I was away with my beloved over the weekend and so missed the developments in the Bob Maguire saga – but apparently the Archbishop’s main line of attack against the priest was that he was spending money on the poor:
Archbishop Hart claims Father Maguire, parish priest for South Melbourne since 1973, has ”financially mismanaged” the parish, and only managed to keep it afloat by selling off assets worth millions of dollars.
The archbishop told The Sunday Age that the archdiocese had been paying the parish’s power bills because Father Maguire had been overspending on his pastoral work – largely his charity work with the poor.
There must be a misunderstanding there – Hart can’t possibly have made those ridiculous remarks. Apart from the fact that Maguire can only sell such assets with the Archbishop’s signature, that line of attack would raise precisely the issue that a high-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church should do anything to avoid. It would highlight precisely what is wrong with organised religions in general, and that church in particular.
Why, in a world with so much poverty and suffering, do they have those ridiculously valuable assets in the first place? Where does Jesus say he won’t accept worship unless it’s offered up from a ludicrously expensive gothic edifice? Where in the Bible they selected are the instructions from Jesus to “amass a vast property empire here on Earth”? I can find lots of bits where Jesus talks about looking after the poor (and in fact directly identifies with them), but the stuff on which Hart’s organisation appears to primarily operate (collect wealth, oppose gay marriage and abortion) seems pretty much entirely absent from his record.
The amount of land here in Melbourne that is just sat on by the various churches – rate-free, of course – is enormous. Why? What possible justification is there for churches that claim to represent the Jesus of the New Testament to be such pre-eminent land-holders?
Good on Bob for recognising the absurdity of that position. And shame on those members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who think that what he’s done is anything other than an example they should follow.
Moved On 
amen..?
Camels and eyes of needles spring to mind, if they’re right (Christians) Hart, Pell and the Pope are probably going to hell (boo hoo.) for not disbursing the Cathoilc Church’s obscene wealth, McGuire on the other hand….
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Seriously, am I being that much of a pain in the arse?
^^^How strange, that one got published instantly?????
No, I have no idea why it caught that one of yours. If it makes you feel any better, it seems to moderate all of Keri’s comments, too.
Maybe cos I spelled Maguire wrong? I might have accidentally spelled it the Eddie way??
“If it makes you feel any better, it seems to moderate all of Keri’s comments, too.”
Yes it does make me feel better, I’m in fine company then. Cheers Jeremy
Anyway, back on topic, I don’t really think there is much Christianity in the Catholic Church, the bigotry against gays and women has already been mentioned, along with the accumulation of obscene wealth, there’s also the misinformation spread around the poorer nations with regards to condoms not being good protection against HIV, I say misinformation but I mean ‘LIES’! Very unChristian, on the one hand why should I care? I’m not a Christian, on the other hand, they’re a pack of hypocrites spreading lies that impact the quality of life of others so I do care (or will at least spout my opinion).
I think its important to distinguish between the Church as an institution and the church as a social organisation made up of people united by a common culture/b-s (as in belief system, tho bullshit is just as good a term, and it applies to all b-s’ including mine).
In a way thats what Hart is doing. Well its exactly what he is doing.
In many ways Maguire is being exactly the same sort of Christian you accuse the Church of not being RobJ, and hes doing it because he is a Catholic who believes thats what decent Catholics do if they are trying to live up to Jesus’ example.
I was raised as a Catholic, and there are catholics who devote their lives to trying to make the world better, as a consequence of their religion. I’m sure thats what the inquisition did as well, but thats not the point.
I honestly think the jerks who make Catholicism look bad, and there are plenty cos it looks pretty damn bad (especially if you just look at the institution), do it despite their religion, and the ones who do good stuff do it because their religion inspires them and they use it to better themselves not judge everyone else. You rarely hear about them, my second or third cousin, a priest, was one who worked in El Salvador among poor people during the death squad ridden 80s was one. He could tell some stories.
The church as an institution is about power (whether its expressed as real estate, unholy roman empires or child abuse), and the church as a people is about a relationship with their understanding of whats divine and sacred about the world.
Pell in his role in the Committee for the Preservation and Protection of Dogma, or whatever name the Inquisition tries to justify itself by these days, would 500 years ago be hunting down people like me (and Jeremy and most of the readers here) to torture till I was delerious and my personality was destroyed.
Then he’d order the burning of whatever dribbling wreck of a human was left.
Today he does the same thing, and he did it in Melbourne to, cos I remember the stuff that happened. My old girl was one of the first Catholic teachers to teach responsible sex education in Catholic schools, and helped develop a nationwide program that promoted condom use as a means of protection, and conception.
It still pushed the Catholic line, but as a choice, and made a case for why the choice was a good one.
But the program also provided the kids with the most appropriate information available at the time. It gave them options, the exact opposite of the Vatican’s policy, still. It didn’t touch on homosexuality, but given that it was an all male football mad school in the nw suburbs of Melbourne during the 80s thats understandable. Sometimes small steps are better than none.
Kids in her classes used to report back to their parents, specifically one parent whose name makes the national media every now and then. (I am so tempted to name the festy slag but I won’t).
And that cranky bitch would report to Pell what mum was saying. It made her life difficult, but she persevered. I think that program still runs in places tho i’m not sure how widespread it is now.
Thats the difference between people and institutions, and it doesn’t just apply to Catholics, tho their institution is one of the worst.
Big and slow and hunted by cave men.
I didn’t mean to say “today he does the same thing” in refernce to Pell in the comment above (well its in moderation at the moment, apparantly some wordpress blogs are having that issue at the moment.)
I meant to say today he does a similar thing but its limited by the rule of law and our cultural norms.
Sorry.
“Where in the Bible they selected are the instructions from Jesus to “amass a vast property empire here on Earth”?” – Jeremy
I’ll paraphrase the bible here, cos quoting it verbatum is tacky and braindead.
Jesus said that if people wanted to follow him they should give up their stuff and follow him, they should give up their materialism.
He also rejected the sort of earthly power that vast property empire represents, when Satan tempted him before he died. (Thats an eye opening concept to consider in and of itself. That government is essentially satanic according to the bible.)
I think jesus is a great role model, whether he existed or not, and he still exerts power on earth today. Ironically more through the actions of athiest and agnostic “progressives” seeking social justice than fuckwit wankers at Hillsong, who think that saying Jesus saved them is what he actually wanted, or people like Hall, whose religion is a place for him to play his life games of mammalian politics and accumulating earth bound power (whether he’d admit that to himself or not.)
Not bad for a fictional human character who never existed.
Cept maybe as an egregore.
This whole issue is about financial mismanagement, and sometimes that is an issue, wouldn’t you say? If a priest was being irresponsible with finances, then it ought to be addressed. Ultimately, it may be good to help the poor even more.
The amazing thing is that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. They help more people than anyone else. Half of all AIDS and HIV patients in Africa receive direct care from the Catholic Church. Also, even though only 2% of India is Catholic, 22% of health care is provided by the Church.
The Churches and Cathedrals are there for the benefit of the people. They are often the pride of the city and are for the benefit of all people. Often, they were built with money contributed by the people directly for that specific cause. People, including myself, love cathedrals and amazing churches, and they are culturally priceless.
If you believe the Church is being bad by not selling all the cathedrals (places of worship) and giving the money to the poor, then you should also be mad at art galleries. Look at the priceless works of art. Perhaps they should sell the Mona Lisa, or the Last Supper. If museums sold all the priceless works of art, they could raise so much money. But the premise is the same. These are not for one person’s personal use. They are for humanity, for society.
There are beautiful Catholic structures all around the world, and people want and love them. They are holy places that have been built for worship. The fact is, even if they were sold, the money would eventually disappear. The money that is given for charity comes from sustainable sources. Catholics believe the most amazing thing on Earth happens at their beloved churches. It is where they can truly be with God.
As a final note, I would like to point out that many priests and bishops take a vow of poverty. The late Pope John Paul II did not care for wealth. When he died, all his worldly possessions could fit in a shoe box. It’s been said he could not remember a meal he ate because he was more concerned with the people he was speaking to. He lived a very simple life, like all the priests and bishops I’ve ever met.
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. They are helping the poor and suffering more than anyone else. I, like many on this article, am typing this from the comfort of my home. I am not working with lepers in India, like Mother Teresa did. I’m not risking my life in Columbia like many priests and bishops do every day. Before you criticize the Catholic Church for not doing enough, ask what you have done. Perhaps you have done much, but I would suspect if you gave everything you could and were living lives of poverty, you would not find the time to criticize the Church so much.
“If you believe the Church is being bad by not selling all the cathedrals (places of worship) and giving the money to the poor, then you should also be mad at art galleries.”
1. The proportion of the Church’s land holdings that are the cathedrals and church buildings is surprisingly tiny. They own HUGE chunks of land that you wouldn’t realise are theirs.
2. Art galleries don’t claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
“Half of all AIDS and HIV patients in Africa receive direct care from the Catholic Church.”
There’d be a lot fewer of them of the Vatican would stop objecting to condom availability.
“The late Pope John Paul II… lived a very simple life, like all the priests and bishops I’ve ever met.”
OH yes, very simple. Have you been to the Vatican?
“The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. “
According to the Roman Catholics and no-one else…
“I am not working with lepers in India, like Mother Teresa did. I’m not risking my life in Columbia like many priests and bishops do every day. “
I wasn’t having a go at the priests and bishops who tend to the poor. I was having a go at the ones who don’t.
And as for Mother Teresa – well, you should read what Christopher Hitchens has to say about her.
“Before you criticize the Catholic Church for not doing enough, ask what you have done.”
I don’t have the vast resources they do, do I? And people don’t bequeathe me money to look after the poor? Nor do governments give me incredible tax breaks for doing so.
But I do what I can. Clearly that can’t be said for the institution we are discussing.
“The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.
Christ didn’t actually set up any church. He was quite anti-establishment. I think Paul had more to do with setting up churches.
Phillip if you are trying to maintain that the people in the Church and the institution are the same thing you are sadly mistaken.
Whatever good the catholic church does happens despite the vatican not because of it.
Jules, how did you spell my name wrong, haha. The Church and the Vatican are of course the same. The Vatican is where the Pope lives and teaches, and he is the head of the Catholic Church. The great saints of history have proclaimed their unity with the Catholic Church and her teachers, including the Pope.
I have made some responses to the comments here on my blog. Please visit. And feel free to respond there.
Jeremy
the mistake you make is to ignore the income that the church makes from its property, income that goes towards the charitable works that you actaully support, sell of the assets and after the money is spent what will pay for the charitable works then?
Now much of this property has been donated top the church by its members over the years, specifically to help spread and maintain the faith but you ignore the fact that it was often worth a great deal less when it was donated than it is now and that it is only of such great value now because of the accidents of development.
Yours is the typical attitude of the former believer who just can’t see the wood for the trees. Get to practical experience with a charity and then you will understand why selling off assets is a bad idea, no matter how much they are supposedly worth now.
Jeremy while I agree with you that it would be better that Bob stayed, I have to take issue with the reasoning you use. Unless this is simply using a situation, for which I am pretty sure you have no genuine concern, to attack the church. Example
“Why, in a world with so much poverty and suffering, do they have those ridiculously valuable assets in the first place?”
History is why Jeremy. In Australia and the US at least, in many of the communities that were once less than settlements, but now exist as metropolitan cities, the church was one of the first organisations. Before the police, banks, hospitals or any other institutionalised organisation you could name Jeremy, in most places there was a church. And they often simply chose the best available plot of land and set up “shop” as it were.
In Melbourne for example the current site od St Patricks was a long way out of town in 1847 when the Colonial Secretary granted two acres of land for a church on Eastern Hill. As a contrast it was not until April 1854 that Eastern Hill, the current Spring Street site, was agreed upon for the current parliament buildings next door.
Jeremy the government has a responsibility to the poor too. Would you propose that they sell Parliament house?
Example 2
“Where does Jesus say he won’t accept worship unless it’s offered up from a ludicrously expensive gothic edifice? ”
Well Jeremy it doesn’t. And there are very few gothic edifices in the Melbourne Arcdiocis in any case. Again however it a history lesson that shows you as being less than genuine in your concern for Fr Bob and more in a general attack on religion and the RCC.
At the time of its design and construction Jeremy, gothic churches were all the go. It was the custom to build them in the 1850s and 60s when St Pat’s was designed.
You’ll of course notice a similarity in many public buildings of the era Jeremy, if not in their gothic edefice, then in their sheer scale. Parliament and the town hall as well as many of the old theatres of Melbourne illustrate two things really well. Firstly the fashion in architecture of the time and secondly that there was a little thing on at the time called the GOLD RUSH which brought massive amounts of money into the colony. The church lived of the generosity of its congregation in those days Jeremy as it does now. And in thise days many of the churches congregation ware doing all right. There were many poor then too of course and the wealthy church did wonderful things for them.
What would you have the church do Jeremy? Sell all the churches and hold old mass in tents?
What would they do with the money? Give it to the poor? What about the next generation of the poor Jeremy? With no churches to sell what would the church give them? And who would buy the buildings anyway?
I don’t ever recall a left wing orphanage, a green hospital or a soup kitchen run by S11 Jeremy. I do know that there are hundreds of public buildings in Australia that are lavish. Many of them devoted only to the arts. Should I waith with bated breath for your article calling for their sale by government (who have ultimate responsibility to the poor remember) in order to fund poverty relief?
And on the words of christ.
Matthew 26:11
“The poor you will always have with you.”
I’m not given to quoting scripture and when people like you quote it at me I count my cattle, but have a read and then a think.
Let’s not forget that Maguire didn’t sell anything without Hart’s blessing (signature). I guess Maguire isn’t conservative enough, doesn’t fit the image, so they’re using the sale of assets to discredit him (even though nothing was sold without hart’s signature). They could have just stuck to their guns and said, “Bob, you’re 75, give it up!’ but no, they’ve gone on the attack.
Philip, nice try – but if you want me to address your comment you can post it here instead of trying to steal a thread discussion.
Iain, NAJ – the Church does not need to own the enormous property portfolios it does, even ignoring the physical churches themselves. And its priority, if it is sincere in its message, should be tending to the poor, not collecting wealth. It does some good – but the amount it skims off the top for its own purposes is obscene.
And I agree the government has a responsibility to the poor, too. I don’t think it needs to sell the one building in which our representatives meet, though.
RobJ makes a good point.
This does seem more like an attack on Fr Bob himself than on his financial prowess.
As an ex Catholic I actually find Fr Bob represents his religion well in public, it strikes me as odd that they would want to attack (it does seem like an attack to me) him in such a tactically dumb manner.
Philip (sorry I saw 2 Ls, even tho they weren’t there. Funny how humans do that sort of thing isn’t it.)
I have checked out your blog actually tho for some reason my comments wouldn’t publish.
Thanks for the invite tho, I’ll try again.
NAJ How do you think that link justifies Harts behaviour?
The Catholic Church has immenese wealth available to it and in this case its appearing to defend its wealth instead of supporting the attempts at pastoral care one particular parish is making.
point one why did mary annoint Jesus’ feet?
Specifically, what were the cultural or religious reasons for it?
Point two, that story is about the power of forgiveness and the …
I give up.
Seriously NAJ, if you are a Catholic (or any sort of Christian) and you can’t see the irony (and more) of trying to use the story of annointing Jesus feet to justify the church maintaining its material wealth then you need to have a long hard look at yourself.
Way to miss the point.
I had a chuckle at the link under the article tho. The one about the pre coital prayer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210519/Never-mind-pillow-talk-couples-told-Roman-Catholic-church-PRAY-sex.html
lol. Hilarious.
“As an ex Catholic I actually find Fr Bob represents his religion well in public,”
I would have thought that the any church would be keen to hang on to characters like Maguire, I understand church congregations are ever diminishing, a progressive could help stem that flow.
Having said that, maybe it’s a good thing, maybe the congregations will disappear along with the remaining progressives and religion will become irrelevant. Hoping of course that someone else will pick up their good work and nobody will pick up their nasty and EVIL deeds. (Utopia??)
FTR – I’m an ex-Anglican, actually, I was raised as an Anglican, Christened and confirmed, I’ve never had a religious bone in my body. Some of my earliest memories are from Sunday school, me thinking “Bullshit!”
LOL – From your link:
“It criticises ‘those who, in our times, consider it too difficult, or indeed impossible, to be bound to one person for the whole of life, and those caught up in a culture that rejects the indissolubility of marriage and openly mocks the commitment of spouses to fidelity’.”
Look, I’m monogamous myself, I’m very happily married but I must say when all these ‘laws’ were made people pretty much kicked the bucket at 40, ‘life’ was a lot shorter, less time to get sick of the sight of each other.
The Church needs to get with the times if it wants to survive, they do change, they do abandon bullshit eventually, they’re just too slow.
So Jeremy you’ve made this assertion a number of times that the church has a vast portfolio of real estate. Including stating “They own HUGE chunks of land that you wouldn’t realise are theirs.” So let’s agree that I don’t realise, but lets also agree that you do realise. Enlighten me as to some of those assets in the Melbourne Arcdiocese if you wouldn’t mind?
Because it would be reasonably pivotal to your argument let’s be honest.
Jules
Thanks for the advice.
I need to be told occasionally by an “ex Catholic”, how to be a better christian.
Seriously mate, with all due respect, you would have not one clue as to the kind of christian I am. I’ll thank you to keep the subject to that which involves the decisions of Dr Hart and Fr Bob. My christianity or otherwise is not the issue and neither is yours.
Simply put the church has a policy. Fr Bob has known for 75 years that this was the date of his 75th birthday and for as long as he’s been a priest that this policy existed, so it can’t have come as any kind of a surprise to anyone that he would be asked to retire at 75. What has he been doing about extending his tenure over the past say 5 years?
What succession plan has he had in place for this?
And is the work of the parish so centred on Fr Bob that it can’t continue without him. Is he bigger than the program.
If Fr Bob has not planned for this day then what kind of management plans does he have and is this an indication of his overall management style?
These are questions none of us is in a position to answer, but Dr Heart is.
Why would a church that just appointed a Pope well over seventy five expect its priests to retire then?
As for the property portfolio – I don’t have a list for you, but I doubt they’d deny it.
NAJ: see
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm
“The Roman Catholic Church is the wealthiest non-profit organization in Australia. If it was a corporation, it would be one of the 10 biggest in the country. Through its network of schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, employment services and other business ventures, it makes at least $15 billion in revenue a year. That figure does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by its congregation on the collection plates of its 1500 parishes a year. Nor does it adequately measure the revenue that it makes from its welfare “businesses”.”
“What makes the Roman Catholic Church unique is its size and structure. As one of the biggest organizations in Australia, and the biggest employer ( 180,000 people) its influence across education, health and welfare and politics is enormous. The BRW claims it is “unassailable”. “
This is slightly off topic, but Jeremy did bring it up so I will comment on it only briefly.
Jeremy said – “There’d be a lot fewer of them of the Vatican would stop objecting to condom availability.”
But this requires the following logic.
My name is Mbutu Kenyana I am married and Catholic.
The Pope say don’t use a condom and the Pope must always be followed or I go to hell.
The pope says only lay with my wife, but the pope is full of shit and so i shag every other woman in Africa (without a condom cos the pope’s orders must be followed) and then bring home HIV virus to wife and family.
I realise this is the argument of Tony Abbott, but even the most strident lefty could see the flaw in that logic.
Garbage. Humans are human and do engage in things like extra-marital sex. The availability of condoms makes that vastly less likely to involve spreading a lethal infection.
The Catholic Church’s – sorry, the Roman Catholic Church’s – teaching, in places where it is followed, makes condoms unavailable or at least difficult to find. So people just have sex without them, and in turn infect their husbands, wives, kids etc. It’s a serious problem.
they can sort it out amongst themselves…none of my business or the media’s.
although, if you wanted to write up a veiled attack on the catholic church…reporting inter-parish spats is a good way to do it
Yes, the Catholic Church must realise that abstinence is UNNATURAL, plenty of priests can’t keep their vows, it’s strange that they expect others to adhere to unnatural vows!
Why would a church that just appointed a Pope well over seventy five expect its priests to retire then?
Good question?
Maybe they see that the Pope actually has a succession plan and that if he dies tomorrow there are those in place to do his work. While it would appear that Fr Bob is essential to the programe in Sth Melbourne and if he dies they are rooted. So they had a policy, which Bob seems to have ignored, to retire him before that.
Just a thought, but you have a good point.
And he who asserts must prove.
Your argument is contingen on there being, and I do quote “…HUGE chunks of land that you wouldn’t realise are theirs.” If I don’t realise it, and you do realise it then you should point to evidence of why you have that realisation.
Otherwise there’s no reason for me to agree that I don’t realise anything because their realestate portfolio is modest for an organisation of that size and valuable only because it is so old. That it includes hospitals, schools, refuges for the poor etc etc etc etc.
Unless you have any information other than your assertion then that argument is lost to you Jeremy.
It’s common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t deny, but anyway – say I did prove it to you, would you agree that they should divest themselves of such holdings and put the money towards the poor?
“The availability of condoms makes that vastly less likely to involve spreading a lethal infection.”
Firstly Catholics comprise a very small %age of that population and the Catholic church, despite her vast unfetted power in Africa, isn’t the government and isn’t alone in providing aid in Africa.
There are hundreds of NGOs as well as government organisations
You’re arguing that Africans, most of whom are not Catholics, don’t use condomes because the Catholic church won’t provide them and that Catholics who won’t use condoms cos the pope says not to, but will sleep around even though he says not to?
Seriously?
First, the RCC actively opposes condom distribution. Government ministers who are RCCs avoid any measures to increase condom use.
Second, there is a strong human urge to fornicate. There is not a strong human urge to use protection. Those RCCs who succumb to the first outside marriage are not being taught to at least minimise the damage by using protection. The protection is not available, and they are not encouraged to use it.
The “all or nothing” approach – if you have extra-marital sex, we wash our hands of you, there’s no point minimising the damage, you’re already going to hell – is killing people.
I’m certainly no fan of the Roman Catholic church — nor any other — but I can’t agree that it should sell off its assets and donate the proceeds to the poor, Jeremy.
As has been mentioned somewhere above, the church derives the majority of its income from these assets, that income is then spent on the numerous charities and services that the church supports, without those assets generating this income, where would the money for future work come from ?
I feel you are taking a somewhat short-sighted view here.
“where would the money for future work come from ?”
Donations? Bequests?
And if it sold off its non-church building holdings, just from that alone, it would have money to feed the poor for YEARS.
I think it would be the best and most christian thing to do Gavin, But I concede, I wouldn’t be too bothered if it was the last thing they did, ie I don’t care if they become extinct as a result, I’m not convinced their good deeds outweigh their evil deeds.
Jeremy it would depend on what those assets are.
I don’t believe that the church should divest itself of schools and hospitals.
I don’t think it should divest itself of assets it can earn an income from either if that income is used for the betterment of the community either.
If they own pubs and brothels or an amusement park then maybe, but I don’t think they do actually.
But I might just not be realising that.
You’re channeling Monty python now Jeremy.
You think that the Catholic church can instill in its people a strong human urge to use protection?
LOL Gold.
Why should there by religious hospitals and schools, anyway? Why should kids be indoctrinated with a religion’s idiosyncratic code when they’re there for education? And what business does the church have in medicine – apart from trying to bully vulnerable women into not accessing best medical options when they’re ones with which the church disagrees.
Much of the church’s holdings is swathes of suburban land used for pretty much nothing.
“You think that the Catholic church can instill in its people a strong human urge to use protection?”
Where’d I say that? But it could encourage condom use rather than going the other way and discouraging it – in fact, worse than that, doing everything in its power to stuff up plans to provide condoms and promote a safe sex message.
“….it would have money to feed the poor for YEARS.”
When you’ve been areoung for “MILLENNIA” and you’re long term view has traditionally been “CENTURIES” Jeremy having money last for “Years” is short sighted indeed.
“You’re channeling Monty python”
You’re the one defending an institution that preaches abstinence which is just not natural (Mayn of their own priests can’t achieve it). I think you’re the Pythonesque commenter here!
(mayn = many)
Read the rest of that comment, NAJ. The church has other, major sources of income, that do not depend on it having a vast property portfolio.
“Much of the church’s holdings is swathes of suburban land used for pretty much nothing.”
Assertion without evidence = Intrenched prejudice and not argument.
The church should have hospitals and schools because it saves the community BILLIONS Jeremy and Catholics, despite your objections, have the right to be cared for and educated in Catholic schools and catholic hospitals if they so choose. The church’s money won’t cure the world of poor people, but her educational institutes and hopitals might cure the poor of the things that intrench their poverty.
The hospitals routinely look after the poorest people in Melbourne and the schools have educated the poorest of the poor in this country for over 150 years.
If it wasn’t for the church in Ireland in the 1820 millions would never have been educated at all. That’s true in Australia too to a lesser extent.
Jeremy,
I don’t think it would be sound policy for the church – or any other institution for that matter – to rely solely on donations and bequests for its income — and I’m pretty sure that many of the charities that the church supports would agree.
Hi Rob,
I guess many people need religion in their lives for a variety of reasons, so if the Catholic church did go the way of the dinosaurs others would take its place — I’m pretty certain that a significant number of people will still want to worship some sort of deity.
“Jules
Thanks for the advice.
I need to be told occasionally by an “ex Catholic”, how to be a better christian.
Seriously mate, with all due respect, you would have not one clue as to the kind of christian I am. I’ll thank you to keep the subject to that which involves the decisions of Dr Hart and Fr Bob. My christianity or otherwise is not the issue and neither is yours.” – NAJ
I know you do, and not just by an ex-Catholic, by someone who most Christians would consider a Satanist to boot.
That must be embarassing.
And if you put forward that link as a justification for Harts behaviour then I think I am justified in presuming that whatever other sort of Christian you are you obviously don’t understand the book your religion is based on.
Did you notice this:
“NAJ How do you think that link justifies Harts behaviour?”
If I have a go at you for introducing a completely irrelevent point into an argument perhaps you should try to defend what you percieve as its relevence.
The church has other, major sources of income…..Donations? Bequests?
Seriously?
What other organisation could you name that has no other income than donations and bequests?
Maybe you and Fr Bob learned financial management in the same place if that’s what you believe is a forward plan for the church to get the income to do her work.
And where would you get the idea that these are “mojor sources of income”?
Really Jeremy. Heard it all before.
These arguments are well pretty much 2000 years old. Tiberuis used them to put the early church in her place, Cromwell used them to sack the abbeys of Scotland and England and Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin used them too.
2000 years later the church still stands Jeremy.
“I guess many people need religion in their lives for a variety of reasons,”
Yeah, but you know, why does one need a Church? I would have thought and omniscient, omnipotent being wouldn’t give a toss, I would have thought that this wouldn’t be particularly hard for your average mere mortal to get their head around.
“These arguments are well pretty much 2000 years old”
LOL – And you still don’t get it. 😉
NAJ, read Eric’s link. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Church is not exactly forthcoming with its books, and it is not required to file tax returns.
“Simply put the church has a policy. Fr Bob has known for 75 years that this was the date of his 75th birthday and for as long as he’s been a priest that this policy existed, so it can’t have come as any kind of a surprise to anyone that he would be asked to retire at 75.” – NAJ
Thats a fair point on its own. (If thats their policy, I honestly don’t know.)
But it makes Hart’s use of financial mismanagement as a justification for Fr Bobs retirement even weaker.
(I dunno if I agree with him being forced to retire at 75 but thats not the issue.)
It seems from the link above that the vast majority of church property assets are schools, hospitals, aged care facilities and the like. It might be a tad counterproductive to sell those off.
And look at other institutions that have used donations to acquire assets, be they universities or leftist foundations. Funnily enough they prefer not to dissipate their assets, but rather use the income from those assets for their particular purposes.
I don’t think the Catholic church is going to start taking theology lessons from gormless leftists.
“I don’t think the Catholic church is going to start taking theology lessons from gormless leftists.”
You mean the ones who don’t believe in fairy tales SB? Gormless? possibly? Gullible – NO WAY!
“Thats a fair point on its own. ”
One that’s been acknowledged, at least by me.
I’d like to point out that my catholic education was actually pretty fair, progressive and open minded.
“Why should kids be indoctrinated with a religion’s idiosyncratic code when they’re there for education?” – Jeremy
If I’m anything to go on the indoctrination didn’t work. My favorite thinker/philosopher had a Catholic education too. Didn’t work with him either.
I actually think the fact that Catholic education indoctrinates what it believes to be morality is a good thing, provided the people exposed to it get a bit of dogma innoculation from elsewhere.
ie That there are systems in their lives that enable and educate them to think critically and evaluate their own personal understanding of what morality is and apply it to their own lives.
The Catholic education I got in high school actually did enable that critical evaluation imo, even the religious education component. (That some of my more intelligent classmates went on to become conservative priests and even hold positions at the vatican still spins me out and provides a fair bit of cognitive dissonance.)
I don’t think secular education does that (provide a moral anything), but I probably don’t have any basis for that other than assumption.
And I know I laughed at the prayer before sex, but I think there is nothing wrong with considering sex sacred.
Thats what Crowley’s sex magic rituals did, and its how Buddhist, Daoist and Hindu people view sex, especially the “tantric” sides of those religions.
But really even the text of that prayer was repressed. And no religion has a monopoly on considering sex sacred ( or on repression for that matter).
I’ve no idea why they need a church Rob, I’m not a churchy type myself either, but I guess its probably got something to do with needing to see some sort of physical manifestation of God and have some sort of authority through which to communicate His word — (Her word ?) – besides that, on a rainy day its far more comfortable to be on your knees indoors than in a muddy paddock somewhere 😉
“And I know I laughed at the prayer before sex, but I think there is nothing wrong with considering sex sacred.”
Thing is the blokes who wrote/propagated these prayers don’t really have much experience (at least they’d make that claim)
“besides that, on a rainy day its far more comfortable to be on your knees indoors than in a muddy paddock somewhere”
The sabbath being a day of rest and all, just stay in bed 😉
I wanted to acknowledge it too RobJ.
“The sabbath being a day of rest and all, just stay in bed ”
Come on Rob — you’re married with children too, you know there’s no chance of that !
“Thing is the blokes who wrote/propagated these prayers don’t really have much experience (at least they’d make that claim)”
Thats true and it part of what made me laugh.
Healthy sex magic is great tho and I probably should welcome what I see as a long overdue move in that direction by the church, instead of laughing at it.
Its better than the unhalthy sex magic that institution has practised for so long.
It’s the taxation part of it that separates religious organisations from others. If you are not required to pay taxes then your disposable income is pretty much 100%; anything that comes in you can use to run the “business”. And if you business is in an area that attracts lots of government funding then it can be a very cheap business to run.
Realistically, the Catholic Church don’t have huge overheads once you take the property portfolio out of the equation. Yes, there is upkeep on church buildings, schools and hospitals, but much of this can be recovered via government funding and/or the parents/patients/congregations themselves.
Much of the charitable works done by the church also attract Government funding and many of these programmes use volunteers (as is also the case in church services, hospitals and schools). Again, this lessens the amount the Church have to dip into their own pockets.
I think Jeremy has actually underestimated it: I think if they sold off assets they were currently not using then they would have definitely enough to last them at least a hundred years, by which stage most people would have relegated organised religion to the scrapheap of history anyway.
Sounds like a plan to me.
“Come on Rob — you’re married with children too, you know there’s no chance of that !”
Heh – 7am I was up yesterday, 6:30 Saturday and I’ve got posts on blogs to prove it..
Best part of the day I reckon
jules,
Yeah, I’m picking Crowley would have a much better idea of sex than a catholic Priest.
BTW – I understand that it wasn’t always the case that Catholic priests couldn’t marry, I understand that it became a problem for the Church that a priest would leave his wealth to his spouse, the Church weren’t very happy about that.
Yep – 1139 AD, the Catholic Church decided that they didn’t want the Priest leaving his wealth to anybody else. It’s got bugger all to do with god, rather greed.
I maintain that abstinence is unnatural and in fact if I believed in god I would claim that abstaining from sex is showing little gratitude for the gift that god gave us.
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/7227.html
“I think Jeremy has actually underestimated it: I think if they sold off assets they were currently not using then they would have definitely enough to last them at least a hundred years,”
Maguire just said as much on the World Today – he says he sold IDLE Assets with the blessing of the ‘Supreme Commander**’ (Hart)
Hmmm I wonder if Maguire is a gamer?
Slightly OT, but does the catholic church in any way benefit financially from the economy of Vatican city?
So RobJ if blokes who don’t have sex can’t hold valid opinions on sex then can blokes who are not Catholics have valid ones on the church?
The fact that Hart allowed McGuire to sell assets to save his arse does not make Hart complicit in McGuires arse being in the sling in the first place.
If you get your car bogged because you are a bad driver and go off the track, then am I a bad driver because I dig you out? Am i to blame for you getting bogged?
Why saddle Hart with the blame for McGuire’s possible missmanagement of the parish?
“So RobJ if blokes who don’t have sex can’t hold valid opinions on sex then can blokes who are not Catholics have valid ones on the church?”
NAJ, the question is why can’t they have sex? It’s OK, I’ve already answered or you (here’s a clue, it’s got bugger all to do with god and everything to do with money).
But they can have opinions, even valid ones but the opinion they espouse stinks, they are against contraception, they mandate that priests can’t have sex. Like I say I reckon they’re demonstrating a lack of gratitude for a gift from their god.
Anyway NAJ, I bet loads of them have sex, they’re just dishonest about it.
NAJ – prove to me that Maguire is lying when he said that he sold IDLE ASSETS, then you may have a point.
Well, most of the church consists of idol assets…
LOL – Isn’t there a commandment about that? I suppose they get around it and call them icons?
“So RobJ if blokes who don’t have sex can’t hold valid opinions on sex then can blokes who are not Catholics have valid ones on the church?” – NAJ
They can hold whatever opinions they like. The fact that they are not valid comes from the opinions themselves not the fact the blokes don’t have sex (as far as we know.) Just like my opinions as a non catholic. They are valid. their validity stands on its own regardless of my religion.
Have you come up with a reason why the article is relevent yet?
Money will stop them having sex Rob?
I have no doubt McGuire sold idle assets. Where did I suggest otherwise?
Weren’t you the one who got it into his head that Pell was involved in this earlier?
You seem to read things that are not said Rob.
My point is that he was forced to sell those assets to make his books balance. At least according to Hart. And it might have been with good reason that they did fail to balance Rob, but never the less those assets are now gone, and if the need arises in future to have use of them then they won’t be there will they. Firesales are well and good, but they are not a long term strategy for financial security are they.
“Well, most of the church consists of idol assets…” – Jeremy
more LOL.
“Weren’t you the one who got it into his head that Pell was involved in this earlier?”
Oooh, I did mention Pell, thinking he was the most senior Catholic in the nation (which he is) and I fucked up, forgive me for not knowing the names of the high ranking clergy. But otherwise….I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
Oh, and pay attention to Jules latest post about validity of opinion, we are not going to agree how the Church best control it’s wealth but show me why my arguments re Sex and Priests are invalid.
And another point you are ignoring is that all Hart has to do is insist that Maguire is 75, not go on the attack about his financial mismanagement, why did he feel the need to do that? I’m glad it’s back firing, as you know Maguire is high profile and well loved, even I know who he is. Hart? So all the Catholics know who he is, the rest of us? I’m picking many will be picking him as a typical mean spirited Bishop (Pell’s a prick too, hence the typical).
“The fact that Hart allowed McGuire to sell assets to save his arse does not make Hart complicit in McGuires arse being in the sling in the first place.”
Do you know this as a fact?
“Money will stop them having sex Rob?”
I’m not sure what you are asking, could you clarify/rephrase?
……………..show me why my arguments re Sex and Priests are invalid.
For the same reason as an argument by a non American about US domestic policy world be invalid.
As an example, the government have policy on mental illness, murder, disability, immigration etc, and yet there may be nobody in the goverment or even advising them who is mentally ill, the perpetrator or victim of a murder, disabled or an immigrant. Are those policies rendered invalid?
You scoff at religious text and I just bet you have no education in theology.
By your own standard you have no valid point to make because you have not been educated in this by any experience.
If we applied that standard to all opinion and teaching then we’d never allow anyone without intimate knowledge of something at first hand to have an opinion or teach anything.
Now you’re forgetting what you say yourself Rob
“NAJ, the question is why can’t they have sex? It’s OK, I’ve already answered or you (here’s a clue, it’s got bugger all to do with god and everything to do with money).”
NAJ the jules ignorer said:
“……………..show me why my arguments re Sex and Priests are invalid.”
er here:
“if blokes who don’t have sex can’t hold valid opinions on sex then can blokes who are not Catholics have valid ones on the church?”
The invalidity of the blokes who don’t have sex’ opinions comes from their opinions themselves not from the fact that the people who hold them don’t have sex.
ergo
Q. “if blokes who don’t have sex can’t hold valid opinions on sex then can blokes who are not Catholics have valid ones on the church?”
A. Yes. (the validity depends on the opinions not the fact that the blokes aren’t catholics.)
“You scoff at religious text and I just bet you have no education in theology.”
Thats a bit rich coming from someone who doesn’t even understand their own scripture. (I am assuming you are a Catholic btw, if you’re not maybe I’ll take that back.)
“BTW – I understand that it wasn’t always the case that Catholic priests couldn’t marry, I understand that it became a problem for the Church that a priest would leave his wealth to his spouse, the Church weren’t very happy about that.
Yep – 1139 AD, the Catholic Church decided that they didn’t want the Priest leaving his wealth to anybody else. It’s got bugger all to do with god, rather greed. ”
and
“It’s OK, I’ve already answered or you (here’s a clue, it’s got bugger all to do with god and everything to do with money).”
-RobJ
“Money will stop them having sex Rob?”
– NAJ
Do you even read whats written here or are you just deliberately misrepresenting what RobJ said?
BTW Still waiting.
Jules I would love to know what the fuck it is you are waiting for.
I asked you to repeat it because i may have missed your first request. I’m happy to answer any question you have, but I’m not going to re-read the whole thread to make that happen. Please remind me what you want to know.
Yes I am a Catholic and yes I have read “my own” scripture. What is your issue?
What Rob’s suggesting, and I might be wrong here, is that because a priest is celebate that any opinion he has on sexuality is void.
That’s plainly no true. I am sure you have opinions on movies despite never making one (I assume) or on genius despite not being one, so why can’t a priest have knowledge or opinion on sex without being an active participant?
I had some limited concelling on matrimonial matters as a young man. Many years before I eventually got married. Every single word that the councellor told me, every advice he suggested has turned out to be true with regard to marriage with a person i didn’t meet till about 6 years after we spoke.
He was (and remains) a priest. He had 25+ years of experience with married and engaged couples and knew more then about being married than I do about it now after more than 10 years of wedlock myself.
“What Rob’s suggesting, and I might be wrong here, is that because a priest is celebate that any opinion he has on sexuality is void.”
Sorry guys, been busy this arvo, I’ll just answer this and have another look later. I’m saying that the opinion they espouse on sex is unnatural, abstinence is unnatural (IMO) We are I believe hard wired to reproduce.
I agree Rob, but we’re hard wired to do a number of other things that we have the ability to restrain our selves from doing when we need to.
I must admith that the idea of being a celebate neve appealed to me much either. It seems a very large sacrifice to ask of the people who make it. And the catholic church is not the only one who asks it either.
Its funny for a Catholic to hear the Pope’s opinions being criticised as those of an elderly virgin while hearing the opnions of the Delai Lama praised as the wisdom of the age.
Christian celibacy is considered unnatural while Buddhist celibacy is of primary importance in monastic discipline, seen as being the preeminent factor in separating the life of a monastic from that of a householder.
Delai Lama = good Pope = evil.
I just get a chuckle out of that.
Ages back in the thread you took exception to me telling you how to practise your religion, well maybe not exactly that …
It was in the context of this:
“Wider than that is to suppose that having a few luxuries around, even those not dedicated to God, are all right, because the greater problem will not be overcome simply by throwing money at the problem. In fact, because the poor will always be around, no matter how hard we work, we don’t have to bankrupt ourselves providing for them.”
from the link you posted re “The poor you will always have with you.”
I’d like to know why you think that article, and in particular that comment, which seems to be the crux of it, are relevent to this situation (Maguire being sacked for spending to much). Especially in light of the story that inspired the article – Jesus dining at Simon’s place.
To me the article in itself is weak, but especially in this context. It might seem obviously correct on a shallow read, but after reflection, to me that article is flat out wrong.
I thought you were deliberately avoiding the question and if you didn’t understand what I meant or was referring to then I am sorry for getting up you over a misunderstanding.
I think Rob’s point on priests and sex is that regardless of whether or not the priest is celibate, his opinion is wrong.
“Yes I am a Catholic and yes I have read “my own” scripture. What is your issue?”
Well for one thing using that story (the anointing at Simon’s) to justify Hart sacking Maguire.
“What Rob’s suggesting, and I might be wrong here, is that because a priest is celebate that any opinion he has on sexuality is void.
That’s plainly no true. I am sure you have opinions on movies despite never making one (I assume) or on genius despite not being one, so why can’t a priest have knowledge or opinion on sex without being an active participant?”
They can, but usually the things they base their opinion on are invalid to begin with. Thats the point.
Praying to prevent hedonism in sex is ridiculous. If there is part of spacetime where/when you should persue pleasure like a vocation then its during sex. (one of the stated aims of the prayer book for spouses, which had some contribution to the discussion of sex and priests here, was to remove hedonism from sex between married couples.)
One of other stated aims to prevent selfishness in sex and that is worthy of praise.
Ergo invalidity of priests argument re hedonism based purely on argument re hedonism. Because a huge part of unselfishness during sex is pursuing your partners pleasure like a vocation. If you do that your own will pleasure come naturally. (And I honestly didn’t intend that pun.) And you will honour the gift that sex is.
“or on genius despite not being one”
Ha good call : )
Pleasure will come naturally.
Sorry all talk about persuing pleasure must have distracted me.
Jules to be honest i only really had a shallow read of the article and thanks for reading it deeper.
I have no issue with the crux of that though.
Who exactly is served by us bankrupting ourselves for the poor? It is the duty of those who can to look after those who can’t, but its not their duty, not our duty to bankrupt ourselves to do that. If the srong make themselves weak to help the weak then who will be strong for them then?
Sorry Jules half finished there.
In this case it appears Dr Hart is suggesting, and we have no reason not to accept his word, that Fr Bob’s dwindeling the coffers of the parish in order to look after the poor in it. On the surface of it that might appear OK, and certainly that’s as far as Jeremy’s willing to analyse it. Fair enough he’s no mickophobe so he’s going to grab what he can reach and bite like hell to inflict a little pain, but the issue is much deeper and bigger than that. The assets of the parish belong to the parish, not to Fr Bob. And there’s a duty on his part to put the welfare of the whole parish ahead of his own quest. No matter how noble.
As i say who is helped by the parish having gone broke tending to the poor?
The poor are still poor because all the church can really do for them all is feed and clothe them tempoarily. Its simply not possible to give them all a job and a car and a house Jules and expecting the church to do that is rediculous.
What the church does do is to provide things like education and medical care to help the poor and they also have good blokes like Fr Bob who go the extra yard. Unfortunately in going that extra yard it appears that Fr Bob may have gone too far and jepardised the church in that parish.
Not witstanding that if the policy is 75 for a priest then why is Bob only barking now? As i said his planning skills might match his financial skills.
“Anyone who claims to be a supporter of mine who makes Archbishop Hart’s life, in public, more miserable, is no friend of mine.”
– Fr Bob
http://www.fatherbob.com.au/
I just read that.
I’ve never met Fr Bob, but I’ll respect him on this.
And NAJ I do get your point about selling off assets to fund stuff, its part of why I objected to the privatisation of infrastructure.
But South melbourne parish is (as I understand it) one pof the ones that has always struggled with a high percentage of people needing support.
Higher than the parishes I grew up in.
I doubt providing more funds to Sth Melb will bankrupt the church, but I’m not the archdioscese’ (sp?) accountant, so I couldn’t honestly say.
“As i say who is helped by the parish having gone broke tending to the poor?
The poor are still poor because all the church can really do for them all is feed and clothe them tempoarily. Its simply not possible to give them all a job and a car and a house Jules and expecting the church to do that is rediculous.”
Who is helped by the church spending money on the poor? THE POOR. The society at large. What is that money being saved for, if not for helping the poor?
NAJ, that money can be spent on programs to help improve the lot of the poor – teach a man to fish, in the old saying – as well as making sure they are fed and sheltered. I’m not sure how they RCC can call itself a charity whilst hoarding money and assets for some unspecified later.
“What the church does do is to provide things like education and medical care to help the poor’
No, they don’t. They charge, and they impose their religious values on the children they teach and the patients who come to them for help.
Jeremy i didn’t say they shouldn’t spend money on the poor. You are misrepresenting my argument there.
I said who is helped by the parish having gone broke tending to the poor?
Making believe I said anything else is BS.
And it’s not money Jeremy its assets. Assets which, once sold, can’t be used for the betterment of the church and that money omly gets used for the poor once. Then its gone.
If I was to sell my tools to buy food for my kids then how would I then work to feed them?
“…..that money can be spent on programs to help improve the lot of the poor – teach a man to fish, in the old saying – as well as making sure they are fed and sheltered.”
Shelterd where Jeremy? You sold all the real estate.
Are you gonna buy em tents? Where will you pitch them Jeremy? You sold all the real estate.
“…hoarding money and assets for some unspecified later..”
Never said it was for later. It’s for now Jeremy, but selling the assets means its ONLY for now.
“No, they don’t. They charge, and they impose their religious values on the children they teach and the patients who come to them for help.”
Ok there’s just no way you actually believe that. I doubt you were educated in the Catholic system Jeremy, but hundreds of thousands of Australians have been (many of them NOT Catholic BTW) and some of the best schools in Australia are Catholic schools, so yes they do educate people.
And yes they charge a fee. Mostly to those who can pay. I went to one of the better Catholic schools in Australia and my parents paid only what they could afford. Which was not much believe me. There were kids at that school who’s parents were loaded and there were kids there who’s parents had nothing. I doubt that the fees covered the costs.
Religious values were taught there too. Not imposed. We had non catholic boys who were never expected to participate, but welcome if they wanted. I never felt like I was expected to believe anything we were taught. In fact one of the religious masters we had spent an entire term teaching us about Islam Jeremy. I have a million dollars (I don’t actually, but I won’t need it) that says you never spent one day at school studying the Koran Jeremy.
As for hospitals you’re just making it up there. I defy you to give an example of a single patient having a religious value imposed on them in a Catholic hospital.
Really this is a reasonable argument and a debate that needs having Jeremy and there is no need to demeen it with that rubbish.
Jules
I’m not suggesting that the whole church will be bankrupt by South Melbourne, but to a certain extent each parish needs to stand on its own financially and Fr Bob appears not to understand that. It’s been a well known concern for a while that he’s, lets say, more interested in Fr Bob’s image than is the well being of the poor or the church.
“I said who is helped by the parish having gone broke tending to the poor?
Making believe I said anything else is BS”
Making believe I said they should “go broke” is also BS.
“Shelterd where Jeremy? You sold all the real estate.
Are you gonna buy em tents? Where will you pitch them Jeremy? You sold all the real estate.”
Interesting point. Why doesn’t the Church use all that real estate to house the poor?
That’d certainly be better than just sitting on it.
“Religious values were taught there too. Not imposed. We had non catholic boys who were never expected to participate, but welcome if they wanted.”
The school only inflicted catholicism on the boys who actively chose it? Bullshit.
“I have a million dollars (I don’t actually, but I won’t need it) that says you never spent one day at school studying the Koran Jeremy.”
I think we did a day on it in RE, but it was hopelessly inadequate. And guess what school I went to? A Church of England school.
I’d have been better at a secular school that taught me about all the religions, not just my parents’.
“As for hospitals you’re just making it up there. I defy you to give an example of a single patient having a religious value imposed on them in a Catholic hospital.”
Didn’t you follow the abortion debate? Catholic doctors and catholic hospitals wanted the right to deny treatment to women who sought an abortion, and to be allowed to do everything in their power to bully a woman into not having an abortion, based on their religious beliefs.
Where did I say you said go broke?
I was commenting to Jules on something he said Jeremy.
“Why doesn’t the Church use all that real estate to house the poor?”
The poor isn’t the only ministry of the church. Having said that though;
How could it? How would it maintain it? Where would they sleep? Who would clean it etc etc? Isn’t ti better to use it to derive income for the good of the whole church?
Why doesn’t the government use all its real estate for the poor?
Why don’t the union movement use all their VAST real estate to house working people?
“That’d certainly be better than just sitting on it.”
Yet still no examples of same?
“The school only inflicted catholicism on the boys who actively chose it? ”
Yes that is wrong. The school didn’t inflict Catholicism on anyone.
“I think we did a day on it in RE, but it was hopelessly inadequate.”
Since you can’t even remember it I guess that’d be true.
“I’d have been better at a secular school that taught me about all the religions, not just my parents’.”
Clearly. Maybe a Catholic one?
“Didn’t you follow the abortion debate?”
Yes I do and on a point of order patient in Catholic hospitals don’t have abortions.
As they are not patients they are not having an attitude imposed on them.
I have no issue with any hospital deciding not to do any opereation for any reason as long as it is for any person.
I don’t expect to get a heart transplant at the Eye and Ear hospital. An abortion either for that metter.
This is ridiculous.
Everyone knows that the Catholic Church is a business not a religion. What on earth are they doing letting anachronisms like Fr Bob get within cooee of the dosh? Lunatics like him will always blow it on the least productive elements of society.
Sack him and put in some responsible financial managers…like Lehmann Bro’s or someone.
Just like the Aboriginal Industry. It’s just a business . Thank god for the intervention.
Just like the Aboriginal Industry. It’s just a business .
There is no money to be made, no business to be gained through entrenched, inter-generational disadvantage. Except in the eyes of the wilfully ignorant and ill-informed.
Thank god for the intervention.
That would be the same intervention that Alexander Downer referred to as hoping to deliver the coalition electoral bounce? In other words, it was never about the people meant to benefit, it was only about politics. Yeah, thank god that that.
“Thank god for the intervention.”
Why has it fixed the problems that have been exacerbated by decades of neglect. Or, how on earth did we let it get that bad?
“In other words, it was never about the people meant to benefit, it was only about politics. ”
As per usual, I’m in agreement with confessions.
Rather paternalistic of you RobJ.
Those decades of neglect were preceeded by decades where white Australia went to great lengths not to neglect Aboriginal issues, but now we call that a “Stolen Generation.”
“Those decades of neglect were preceeded by decades where white Australia went to great lengths not to neglect Aboriginal issues, but now we call that a “Stolen Generation.””
NAJ – I should have said 200 years of neglect, the first hundred actually appalling treatment. it wasn’t unusual at the turn of the 20th Century to go hunting Aboriginals down in the Ottway Ranges.
“Australia went to great lengths not to neglect Aboriginal issues, but now we call that a “Stolen Generation.””
Needles to say I disagree, but hey if you think that splitting up families, supplying others with cheap (slave) child labor is going to great lengths to avoid neglect then I say good for you, but you probably believe in a Christian deity that rules the universe as well. :p
I noticed you made no attempt whatsoever to answer my questions.
Those decades of neglect were preceeded by decades where white Australia went to great lengths not to neglect Aboriginal issues,
Incorrect. Those decades you refer to were where white Australia forced assimilation upon aboriginals of certain skin colour under the guise of going to great lengths not to neglect aboriginal *issues*.
“…..it wasn’t unusual at the turn of the 20th Century to go hunting Aboriginals down in the Ottway Ranges.”
Bull shit. Show where you get that gem from?
Rob what I was saying was that rather than neglect the Aboriginal people in the past we had rather too much to do with them and took rather too much interest in their welfare. You lefties are always too quick to get defensive.
In my humble it is better to allow the Aboriginal community to manage itself. Of course we always end up with a disaster, but at least its THEIR disaster.
I think WE should not blame ourselves for letting it “get so bad” as to blame the Aboriginal community for not being able to manage their own people.
I know aboriginal people that were hunted in Queensland in the 60s.
“I think WE should not blame ourselves for letting it “get so bad” as to blame the Aboriginal community for not being able to manage their own people.”
I think we should blame people who think and say aboriginal people are their own people, not OUR people.
I agree Jules. However, most of the people who say it are indeed Aboriginal.
If you really do know aboriginal people then you’ll know that.
We had a little thing called ATSIC for quite a while just to remind the rest of us of it too.
They are OUR people and they should live by OUR rules. They should make sure that OUR children are fed, clothed and educated and that they are not brought up in abusive and sexually dangerous communities. And if they don’t then they better be ready for the rest of us to intervene to make sure it happens.
But they don’t see it that way Jules. ALAS!
No they are OUR people and we should recognise they lived by their rules before we got here and we did nothing to acknowledge that.
And we should have made sure our people were clothed, fed and protected from the garbage that I have been aware of for over 10 years, and that we have been screaming about to no avail for longer than that.
However the point of my comment was that if WE had expanded our definition of WE to include THEM on their own terms (they were here first – we have no treaty or military victory to justify our situation of sovreignty in Australia,) 108 years ago many of these problems would not be here now.
And we have to addess the fact that they were here, with functioning legal and land tenure systems, and we ignored those and stole the land.
By which I mean we need to recognise there is an US and THEM wrt to legal systems in Australia, and by the standards we are sposed to hold our occupation of this country is illegal.
Thats what MABO found and possibly the only reason we still have a functioning system is that the High Court can’t rule on its own validity. (We have legal pluralism in Australia as it is, adding ATSIC doesn’t really add more division. Not that it was a functioning legal system.)
One point with indigenous people and the us and them thing.
In my experience when Indigenous people refer to “my people” they are referring to their specific mob, their family, and often family ties extend to include entire “nations” and extend into other nations.
When referring to other mobs they often don’t use the term “my people”.
Perhaps we could learn from that and extend our conception of family to include the entire nation (and ideally the planet). I mean eventually if we are here long anough all our genes will spread, and everyone will be related to everyone else, however distantly.
“I think WE should not blame ourselves for letting it “get so bad””
I do! I vote against the two parties that have consistently failed to give this issue the attention it deserves. I think Howard’s reaction to send in the army on the eve of an election is utterly reprehensible!
“No they are OUR people and we should recognise they lived by their rules before we got here and we did nothing to acknowledge that.”
“Their rules, ” including, but not exclusive to, wedlock for 12 year old girls, spearing etc etc.
Oh i think we acknowledged those Jules. And put them in their place.
in as short a time as 200 years
commit genocide
then continue to deny it, while demanding the survivors “be just like us”, i mean we are all aussie’s now and should be treated all the same shouldn’t we, anything else’d be racist eh?
NAJ you are the lowest of the low. How you could possibly consider yourself a decent human being is beyond me.
as John Cleese says in the Bruces sketch:
Rule 4. Be nice to Abos while people are looking.
Genocide is a myth of the black armband school, now comprehensively discredited.
Multiculturalism is dead. No one benefits from the ghettoisation of society. When it comes to the basic laws and rights, they should apply to all equally. It is a monstrous injustice to deny generations of children the right to an education which allows them to participate fully in society.
A cause of many problems was the view of Nugget Coombs and like-minded idiots who thought it would be a good idea to subsidise tribal life in the dessert. Even if adults want to pursue this option they have no right to inflict it on children.
The Australian genocide is not a myth; the denial of it has been comprehensive throughout Australia yes, but Australia is a deeply racist society and denial is a well recognised part of the process of genocide, so that makes a twisted kind of sense.
Multiculturalism is a reasonably accurate description of how people actually live in the early part of the 21st century. It is not possible for a description to be alive, or dead.
“Genocide is a myth of the black armband school, now comprehensively discredited.
And there i was thinking that those who came up with the ‘Black Armband’ phrase were the ones who are totally discredited.
Nah Rob, SB is just resorting to his/her usual florid hyperbole totally devoid of facts.
Eric:
Yep. By wanting to debate a question of historical fact, I am being racist.
The real genocide is the policy of keeping people in the desert and denying them the means to fully participate in mainstream society.
SB did you watch 4corners the other night?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20090914/language/
No.
Maybe you should have.
Not all blackfellas came from the desert either.
Fuck I grew up in Tassie where people used to brag about wiping out the natives.
I’ve been to several massacre sites, live near what was probably one, and have even heard oral accounts of wiping out entire clans from people of european descent whose families were in some cases involved and others just aware of what happened.
As for denying people an education, in many cases blackfellas learn English as a second or even third language, yet no allowance is made for that in teaching them.
Why not?
And don’t give me that garbage about speaking English in Australia, you can’t send these people back where they came from. They are alredy there.
What that 4 Corners story is about is not very different to what the Poms did in Ireland to my ancestors on my mums side. Tassie was Britains Gauntanamo back in the day.
Maybe you should have.
Yes because then SB would know that the persistent problems facing aboriginals is nothing to do with “keeping people in the desert”, and everything to do with inadequate government responses, or the triumph of government ideology over programs that actually work – what the 4 corners program highlighted.
Genocide is a myth of the black armband school, now comprehensively discredited.
More ignorance! Read the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. In particular look at Article 2 which defines genocide. And be aware that Australia is a signatory to this convention.
The UN should not be taken seriously anymore, especially the UN Human Rights Council, which continues to make a mockery of itself.
Even that overly broad definition of genocide is constrained by the requirement that the impugned acts be committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
I have no doubt that the policy issues raised by the outcomes in some communities are difficult. However, the current apartheid system is a failure. It is clear that the goal should be to put children in a position to fully participate in mainstream society.
“UN should not be taken seriously anymore…”..
they just didn’t believe the WMD argument did they? so since then we’ll do our best to continually say “the UN is irrelevant. the UN is irrelevant” over and over again until everyone believes us…look it’s started to work!!…
Shorter SB: “I don’t agree with the UN so am prepared to sweep the fact of Australia’s signing onto the genocide convention under the rug.” Just like the racial hatred laws eh?
And whether or not YOU believe the definition is “overly broad”, doesn’t alter the fact that that is the definition of genocide Australia signed up to.
You also need to read some of the testimony and evidence provided to the Moseley Royal Commission back in the mid-30s. You’ll see much that goes to the “intent to destroy”.
Eric, I’m interested in human rights. The UN is a monumental failure in this area.
Confessions, the Tasmanian genocide policy was a myth. The 1930s stuff showed that some individual bureaucrats were racially motivated.
SB: if you are interested in human rights then you’d be advocating for change in the UN not shooting it down in flames. It’s all we’ve got.
the tasmanian genocide policy is there in the state records office for anyone to read..they used the term “extermination”. tasmania is a graveyard, just walking around that State makes one feel sick, you can feel the death in the air. All white people should completely vacate that island, and let it heal in it’s own time.
“SB: if you are interested in human rights then you’d be advocating for change in the UN not shooting it down in flames. It’s all we’ve got.
Exactly Eric. The UN is just a whipping boy for wing nuts, they don’t seem to understand that the UN’s failures are our failures, ie the UN is only as strong and committed as it’s members. Unless your from another planet or one of the very few nations that isn’t a member then you’re part of that failure.
It was jules who mentioned tasmania. And I’d remind you that it is Keith Windschuttle who is discredited on that front – as Eric demonstrates through reference to official documentation.
The 1930s “stuff” actually extended into the 60s and some would argue the 70s. AO Neville in particular was especially enamoured with the concept that a race could be ‘bred out’, and set about enshrining this concept in WA legislation. Most people would conclude and argue this indicates intent to destroy.
Gotten way off the rails here boys.
What’s any of this got to do with Fr Bob?
He’d be more compassionate toward Aboriginal people than any of you.
Rob J:
That is precisely the problem. Most of its members are ratbags.
Reckless and hysterical talk of genocide does a disservice to the millions of victims of the worst cases of genocide. The word genocide is only co-opted in this case to provide a guilt trip for those who get off on that sort of thing, and as a basis for pushing particular political agendas. Even Henry Reynolds has serious reservations about this issue.
We would be better off avoiding tenuous and provocative use of the word ‘genocide’ and just getting on with dealing with the issues.
The reason we should help people is because they are in dire circumstances. This applies equally to all Australians and is unrelated to magical notions like an alleged special connection a particular group have with the land.
The problem now is that the system of reservations has failed, the government has decided to intervene, and has done so in a ham-fisted manner. There are no easy answers.
“That is precisely the problem. Most of its members are ratbags.”
Yep those pricks on the security council pretty much veto everything, guess which rat bag nation vetoes the most?
The security council is bad enough, yet even it adds a veneer of respectability to the frothing idiocy of the GA. The Human Rights Council is utterly contemptible.
“The Human Rights Council is utterly contemptible.”
To a contemptible person maybe. Thou doth protest too much!
There does seem to be a strongly inverse relationship between frothing at the mouth about the HRC and knowledge of what the HRC does.
“Reckless and hysterical talk of genocide does a disservice to the millions of victims of the worst cases of genocide.”
Yeah cos genocide is definitely one of things that are relative.
I spose at least you are accepting it was genocide if you think their are “worst” cases.
We would actually be better off if we acknowledged it cos then we could move forward. How can you have forgiveness (of yourself or of others) if you don’t acknowledge what happened.
Why thank you, Rob. Coming from you that is a compliment.
Reckless and hysterical talk of genocide does a disservice to the millions of victims of the worst cases of genocide
Shit, how did I miss that clanger?! In what way can there be *degrees* of snuffing out a population group in the interests of asserting the dominance of another group? Either they are intentionally snuffed out or they aren’t.
That just sounds like more rightwing conspiracy theories concerning historical fact to me.
Mmmm do I feel like i need forgiveness for genocide?
Thinking
thinking
thinking…………………………………..
Nope!
Looked deep into my memory Jules.
I pinched a javlin from a house on my paper round once. Used it to practice for the school championchips. Won. Then took the javlin straight back.
At confession I saught forgiveness and the priest gave it to me for a couple of hail holy queens.
No genocide though.
Not one.
Me and a couple of mates threw crackers into an ants nest a couple of times. Killed millions.
Does that count?
Blaming modern Australians for the sins of the past is idiotic at best.
Now please remind me what it has to do with Fr Bob and Dr Hart?
Confessions, when a health worker recommends contraception for an at risk teen, this may well be genocide under paragraph (d) of the definition. It is bad enough to stretch the definition of genocide, but it is utterly insane to then equate all things which fall within the expanded definition.
when a health worker recommends contraception for an at risk teen, this may well be genocide under paragraph
Rubbish! A health worker who recommends contraception to a patient who has a choice about whether to use it is vastly different from forcing the use of contraception upon patients either without their consent, or without giving them a choice as to whether to use it.
What a silly analogy SB! These conspiracy theories from the right seem to grow day by day.
Exactly how can a 12 year old consent in any meaningful sense? This is clearly a step in the process of genocide (as defined).
Widening the definition of genocide debases the word until it becomes just another point-scoring tool in the hands of idiot ideologues.
“Blaming modern Australians for the sins of the past is idiotic at best.”
There’s a big difference between blaming modern Australia for the sins of the past and modern Australia acknowledging that despite the good things in its history there were pretty nasty ones too, which we all benefitted from.
Anyway modern Australia will be blamed for the sins of the present of which there are plenty.
BTW I didn’t drag the conversation in this direction.
But obviously Hart signifies the oppressive forces of power, Maguire those few brave lefty’s that stand up to it and the poor of Sthelb Parish are just another example of what happens to the disenfranchisedunder the yoke of neo and ordinary colonialism.
Exactly how can a 12 year old consent in any meaningful sense?
People under the age of consent have parental or guardian consent on their behalf. In cases where there are no parent/guardian there are standard treatment protocols for health workers to adhere to. Seriously SB trying to suggest that means genocide is simply ridiculous.
Widening the definition of genocide
What are you talking about? I’ve given you the factual definition of genocide. It is you who is trying to widen it by introducing fallacious *examples* of what you perceive to be genocidal acts.
Confessions, you have given a wide definition of genocide and then insisted that all genocides are the same. All I have done is chose an example that fits within your definition to illustrate the stupidity of your assertion.
Genocide is genocide as defined by the UN convention – I have been very clear about that. The example you gave is not for the reasons I have stated. I really don’t know why you can’t see that. In any case, isn’t this thread OT enough?
Yes.
jules
The further back in history you go, the more one’s ethical/response should be no more involved than “shit happens”.
So that’s what Bush meant when he suggested we should leave it to “history” to judge him. He’s relying on “history” being a soft grader.
Genocide is NOT “genocide as defined by the UN definition” until the UN has charged and convicted using its definition.
No. Bush is not “history” but current affairs.
Jules
Sovereignty requires nothing more than asserting so, and other nations recognising you.
Under international law sovreignty requires aquisition by certain recognised pocesses. Extension of british sovreignty over Australia was achieved by occupation which is only acceptable when the land is Terra Nullius or empty, owned by no one and not subject to any prior form of sovreignty, which it obviously was as the high court found.
Genocide is NOT “genocide as defined by the UN definition” until the UN has charged and convicted using its definition.
That is your opinion.
Meanwhile the genocide obfuscators here appear to forget that our nation is a signatory to the UN convention on genocide. Protest all you like, but there are the simple facts.
jules
Darling you have no idea. In the 18th century, the UN did not exist. It does exist in 2009, and psssttt…if you check on the UNGA website, you will see that not only is Australia are full member, but it was among the original group of members. Australia’s sovereignty is not 1000% rock solid; it always has been.
confessions
Actually no. You are just wrong. No ifs. No buts. No obfuscation. You yourself insist on the authority of the UN to decide such matters. There is not even the slightest whisper that the UN has ever even dreamed to prepare to examine a charge of genocide against any Australian.
Do you also roam the streets pointing to people as criminals citing this or that section of this or that statute at them? What I have found in my analysis of types who run around hurling accusations of “genocide” is that most of them wet their pants and call their lawyer if they so much as have to sign a rental lease, yet they emerge as jurisprudential masters of the universe and superwomen when it comes to “genocide”.
“Darling…”
Thats sweet JG thanks.
Whats the UN got to with it?
john greenfield: are you denying our country is signatory to the definition of genocide as stipulated by the UN convention? Or are you arguing that you don’t agree with the definition?
Those two things are quite separate.
Isn’t it sweet to see someone accuse dead people of genocide and then call for the ethnic cleansing of an Australian state.
“All white people should completely vacate that island, and let it heal in it’s own time.”
Oh the complexity of the left is stunning.
jules, you are basing your argument on sovereignty requiring international recognition of legitimacy. Australia’s position in the UN is precisely that recognition.
i did not call for “ethnic cleansing” NAJ, ethnic cleansing involves killing pople.
i called for white people to leave.
ES
Actually, ethnic cleansing does not require killing people. What you are advocating is common garden variety ethnic cleansing. Often a conflict is so vicious that some form of ethnic cleansing is the only solution.
Unless you are some White Aboriginal Trot, you really need to take stock and ponder just how idiotic you sound.
confessions
I think what I said was crystal clear. Read it again.
i am well aware that what i am suggesting is entirely impractical. it would however, in my view, be an appropriate response given the amount of death that hangs in the air around that island.
JG: I state the FACT of the UN’s definition of genocide. You object.
I state the FACT of Australia’s signatory to the UN definition of genocide. You object.
What am I missing?
No (again). Nobody cares that you can copy and paste. We can all read. The FACT you state is that Australian’s committed genocide. NOW, go back to my post.
You know moving the goalposts is a very dishonest way of arguing, something I am frequently seeing in your comments. This is what you said:
That is your opinion, unless you are denying that the definition the UN uses isn’t actually the UN’s definition. I sincerely hope you aren’t arguing this as IMO that would put you in a special class of delusionist.
You also wrote this:
Actually no. You are just wrong. No ifs. No buts. No obfuscation. You yourself insist on the authority of the UN to decide such matters. There is not even the slightest whisper that the UN has ever even dreamed to prepare to examine a charge of genocide against any Australian.
Firstly, I am not wrong. It is a FACT that the UN defines genocide in its Convention. It is also a FACT that Australia is signatory to that Convention. You can dispute the UN’s definition, and you are free to claim that what happened to Aboriginals is not genocide, but THAT IS YOUR OPINION, in much the same way that people who argue otherwise is their opinion.
Your sentence about the UN bringing charges against Australia is something YOU made up – I have never said that, as a review of my comments on this matter will reveal.
Eric
I beg to differ.
Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a local majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory. …
You didn’t ask them to leave you demanded that they leave.
One suspects that they are never going to, but one also suspects that you would force them to if you could. ERGO ethnic cleansing.
I most certainly am free to state the FACT of no genocide, while you are NOT free to lie. If you agree with me that it has never crossed the UN’s mind that Australian’s have committed genocide, why do you say otherwise?
And where have i “said otherwise”? Prove it or shut it.
If you can’t debate honestly then why do you bother? Also are you the same John Greenfield banned by Quiggin for running a sockpuppet? If so that’s further evidence of your dishonesty.
There is no doubt that the Aborigine population in Tasmania was systematically exterminated and there is no point in arguing otherwise John.
It was a genocide and it should be, and has been, roundly condemned for many many years.
That being said all of the people who perpetrated that crime are long dead and in any case the crime was committed in a differnt time with a different set of morality than we share now.
I can’t see why you are arguing that genocide was not a part of the history od Australia.
I do agree that the level of vitriol directed at current white Australians by thosw wearing the black armband is over the top, but it is also true that the constant denial of that history brings out the worst in the left. And its a pretty bad worst lets be honest.
Reconciliation will never occur in Australia while there are those who feel the need to threaten the current status quo (possible tortology there)with blaming rhetoric and while there are those who deny the truth of the past.
I am not a believer in the stolen generation, for which we have unfortunately apologised, but do believe that a policy of genocide did exist in early white settlement and for which we have, again unfortunately, never apologised. And which is far more significant BTW.
Thousands of aborigines are alive today because we “stole” them from bad situations, and hundreds of thousands have died because white people either exterminated them or forced them into poverty.
Get over that or we will never move on.
confessions
You claim Australians have committed genocide, thus contradicting the UN. You claim to be using the precise standard they do. One of you is wrong. Who would you put your money on?
I do agree that the level of vitriol directed at current white Australians by thosw wearing the black armband is over the top,
Evidence please. That sentence bears all the hallmarks of typical hysterical hyperbole from the Right. There are some people who feel passionately about this issue and may go OTT in their reactions, but to smear an entire group based on the actions of a few is disingenuous in the extreme.
Are you wearing the black arm band?
All the evidence you need is in Eric’s comment on what white Australians SHOULD do in Tasmania.
every white person should leave?????????
Not vitriolic?
Sheeeesh!!!
Not Allen Jones
On this thread, I am not involving myself in debates about the broader sweep of Australian. All I am doing is challenging those who invoke the UN as authority for their views, by pointing out precisely where their chosen authority – the UN does NOT validate their views.
All the evidence you need is in Eric’s comment
So that’s one person. Any others, because it does seem a stretch to smear an entire group based on the words of one person.
JG: using the definition of genocide provided by the UN, and knowing what we know about history, is it not patently clear to you? Are you capable of using logic to arrive at your own conclusions, or do you just believe what others tell you to?
And just because the UN has not brought charges against Australia does not invalidate that view: Israel commits war crimes against Gazans, but no charges from the UN, even though it’s own HRC reports find in favour of war crimes.
Pure semantics John.
You are attempting to avoid the reality of history by using some arbitrary definition. You are suggesting that because the UN hasn’t said it happened that it hasn’t happened.
Making an idiot of yourself in the process.
Confusion
The whole “sorry” push is another example.
You, me, every white Australian apologised for something that saved the lives of thousands and probably wasn’t done for the reasons accused.
My 5 year old son has had to apologise for something neither he, his father, nor his grand father did to anyone.
That’s vitriolic and over the top.
confessions
Yes, I have read the definition. And yes, it is absolutely clear to me that it does not describe Australia. But that is irrelevant. Again, I beg you to read:
Note, I did not confine my argument to “UN has not brought charges against Australia”. I went much further, and said it has never even crossed their mind.
As for Israel. Are you for real? There are tonnes of people, legal groups, and even countless dozens of UN Resolutions that bring Israel well within the mix for myriad accusations of war crimes, and many other things. But “genocide” is not one of them. A similar number of serious international law infractions infest that whole part of the world.
But nothing about genocidal Australians. So give it a rest, OK?
The only peop
Not Allen Jones
Actually, no. What I am saying is that confessions said genocide DID happen. His authority? The UN! I am pointing out his cited authority does not support his case. Nothing more.
That’s vitriolic and over the top.
That is your view. Fortunately you are in the minority of opinion on that matter, so your claims of “vitriol” against you are churlish. Any other examples of white people being oppressed, besides Eric’s comment?
As for “saving”, you should read the Bringing Them Home report and experience the stories of the people actually affected. It is too easy for us to sit here in our privelledged comfort and take umbridge. It is harder to reconcile the role that our forebears had in perpetrating suffering and misery upon generations of aboriginals.
His authority?
Her actually. And what I DID say is that if you examine the definition of genocide by the UN together with how we treated aboriginals, there are definite overlaps. Everything else has been concocted by you because you have no response other than goalpost shifting or misrepresenting my comments.
I never claimed white people were being apressed confusion.
You are confused.
I said that those, mainly on the left, who believe white Australians are racist and use the example of things that heppened 3 centuries ago as their evidence are being vitriolic. And they are.
It isn’t oppression, its just name calling and pointless moral high grounding.
We have a colourful history. The world was a much more racist place 20,50,100,200 years ago than it is now and people who lived then did things that reflect that.
Its no reason to suggest, as Eric is, that current Australians of any colour should sholder blame for that.
On the contrary, I’m not confused at all, and if you think that mangling my screen name is some kind of effective insult, understand that your opinion of me is irrelevent as far as I’m concerned.
You said (my emphasis):
I challenged you for evidence of that gross misrepresentation of Teh Left. So far you’ve produced one comment on this thread, and given your own opinion wrt the apology. Are there any other examples of this vitriol, or is your comment just another example of OTT hyperbole that I’ve come to expect from some people here?
As for Israel. Are you for real?
Yes I am. And I note that you’ve misrepresented my comment about that as well, which makes at cursory glance 4 times that you’ve achieved that feat.
*gives up on the dishonest debater*
Personally, I think the word “genocide” has past its used by date, because nobody really believes in racist eugenics anymore. A more apt crime would be “politicide”. Nazi mass-killing of Jews would be covered, as Hitler wanted to wipe a particular group of the German and European polity for political reasons, Darfur, Bosnia, blah, blah, blah.
And it would remove the cloak and dagger routine regarding the Armenians. OK, you might argue till you are blue in the face, their was no intention racist intention to wipe out a genus but you bloody well did aim to wipe out a political group.
thinking about it, i’d chuck everybody out of tassie, not just the honkies…living in a graveyard is morbid for everyone…and what i’m displaying here is a, shock horror, an anger response to a complex issue, i am not suggesting it as policy.
reconciliation needs to be as complex and demanding and diverse as the crimes committed, and the debate around it needs to be as robust eh? so good on yous for pulling me up 😉
and all this “blaming dead people” ….if my grandfather had committed a terrible crime, say murder, i would have no problem at all apologising generations later to the victims family and then explaining to my son about why i did it. what’s so tuff for you rightists about that? i’ve never understood your problem with the sorry thing …just seems the straight down the line polite thing to do to me..?
Confessions
Have you even heard of the history wars?
Clearly not.
The amount of vitriol involved in that from both sides, but particularly from the left, was astounding.
Read almost any critique of Kieth Windshuttle and see what I’m talking about.
People like Bolt, Windshuttle, etc etc are simply labled racist for mentioning that facts don’t match “history” is it is told.
C’Mon Confessions you must have read hundreds of examples of that kind of thing? Of course you don’t see it as vitriol because you agree with it, but any honest person would have to agree that calling anyone a racist simply for proposing an alternate view is vitriolic.
To the people who “don’t believe in the stolen generation”.
I know people who were stolen generation.
They are real. They exist, and their trauma is a direct consequence of a policies that were instituted not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the people who developed the policies.
I know other people who weren’t stolen, but were regularly hidden by their families in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of authorities.
I wonder if they believe in you.
“if my grandfather had committed a terrible crime, say murder, i would have no problem at all apologising generations later to the victims family ..”
The point of course being that not every white person in Australia’s grandparents arrived on the first fleet, nor did they or any other member of their families take part in any crime against the aborigines, therefore to tar the entire white population of Australia with the same brush is not only unfounded but also unfair.
“thinking about it, i’d chuck everybody out of tassie, not just the honkies…living in a graveyard is morbid for everyone..”
Ridiculous, (not to mention racist), comment — ever been to Belgium or France Eric, a hell of a lot more people died in 4 years from 1914 – 18 throughout the length and breadth of those countries than did Tasmania’s aborigines, are you suggesting that the people living there should all leave as well ?
Gav, no i’m not, the circumstances that produced the dead bodies are completely different, but then again there are very few apartment developments in the middle of the aushwitz site either are they? people would just be appalled, no one would be able to do it. but apparently it’s ok to do this all over the sites of the massacres in tassie……
and you just really really can’t bring yourself to say the sorry word magnanimously can you? you people are the main reason australia remains an adolesent as a nation, when it grows up it’ll get polite as well, just like s.africa is struggling to….not perfect, hard work, requires major pulling in of ignorance ….but reconciliation is, in fact, possible…australia is soooo far away from it while people like you think up millions of nice little reasons why they can’t just be decent human beings….
And not all current Australians have ancestral ties (either to the soldiers or to the voters at the time who elected our then government who sent the soldiers into war) to our efforts in the World Wars. Should we exclude those people from ANZAC day commemorations on that basis? Of course not, because when you adopt a nation as your new home you accept it’s history, warts and all.
Eric is right: that argument is simply convenient nit-picking as a way of trying to deny our country’s history wrt aboriginals.
Eric and confessions,
This is Eric’s quote
“if my grandfather had committed a terrible crime, say murder, i would have no problem at all apologising generations later to the victims family ..”
My grandfather committed no such crime, neither did any of my family and neither, I dare say, did the ancestors of the vast majority of white Australians, therefore, the vast majority have nothing to apologise for and frankly, to falsely equate my or anyone else’s family with murderers is offensive.
“the circumstances that produced the dead bodies are completely different..”
Dead people are dead people and graveyards are graveyards Eric, if you’re creeped out by living where people died, then the reason for their death is irrelevant.
Using Auschwitz as a comparison to an entire state is also patently silly.
“while people like you think up millions of nice little reasons why they can’t just be decent human beings….”
That would be “honkies” like me who have nothing to apologise for, what’s the point of someone giving an apology for something they aren’t responsible for ?
I would’ve thought it far more practical to work on improving the situation for current day Aboriginals than dwelling in the past.
“and you just really really can’t bring yourself to say the sorry word magnanimously can you?”
Not when I’ve got nothing to be sorry for — no, I can’t, and nor should I…I’m not a hypocrite, when I say I’m sorry I do it because I’ve done something to be sorry for, to apologise for something you have no responsibility for, or control over is empty rhetoric.
“you people are the main reason australia remains an adolesent as a nation..”
Wrong again Eric, it’s people like you, those who can’t move on, who revel in the idea of white guilt and who want to keep aboriginal people mired in the events of the past that are the cause of any maturity problem Australia has.
Eric isn’t right at all confessions, all he’s doing is perpetuating the guilt industry and the myth that Aboriginals can’t move on unless every white person in Australia apologises to them.
How is equating every white Australian’s family to murderers in any way equivalent or relevant to Australians remembering and honoring our war dead ?
To not say sorry for events that took place in our history is in no way denying that those events took place.
Gavin: the apology was for laws enacted and retained by our parliaments that led to the removal of aboriginals from their families on the basis of their skin colour. Regardless of whether you personally have relatives who murdered or whatever, we as a nation share the burden of how successive governments acted in our name.
“I would’ve thought it far more practical to work on improving the situation for current day Aboriginals than dwelling in the past.”
So what do you think about the issues raised by the episode of 4 corners the other nite? You know the teaching of English as a second language to indigenous kids in NT schools?
“Eric isn’t right at all confessions, all he’s doing is perpetuating the guilt industry and the myth that Aboriginals can’t move on unless every white person in Australia apologises to them.”
I think he’s actually saying that non Indigenous Australians can’t move on, honestly and properly until they actually acknowledge what happened inside of always denying it, minimising it and basically acting like it never happened.
Its actually a lot easier to live with the dispossession of Indigenous Australians in the past once you acknowledge it, you can recognise that you weren’t personally responsible, but as the nation, that gives you so much, was, and its only fair we address that.
Hello Jules,
I’m sorry, I didn’t see 4 Corners the other night, so I’m not sure what the take on the story was — if you want my opinion on wether Aboriginals should be taught English, then I’d say yes, of course they should…It is the official language of our nation and they are hardly likely to have much prospect of future improvement in terms of business and employment if they can’t speak it.
“Its actually a lot easier to live with the dispossession of Indigenous Australians in the past once you acknowledge it, you can recognise that you weren’t personally responsible, but as the nation, that gives you so much, was, and its only fair we address that.”
I agree, and you can acknowledge the sins of past, long gone generations without the current generation, (who have nothing to do with those sins), having to shoulder the blame and apologise for them.
Eric on the other hand wants all us “honkies” to apologise and then for everyone to move out of Tasmania., hence he is perpetuating the white guilt industry.
Confessions if you don’t believe in vitriol have a listen to this.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2689027.htm
“…if you want my opinion on wether Aboriginals should be taught English, then I’d say yes, of course they should…It is the official language of our nation and they are hardly likely to have much prospect of future improvement in terms of business and employment if they can’t speak it.”
I don’t think anyone on any “side” of this issue would disagree with that.
The issue wrt the 4 corners show was the teaching of English as a second language. The proposed changes in the NT will (Imo, and the opinion of all right thinking people,) screw this up completely.
And in the process screw up the chances of indigenous kids in this paper of the world actually learning to use English effectively. Cos English is their second language. And it should remain their second language, but they learn it as young as possible.
This change is being driven by the right wing of Australian society, and its being driven by an ideological belief in some undefined primacy of English.
The practical effect is the failure to effectively address indigenous disadvantage. It was obvious no one on Q & A last night, with the exception of Larissa Behrendt actually understood this aspect of the issue but anyway, thats not unusual for Australia.
Confessions if you don’t believe in vitriol have a listen to this.
The challenge is for you to substantiate your claim that an entire group (ie the Left) become vitriolic when issues such as genocide in Australia is raised. So far you have failed, as i expected you would.
Oh, and I do note the irony of your accusations of vitriol towards others while you yourself deliberately mangle my screen name in an attempt to insult me.
Jules: the big issue raised on the 4 corners program is how the ideology and the agenda of governments through the years have worked against successful and sustainable programs in aboriginal communities. In the case of the aboriginal language programs in the NT the ideology and culture wars of the CLP government sent aboriginal literacy rates backwards. It should be a national shame.
That governments are never held to account for their failures on aboriginal issues, but instead aboriginals are blamed for government failures is another example of the blatant racism that pervades aboriginal affairs.
Yeah I spose, specifically the show was (for me) about the language/literacy thing, but it is just another example of exactly what you refer to.
Its also an example of the right calling the kettle the left, or something.
This is the very thing the right accuse the left of, (ideology interfering with practical results,) yet clearly this agenda comes from the right.
Clearly its interfering with practical results.
saying sorry has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt.
http://myfxadvice.com profitable forex system
whoops there’s that url again…don’t know whats going on…apols.
Confessions
I called you confusion because you clearly are.
Its not supposed to be an insult, its an observation.
I actually didn’t claim that an entire group (ie the Left) become vitriolic when issues such as genocide in Australia is raised.
That’s where you are demonstrating that confusion.
I actually said……..
“I do agree that the level of vitriol directed at current white Australians by thosw (sic) wearing the black armband is over the top, ………..”
If you beleive that the entire left is in that camp then that’s for you to argue.
I did add………
“………but it is also true that the constant denial of that history brings out the worst in the left. ”
Whereby I was suggesting that constantly denying that there were incidents that might be deemed genocide in our past simply allows the left a free hit at anyone making those claims.
There is a vast amount of venom in the attitude of th left towards those that seek to instruct on any alternative view of history than the one that the left likes Confessions.
I didn’t claim it was by the WHOLE left, but those, like David Marr, Prof Mann, Phillip Adams or Germain Greer, who do make comment regarding questions of history are very very vitriolic in theri comments.
You said (my emphasis):
“………but it is also true that the constant denial of that history brings out the worst in the left. ”
If you don’t see that as an attack on ALL lefties then I think it is you who is confused. Why not just say SOME on the Left if that is what you meant? But as is typical of your kind, you seek to move the goalposts when someone calls you out.
And I could pluck any number of rightwingers and hold them up as vitriolic. Your assertions don’t amount to much apart from being your own opinion of those you’ve identified.
As with Greenfield i don’t see the point in debating people who resort to dishonest tactics when their absolutist statements are called out. I also don’t think it’s worthy of my time to waste it with those who resort to name-calling either.
*moves to another thread where more honest debaters can be found*
I didn’t attack all lefties Confessions I mentioned only the WORST in the left.
I was specific in mentioning only a section of the left, that being??????? The WORST.
“Why not just say SOME on the Left if that is what you meant?”
Because I assumed (and since he hasn’t saught clarification that assumption was correct) that Jules would understand that the WORST of the left is only SOME.
“And I could pluck any number of rightwingers and hold them up as vitriolic. ”
What a defensive comment. I could too, but my comment was made about only “….the worst in the left.” as illustrated by Eric’s call for ethnic cleansing in Tasmania. And I’m quite happy to stand by that.
“Your assertions don’t amount to much apart from being your own opinion of those you’ve identified.”
Fair enough. I am allowed to have an opinon Confessions aren’t I? Of course when the worst of the left are truely expressing themselves that’s not so.
I’m happy for you to move to another debate. The fact that i was chastising someone for denying the ills of the past as far as aboriginal relations is concerned has completely missed your gaze and you’re not qualified to comment further in this one.
Looks Like Bob’s back.