part are dogmatic.
> (I agree that there are exceptions to this such as a few forms of buddhism
> and jainism).
> > One thinks of the Star Chamber…here, no matter what is professed as to
> > the support and basis for acting in that way, without the political
> > power and influence, it just would not have been possible. That is but
> > one extreme example.
> > As to studies, my guess is that there are many studies and most likely
> > that would support both of our claims. I’m not going to do that
> > research now though.
> I haven't looked either.
> > …
> > > indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> > > In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> > > at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> > > behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> > > would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> > > the populace too.
> > “…I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?...” – TG
> > I will assume you are asking about the small part I left of my post
> > above.
> > I was referring to your previous post of:
> > “Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the
> > law
> > either and there are those who think it does.” – TG
> > I was referring to your use of ‘should’ here. Doing so implies an
> > ethical stance. It also, as I see it, means you want a different
> > reality. I could be wrong. I hope that answers your inquiry.
> In my reality, no-one would be above the law and everyone would be subject
> to the same scrutiny.
> Punishments for abuse of power would be severe, and would include life
> sentences in jail as well large amounts of financial compensation to the
> victim(s), there would be zero tolerance and there would be a requirement
> that all complaints regarding abuse of power complaints would be thoroughly
> investigated. It would be illegal to dismiss or ignore them and doing so
> would result in further charges of abuse of power.
> > “…My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the
> > word "should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain
> > elements believe they are above the law but they receive support for
> > that belief through individuals in certain institutions. For example,
> > when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he has the
> > resources to cover up the crime by not only obtaining cooperation
> > through bribery from those who commit the actual crimes on his behalf
> > but can do the same with individuals in any institutions that may
> > expose the crime and hold him accountable (as he should be held
> > accountable). He's well aware he's committing a crime and is also well
> > aware that it needs to be covered up…” – TG
> > All of this may be the case. My points are few. First, any time one
> > uses the term ‘should’ an alternative and most likely preferable
> > reality is being suggested. Secondly, I suggest that the powerful, in
> > all camps, have the resources be they political, economic or otherwise
> > to easily afford to hold a caviler attitude. My contention is that in
> > many (most?) cases it is not just or even necessarily mostly an
> > attitude of feeling the need to cover up a ‘wrong’ or a crime as you
> > call it. Instead, I am suggesting that the entitled, (all people and
> > classes we have been discussing) on the whole hold an aloof attitude
> > and as often as not do not even consider the possibility that they are
> > committing a ‘crime’. Yes, exceptions occur. So, IF ‘tenets’ are
> > involved, I think they more often than not are based on attitudes of
> > entitlement than mere theological dogma. Most people I know have this
> > capability.
> Okay I see where coming from and we actually aren't that far apart.
> I would only say that I believe they are based on a theological dogma which
> states that the religious are answerable to their god and not to man and
> that the religious are "saved" and therefore special.
> This in and of itself creates an elitist mind set where placing oneself
> above the law becomes quite easy to justify.
> > “…Examples of wealthy well-connected people being caught and going to
> > jail…” – TG
> > Yes, I know the recent and some of the historical high profile cases.
> > What I contend is that the list of those prosecuted doesn’t even
> > express the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For every one just charged,
> > not found guilty, my best guess is that there are dozens or even more
> > who never receive public scrutiny. I could give lists…but from your
> > list, Stewart is one of countless inside traders and she is one of the
> > very few to have even been charged. And, even though she ‘served her
> > time’, like Oliver North, another convicted felon, she now is back in
> > full swing, on TV, heading an empire, holding as much influence as
> > ever. One could ask why this is, but that would be yet another topic.
> Agreed.
> > Simple examples of those not charged (at least not within the USA) are
> > people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, CEOs of industry and other members of
> > the military industrial complex who are in fact both guilty as the law
> > goes of war crimes but of war profiteering too. Which Pope has been
> > even charged with sodomy let alone found guilty? This has little to do
> > with theological tenets and/or beliefs. It has more to do with simple
> > and raw power and influence associated with a hold harmless attitude.
> > (entitlement)
> > “…Why hasn't the Catholic Church been charged with obstruction of
> > justice and harboring criminals for not turning pedophiles over to the
> > police. Anyone else (wealthy or not) would have been. The Catholic
> > Church doesn't recognize that they've done anything wrong. They are
> > very quick to ex-communicate priests who have sexual relationships
> > with women but I haven't heard of a pedophile priest being ex-
> > communicated for raping little children. …” – TG
> > Your argument by question could just as easily be extended to the Bush
> > administration and their crimes. So, not ‘anyone else’ would have been
> > turned over. And, I do agree that ‘they’ (church) “doesn’t recognize
> > that they’ve done anything wrong.” This is my point. Today Alexander
> > Haig, Henry Kissinger, Blair, CEO’s of Dow Chemicals, Coke, heads of
> > the CIA, FBI and countless others hold similar views and often express
> > them. This even though they have been charged with crimes by other
> > countries.
> > Of course, we are now veering into the area of pure politics and
> > governance. The above people in my list are not presented in any sense
> > of my holding any conspiracy theory views. Rather, it is based on the
> > comparison of actions with law…and/or law without things like
> > executive orders which are perfect examples of the sense of
> > entitlement. And, this all is the case even though most such laws can
> > be used to shelter the elite!
> > So, overall we both agree that there are at least two realities and
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Trance, when you say “In my reality, no-one would be above the law and
> everyone would be subject
> to the same scrutiny.”, what methodology would you use to determine
> what is placed into and kept as law?
It's not really the law that needs to be changed IMO but the application of
it and the addition of laws that punish those who don't apply the law
equitably.
I haven't given this a lot of thought so those comments are just sort of,
"off the top of my head" comments.
> I ask because recently I have begun to lean more towards the skeptical
> aspect of social institutions including all things legal.
It's a philosophy and approach that I've just started looking into recently
but I wouldn't identify myself as a libertarian socialist, but more a person
with liberal libertarian tendencies.
This approach to libertarianism is pretty new in that it used to be very
identified with right wing extremism and that is no longer the case.
Is this the direction that you are moving in as well?
> On Nov 21, 5:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:26 AM, ornamentalmind <
> ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > “… my claim that Religion thinks it has a legitimate right to be above
> > > the law whereas the wealthy consider themselves above the law because
> > > they know they have the resources to cover up their crimes and others
> > > can be induced to go along with them. So they feel secure in their
> > > ability to commit illegal acts without getting caught. It's possible
> > > I'm wrong. There are certainly no studies to support this claim. I'm
> > > simply making observations which indicate to me that there's a
> > > difference.” – TG
> > > Yes, your claim is clear. And, yes we disagree to some extent. Some
> > > observations include:
> > > “Religion” is not a monolith, therefore generalizations about ‘it’
> > > fail actual scrutiny. The same can be said for the ‘elite/wealthy’…
> > > each individual differs to some extent and the same person even
> > > changes over time.
> > Agreed.
> > > Accepting this caveat, it is my observation that in both cases,
> > > (theological groups and economic groups) the same attitudes prevail
> > > for the most part. And, both wield influence, partially economic but
> > > political and social influence too. My claim is that this is more
> > > important than a more naïve (as I see it) approach attributing
> > > religion as feeling above the law for tenet reasons rather than the
> > > more pragmatic reasons of influence…including power based on
> > > economics.
> > I agree to a point but not completely.
> > "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power".* --Eric
> > Hoffer*However,
> > the tenet that religious dogma follows which allows them to consider
> > themselves above the law is the doctrine itself.
> > And this is how many Christian institutions (not just the Catholics)
> justify
> > their harboring, and cover ups of behalf of pedophiles, for example. (God
> > has forgiven them, so have we).
> > That said, I agree that *any* belief system which holds dogmatic beliefs
> has
> > the same problems as religion whose beliefs, for the most part are
> dogmatic.
> > (I agree that there are exceptions to this such as a few forms of
> buddhism
> > and jainism).
> > > One thinks of the Star Chamber…here, no matter what is professed as to
> > > the support and basis for acting in that way, without the political
> > > power and influence, it just would not have been possible. That is but
> > > one extreme example.
> > > As to studies, my guess is that there are many studies and most likely
> > > that would support both of our claims. I’m not going to do that
> > > research now though.
> > I haven't looked either.
> > > …
> > > > indoctrinated into theological dogmas.
> > > > In all cases, your use of the term ‘should’ when it comes to looking
> > > > at reality is quite telling too. Clearly, most of this type of
> > > > behavior does not meet your standards. Somehow it appears that you
> > > > would like to impose a different set of rules and/or behaviors upon
> > > > the populace too.
> > > “…I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?...” – TG
> > > I will assume you are asking about the small part I left of my post
> > > above.
> > > I was referring to your previous post of:
> > > “Wealth, privilege and social connections should not put one above the
> > > law
> > > either and there are those who think it does.” – TG
> > > I was referring to your use of ‘should’ here. Doing so implies an
> > > ethical stance. It also, as I see it, means you want a different
> > > reality. I could be wrong. I hope that answers your inquiry.
> > In my reality, no-one would be above the law and everyone would be
> subject
> > to the same scrutiny.
> > Punishments for abuse of power would be severe, and would include life
> > sentences in jail as well large amounts of financial compensation to the
> > victim(s), there would be zero tolerance and there would be a requirement
> > that all complaints regarding abuse of power complaints would be
> thoroughly
> > investigated. It would be illegal to dismiss or ignore them and doing so
> > would result in further charges of abuse of power.
> > > “…My position is that no-one is above the law. The reason I use the
> > > word "should" is that I recognize that in reality not only do certain
> > > elements believe they are above the law but they receive support for
> > > that belief through individuals in certain institutions. For example,
> > > when a wealthy and well-connected person commits a crime, he has the
> > > resources to cover up the crime by not only obtaining cooperation
> > > through bribery from those who commit the actual crimes on his behalf
> > > but can do the same with individuals in any institutions that may
> > > expose the crime and hold him accountable (as he should be held
> > > accountable). He's well aware he's committing a crime and is also well
> > > aware that it needs to be covered up…” – TG
> > > All of this may be the case. My points are few. First, any time one
> > > uses the term ‘should’ an alternative and most likely preferable
> > > reality is being suggested. Secondly, I suggest that the powerful, in
> > > all camps, have the resources be they political, economic or otherwise
> > > to easily afford to hold a caviler attitude. My contention is that in
> > > many (most?) cases it is not just or even necessarily mostly an
> > > attitude of feeling the need to cover up a ‘wrong’ or a crime as you
> > > call it. Instead, I am suggesting that the entitled, (all people and
> > > classes we have been discussing) on the whole hold an aloof attitude
> > > and as often as not do not even consider the possibility that they are
> > > committing a ‘crime’. Yes, exceptions occur. So, IF ‘tenets’ are
> > > involved, I think they more often than not are based on attitudes of
> > > entitlement than mere theological dogma. Most people I know have this
> > > capability.
> > Okay I see where coming from and we actually aren't that far apart.
> > I would only say that I believe they are based on a theological dogma
> which
> > states that the religious are answerable to their god and not to man and
> > that the religious are "saved" and therefore special.
> > This in and of itself creates an elitist mind set where placing oneself
> > above the law becomes quite easy to justify.
> > > “…Examples of wealthy well-connected people being caught and going to
> > > jail…” – TG
> > > Yes, I know the recent and some of the historical high profile cases.
> > > What I contend is that the list of those prosecuted doesn’t even
> > > express the proverbial tip of the iceberg. For every one just charged,
> > > not found guilty, my best guess is that there are dozens or even more
> > > who never receive public scrutiny. I could give lists…but from your
> > > list, Stewart is one of countless inside traders and she is one of the
> > > very few to have even been charged. And, even though she ‘served her
> > > time’, like Oliver North, another convicted felon, she now is back in
> > > full swing, on TV, heading an empire, holding as much influence as
> > > ever. One could ask why this is, but that would be yet another topic.
> > Agreed.
> > > Simple examples of those not charged (at least not within the USA) are
> > > people like Bush, Cheney, Rove, CEOs of industry and other members of
> > > the military industrial complex who are in fact both guilty as the law
> > > goes of war crimes but of war profiteering too. Which Pope has been
> > > even charged with sodomy let alone found guilty? This has little to do
> > > with theological tenets and/or beliefs. It has more to do with simple
> > > and raw power and influence associated with a hold harmless attitude.
> > > (entitlement)
> > > “…Why hasn't the Catholic Church been charged with obstruction of
> > > justice and harboring criminals for not turning pedophiles over to the
> > > police. Anyone else (wealthy or not) would have been. The Catholic
> > > Church doesn't recognize that they've done anything wrong. They are
> > > very quick to ex-communicate priests who have sexual
|
