Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Denmark: it’s no secular paradise. Neither is Sweden.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently there has been a spate of newspaper reports extolling Denmark as the world’s happiest country. Secular liberals often point to the Scandinavian countries as an earthly paradise, when compared with what they see as a broken-down, inegalitarian, hyper-religious United States. Are they right? I decided to check out the facts, and here’s what I’ve come up with.

My findings, in a nutshell

1. Latin Americans are actually the world’s happiest people; Danes are the world’s most contented people.

2. The success of Sweden and Denmark is due to its social homogeneity and its Protestant work ethic, rather than socialism.

3. Scandinavian societies are egalitarian, but they also tend to stifle individuality.

4. Denmark and Sweden have their own social problems.

5. Sweden also has a shocking record of violating individual liberties.

1. Latin Americans are actually the world’s happiest people; Danes are the world’s most contented people

How do you define happiness, anyway?

Most people would tend to define “happiness” as a feeling of enjoying your life, typically accompanied by behavior such as laughing or smiling a lot, engaging in fun activities, and sharing one’s positive experiences with one’s friends and family. If you define happiness in this way, then the happiest people in the world aren’t the Danes, but Latin Americans.

A 2015 Gallup report by Jon Clifton, titled, Who Are the Happiest People in the World? The Swiss or Latin Americans? (April 24, 2015), explains the difference between two widely used international metrics for happiness. One metric, used in the UN World Happiness Report, places the Danes (or in 2015, the Swiss) on top, while the other metric, used by Gallup in its Global Healthways Wellbeing Index, places Latin American countries on top:

The Swiss are the happiest people on the planet. That was the conclusion of the most recent UN World Happiness Report. Just weeks ago, however, Gallup released a report suggesting something very different — that the happiest people in the world are Latin Americans. Which one is right?

The answer is “both” — it just depends on how you define happiness. If you think happiness is how people see their lives — then the Swiss are the happiest people in the world. If you think happiness is defined by how people live their lives through experiences such as smiling and laughing, enjoyment and feeling treated with respect each day — then the happiest people in the world are Latin Americans.

The 2014 Global Healthways Wellbeing Index defines “well-being” as a composite of five elements. Within each of these constituents, there are three possible levels of well-being:

Definitions

The Five Elements of Well-Being

Purpose: Liking what you do each day and being motivated to achieve your goals
Social: Having supportive relationships and love in your life
Financial: Managing your economic life to reduce stress and increase security
Community: Liking where you live, feeling safe and having pride in your community
Physical: Having good health and enough energy to get things done daily

Levels of Well-Being

Thriving: Well-being that is strong and consistent in a particular element
Struggling: Well-being that is moderate or inconsistent in a particular element
Suffering: Well-being that is low and inconsistent in a particular element

The world’s happiest people are found in Latin America, not Scandinavia

According to the 2014 Global Healthways Wellbeing Index, Panama is the happiest country in the world, and most of the top 10 countries are in Latin America. Denmark ranks just 7th in the world:

New country rankings from the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-Being Index show that, for the second time since last year’s inaugural report, Panama has the highest overall well-being in the world. The new report, “2014 Country Well-Being Rankings Report”, ranks 145 countries and areas based on the percentages of their residents that are thriving in three or more well-being elements.

The Americas have a strong presence in the ten countries with the world’s highest overall well-being, with seven countries on the list. After Panama, rounding out the top ten are Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, Belize, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Austria and Mexico…
[FYI: Norway came 16th, Sweden 26th, USA 23rd, Canada 24th, Australia 40th, UK 44th, Russia 47th, France 48th – VJT.]

The Gallup-Healthways Global Well-Being Index uses a holistic definition of well-being and self-reported data from individuals across the globe to create a unique view of societies’ progress on the elements that matter most to well-being: purpose, social, financial, community and physical. It is the most proven, mature and comprehensive measure of well-being in populations…

People in Latin America (and especially, people living in Panama and Costa Rica) experience a lot of positive emotions on a daily basis, according to a Gallup report by Jon Clifton titled, Mood of the World Upbeat on International Happiness Day (March 19, 2015):

As the world marks the third annual International Day of Happiness on Friday, the happiest people on the planet might be Latin Americans. People in Latin America are the most likely in the world to experience a lot of positive emotions on a daily basis, according to Gallup’s Positive Experience Index. In fact, for the first time in Gallup’s 10-year history of global tracking, all of the top 10 countries with the highest Positive Experience Index scores are in Latin America.

Why are the people of Panama so happy?

Journalist Homa Khaleeli examines the secret to happiness in Panama, in a Guardian report titled, World’s happiest country: how did Panama overtake Denmark? (September 17, 2014):

A poll by Gallup and Healthways Global reports that the Central American country now has the most positive population, after 133,000 people from 135 countries were asked to rate their wellbeing in five categories: purpose, social, financial, community and physical.

So what makes people in Panama so cheery?

Cultural attache for Panama, Laura Montenegro, thinks it is down to the fact the country has a thriving economy and has maintained its traditional values. “Family bonds are very strong here, and on Sundays everyone still gets together,” she says. “So even when people are struggling they don’t feel alone. We have a very beautiful landscape too and even in Panama city you never feel too far from nature. We have a booming economy and financial stability. When the global financial crisis hit, Panama came out of it even better than before, because our banks had been very cautious.”

Another factor that helps explain why Panamians are so happy is that Latin Americans also tend to focus on the positive, according to a Gallup report titled, People Worldwide Are Reporting a Lot of Positive Emotions (May 21, 2014):

That so many people are reporting positive emotions in Latin America at least partly reflects the cultural tendency in the region to focus on the positives in life.

The Danes: contented, rather than happy

What about the people of Denmark? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the Danes are contented rather than happy, and that their contentment is based on having low expectations, according to a report by Michael Booth in The Atlantic titled, The Danish Don’t Have the Secret to Happiness (January 30, 2015):

Over the years I have asked many Danes about these happiness surveys—whether they really believe that they are the global happiness champions — and I have yet to meet a single one of them who seriously believes it’s true.

Newspaper editor Anne Knudsen had an interesting theory relating to why the Danes continue to respond positively to happiness surveys: “In Denmark it is shameful to be unhappy,” she told me. “If you ask me how I am and I start telling you how bad I feel, then it might force you to do something about it. It might put a burden on you to help me. So, that’s one of the main reasons people say things are all right, or even ‘super.’”

Here’s another convincing theory, posited by a Danish friend of mine: “We always come top of those surveys because they ask us at the beginning of the year what our expectations are,” he said. “Then they ask us at the end of the year whether those expectations were met. And because our expectations are so extremely low at the beginning of the year, they tend to get met more easily.

Could that be the secret of the Danes’ contentedness? Low expectations? … Happiness has never been an “inalienable right” in Denmark, so it could be that the Danes appreciate it all the more when it manifests itself. Perhaps Danish happiness is not really happiness at all, but something much more valuable and durable: contentedness, being satisfied with your lot, low-level needs being met, higher expectations being kept in check.

Other theories about Danish “happiness”: anti-depressants and Danish DNA

A recent report in The Local [Denmark] (March 16, 2016) discusses other theories that have been put forward as to why Danes score well in happiness surveys:

Theories abound for why Danes consistently rank so high in these types of studies. Some say it’s down to having more realistic expectations while others cynically point to the nation’s high use of antidepressants, with upwards of 12 percent of the population on some sort of antidepressant medication.

Another theory is that it is genetic. Eugenio Proto, a researcher at the University of Warwick, told The Local in 2014 that his analysis of data on 131 countries from various international surveys on happiness found that the more ‘Danish’ people are, the happier they are as well.

“If you have Danish DNA, regardless of where you live, you are likely to report high levels of happiness,” Proto said.

2. The success of Sweden and Denmark is due to its social homogeneity and its Protestant work ethic; socialism has nothing to do with it

Regardless of whether they are the world’s happiest nations or not, Sweden and Denmark are undeniably successful countries. Many people put this down to Scandinavia’s cradle-to-grave welfare system. However, a report in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby titled, No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia (October 15, 2015) explains why the reality of Scandinavia’s welfare-state utopia doesn’t match the hype. As it turns out, the real roots of Scandinavia’s success lie in its traditional work ethic and its embrace of free-market policies in the nineteenth century:

To begin with, explains Swedish scholar Nima Sanandaji, the affluence and cultural norms upon which Scandinavia’s social-democratic policies rest are not the product of socialism. In “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism,” a penetrating new book published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Sanandaji shows that the Nordic nations’ prosperity “developed during periods characterized by free-market policies, low or moderate taxes, and limited state involvement in the economy.

For example, Sweden was a poor nation for most of the 19th century (which helps explain the great wave of Swedish emigration to the United States in the 1800s). That began to change as Stockholm, starting around 1870, turned to free-enterprise reforms Robust capitalism replaced the formerly agrarian system, and Sweden grew rich. “Property rights, free markets, and the rule of law combined with large numbers of well-educated engineers and entrepreneurs,” Sanandaji writes. The result was an environment in which Swedes experienced “an unprecedented period of sustained and rapid economic development.” In fact, between 1870 and 1936, Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialized world.

Scandinavia’s hard-left turn didn’t come about until much later…

The real key to Scandinavia’s unique successes isn’t socialism, it’s culture. Social trust and cohesion, a broad egalitarian ethic, a strong emphasis on work and responsibility, commitment to the rule of law — these are healthy attributes of a Nordic culture that was ingrained over centuries. In the region’s small and homogeneous countries (overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and native-born), those norms took deep root. The good outcomes and high living standards they produced antedated the socialist nostrums of the 1970s. Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies. It survived them.

3. Scandinavian societies are egalitarian, but tend to stifle individuality

A strong egalitarian ethic pervades Scandinavian societies. While this egalitarian ethic provides people with a sense of security, it also tends to stifle people’s individuality.

The Jante Law: the conformist social ethic that governs Scandinavia

Most North American readers may not realize that Scandinavian societies are governed by a set of social conventions, which are known unofficially as the “Law of Jante“:

The Jante Law as a concept was created by the Dano-Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose, who, in his novel A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks (En flyktning krysser sitt spor, 1933, English translation published in the USA in 1936), identified the Law of Jante as ten rules. Sandemose’s novel portrays the small Danish town Jante …, where nobody is anonymous…

Generally used colloquially in Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries as a sociological term to negatively describe a condescending attitude towards individuality and success, the term refers to a mentality that de-emphasises individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while discouraging those who stand out as achievers.

There are ten rules in the law as defined by Sandemose, all expressive of variations on a single theme and usually referred to as a homogeneous unit: You are not to think you’re anyone special or that you’re better than us.

The ten rules state:

You’re not to think you are anything special.
You’re not to think you are as good as we are.
You’re not to think you are smarter than we are.
You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
You’re not to think you know more than we do.
You’re not to think you are more important than we are.
You’re not to think you are good at anything.
You’re not to laugh at us.
You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
You’re not to think you can teach us anything.

These ten principles or commandments are often claimed to form the “Jante’s Shield” of the Scandinavian people.

How the Jante Law poisons the Danish education system

In a Guardian article titled, Dark lands: the grim truth behind the ‘Scandinavian miracle’ (January 27, 2014), Michael Booth (who lives in Denmark with his Danish wife and family) reports that the Jante law mentality leads Danes to overlook talented people and celebrate mediocrity:

[A] prominent newspaper commentator, Jyllands-Posten’s Niels Lillelund, pinpointed a more serious side effect of the Danes’ Jante Law mentality: “In Denmark we do not raise the inventive, the hardworking, the ones with initiative, the successful or the outstanding; we create hopelessness, helplessness, and the sacred, ordinary mediocrity.”

Last year, in an interview with Rob Montz, a journalist writing for Reason magazine (Scandinavia is a Collectivist Paradise? Not So Much, April 30, 2015), Michael Booth described how Denmark’s egalitarian ethic plays out at school:

We sent our kids to a mainstream state school, which is based on the principles of raising the lower ability children up to the median. It’s all-inclusive, so you can’t exclude children if they’re badly behaved or have special needs or that kind of thing. That didn’t work from our point of view. Our children didn’t take well to having chairs thrown at them and teachers not turning up.

I was in Copenhagen a while ago and I saw two or three kids have an impromptu running race on the pavement and one of the kids won and did an American-football-style celebration. His mother grabbed him by the arm and scolded him for that.

My son’s class did a production of Treasure Island. The teachers rotated the class so that in every scene someone different played Long John Silver or Jack Hawkins or whatever. It made absolute nonsense of any sense of drama or narrative. But again, it was this idea: Everyone should have their turn. Everyone should be treated equally, rather than celebrate one student who was a great singer or actor.

In the same interview, Booth explained why the Scandinavian model could never be implemented in America:

If you want an incredibly equal, socially cohesive society, you definitely lose something by way of individuality, eccentricity, diversity. Often I’m asked, “Could the Nordic template be applied to Britain or America?” And the answer is no. You can’t just hope that people will suddenly become conformist and driven by equality. It doesn’t work that way.

4. Denmark and Sweden have their own social problems

Secular liberals in the United States and Canada are apt to regard Denmark and Sweden as a kind of paradise on earth. Why, they wonder aloud, can’t America be more like Scandinavia?

Guardian reporter Michael Booth painted a very different picture of the Scandinavian countries from the rosy picture we’ve been accustomed to hearing about, in a colorfully worded article titled, Dark lands: the grim truth behind the ‘Scandinavian miracle’ (January 27, 2014).

(a) Something rotten in the state of Denmark?

Here’s what Booth had to say about Denmark, in his report:

Take the Danes, for instance. True, they claim to be the happiest people in the world, but why no mention of the fact they are second only to Iceland when it comes to consuming anti-depressants? …

Why do the Danes score so highly on international happiness surveys? Well, they do have high levels of trust and social cohesion, and do very nicely from industrial pork products, but according to the OECD they also work fewer hours per year than most of the rest of the world. As a result, productivity is worryingly sluggish. How can they afford all those expensively foraged meals and hand-knitted woollens? Simple, the Danes also have the highest level of private debt in the world (four times as much as the Italians, to put it into context; enough to warrant a warning from the IMF), while more than half of them admit to using the black market to obtain goods and services.

Presumably the correlative of this is that Denmark has the best public services? According to the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment rankings (Pisa), Denmark’s schools lag behind even the UK’s. Its health service is buckling too… According to the World Cancer Research Fund, the Danes have the highest cancer rates on the planet...

Most seriously of all, economic equality – which many believe is the foundation of societal success – is decreasing. According to a report in Politiken this month, the proportion of people below the poverty line has doubled over the last decade. Denmark is becoming a nation divided, essentially, between the places which have a branch of Sticks’n’Sushi (Copenhagen) and the rest. Denmark’s provinces have become a social dumping ground for non-western immigrants, the elderly, the unemployed and the unemployable who live alongside Denmark’s 22m intensively farmed pigs, raised 10 to a pen and pumped full of antibiotics (the pigs, that is).

There’s more. It turns out that one-fifth of Danish adults don’t work and live exclusively on public benefits.

(b) How Sweden’s “nanny state” stifles people’s souls

Booth was similarly unsparing in his depiction of Sweden, in his report:

Anything I say about the Swedes will pale in comparison to their own excoriating self-image. A few years ago, the Swedish Institute of Public Opinion Research asked young Swedes to describe their compatriots. The top eight adjectives they chose were: envious, stiff, industrious, nature loving, quiet, honest, dishonest, xenophobic.

Effectively a one-party state – albeit supported by a couple of shadowy industrialist families – for much of the 20th century, “neutral” Sweden (one of the world largest arms exporters) continues to thrive economically thanks to its distinctive brand of totalitarian modernism, which curbs freedoms, suppresses dissent in the name of consensus, and seems hell-bent on severing the bonds between wife and husband, children and parents, and elderly on their children. Think of it as the China of the north.

Youth unemployment is higher than the UK’s and higher than the EU average; integration is an ongoing challenge; and as with Norway and Denmark, the Swedish right is on the rise…

Ask the Finns and they will tell you that Swedish ultra-feminism has emasculated their men, but they will struggle to drown their sorrows. Their state-run alcohol monopoly stores, the dreaded Systembolaget, were described by Susan Sontag as “part funeral parlour, part back-room abortionist”.

The myriad successes of the Nordic countries are no miracle, they were born of a combination of Lutheran modesty, peasant parsimony, geographical determinism and ruthless pragmatism... These societies function well for those who conform to the collective median, but they aren’t much fun for tall poppies. Schools rein in higher achievers for the sake of the less gifted; “elite” is a dirty word; displays of success, ambition or wealth are frowned upon.

I should mention in passing that not only is the illegitimacy rate in Sweden very high (54%, compared to 51% in Denmark, 55% in Norway and 41% in the U.S.A.), but less than 50% of all Swedes currently agree with the proposition that children need a father and a mother to grow up happily. Not a healthy sign. Sadly, America appears to be following suit: 58% of American adults now say that having a baby outside of marriage is morally acceptable.

5. Sweden also has a shocking record of violating individual liberties

As we have seen, even the Scandinavian countries have their share of social problems. Nevertheless, some readers might be inclined to argue that their problems are not as bad as those which afflict the Anglo-Saxon countries – and especially the United States. America does, however, enjoy one great advantage over Sweden: it is still a free country. Sweden is not.

Freedom of Speech is being steadily eroded, in the name of protecting people from “hate speech”

In a 2014 blog article titled, Freedom Of Speech Is Dying In Sweden, Finnish blogger Johannes Joukahainen paints a grim picture of freedom of speech laws in Sweden:

The key difference in the freedom of speech or expression between the United States and Sweden (as well as many other European countries) is that in the US, regulation of the freedom of speech is very lax when compared to continental European legal systems. While the freedom of speech is not absolute in the United States’ legal system, it is much closer to being almost completely unrestricted than in Europe. European legal systems generally have much tighter laws regarding “incitement to hatred” and “hate speech,” to the extent that in recent years they have been used to silence dissenting opinions all across Europe.

The silencing of opposing views via legal norms is nowhere more obvious than in Sweden, where several laws have been passed to make it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to legally argue against “special groups” within the society. A law passed in 2002 (2002:800) notably mentions that “expressing disrespect against groups of people with reference to race, color, national origin, ethnicity, confession of faith or sexual origin” can be sentenced to prison for a time of up to four years for inciting hatred.

The word “disrespect” (“missaktning”) is especially problematic, as the term fairly ambiguous. The law was most notably used to sentence a pastor (Åke Green) for comments against homosexuality during a sermon. The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction, as it did not comply with the European Convention of Human Rights, and hence the conviction would have most likely not have been upheld in the European Court.

The wrong kind of opinions can get you ostracized, according to a report by Singaporean doctoral research student Sadhvi Sharma (Sweden is no haven of liberty, Spiked.com, April 2, 2014):

Sweden is typically depicted as a liberal paradise, an evolved and open-minded society where tolerance and equality define public life… This is certainly what I was led to believe when I moved here six months ago.

But take a closer look at Swedish society and a different picture emerges…

On an anecdotal level, I have found that alongside the legal proscription of hate speech, there is also a set of informal rules about what you can and can’t say – the ‘you can’t say that’ moments of Swedish liberal social and cultural life.

You don’t have to be a racist or a homophobe to be shunned; you just have to voice the ‘wrong’ kind of opinions. For instance, you cannot be opposed to gay marriage, or express support for the Swedish Democrats (a far-right party equivalent to the British National Party, but with actual representatives in parliament), without being virtually excommunicated. And if you dare express scepticism about climate change, be prepared for social wrath. Your decency and your moral standing are judged by whether you hold the ‘correct’ views on feminism, on homosexuality, on race, on the environment, on the Israel-Palestine conflict. ‘Incorrect’ positions will see you cast out.

How the Swedish state comes between parents and their children: the sad case of Domenic Johansson

The Swedish state, in its infinite arrogance, behaves as if it were the sole arbiter of children’s rights, and as if parents had to beg the government for the right to be the legal guardians of their own children. The Swedish government has even abducted children from their parents, for the sole “crime” of daring to homeschool them – at a time when it was legal! Domenic Johansson was one of these children. Seven years ago, he was abducted from his parents, Christer and Annie, just as they were about to board a plane for India. Bob Unruh takes up the story for World News Daily:

When the family tried to leave Sweden in 2009 for India, the mother’s homeland, armed police stormed the plane and abducted young Domenic without a warrant or court order. Social services workers claimed he had some cavities in his baby teeth.

Numerous experts and attorneys have described the incident as a brazen example of “state-napping.”

When one court decision was released in Sweden in favor of the parents, government officials kept the child in custody until they were able to get it reversed.

The frustration at one point prompted Christer to take his son during a brief visit and not return him to social workers, resulting in a prison sentence for the father.

Swedish courts eventually terminated the family by severing the parental rights permanently.

Legal experts from around the world have told WND that the pretexts cited to seize Domenic do not stand up to scrutiny, especially because homeschooling was legal in Sweden at the time, and the right to homeschool is guaranteed under multiple human rights treaties.

Domenic Johansson is not alone. WND reports that dozens of families have already fled abroad, including Jonas Himmelstrand, the chief of the Swedish Homeschooling Association, ROHUS, who fled to Finland with his wife and children.

Since then, the Johanssons’ plight has gotten even worse, according to a report on OneNewsNow.com by Michael Haverluck:

Indefinitely extending homeschooler Domenic Johansson’s prohibition from being able to his parents over the past five years, the Swedish Supreme Court rejected what could possibly be his family’s last appeal to reunite with him.

After being taken away from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, seven years ago when he was seven years old — and not being allowed to see them at all over the past five years — the homeschool boy, who is now 14, will likely not see his parents again … at least until he’s an adult.

The decision has all but diminished the Johansson’s last glimmer of hope of seeing their son again, as they can now possibly appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but it has a dismal record when it comes to rulings concerning claims made by homeschoolers.

There is an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get what you want.” There are many social liberals who would like to see North America become more like Scandinavia. If that happens – as appears more and more likely, based on current election trends – then we can expect to see America develop into a highly intolerant country where political correctness reigns supreme and where people’s opinions are governed by “group-think.” In such a country, independence of thought will not be prized, and achievement will no longer be valued. The cult of mediocrity will reign. And yes, many people will be “content,” because their government will tell them that they are safe. But contentment is a pale, anemic thing, when compared to the pure and untrammeled joy that comes with freedom, friendship and love of life. The “Scandinavian solution” leads to a society lacking in vitality. If there is a secret to happiness, Latin America sounds like a better place to look for it.

Comments
IE, cf the remarks and links at 92 above: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/denmark-its-no-secular-paradise-neither-is-sweden/#comment-603176 and particularly my remarks on the sins of Christendom.I also point to VJT at 87 and 93 as well as several remarks by News. Much wrong has happened, that is an issue for resources to lead reformation (not putting darkness for light and darkness for light) but it is also so that there are thorny issues that defy simplistic yes/no solutions or demands. Lessons do need to be learned and wrongs righted. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Hi Aleta, I just had a look at the article you linked to. A few excerpts: "It is the only study to compare same-sex and different-sex parent households with stable, continuously coupled parents and their biological offspring." Previous studies "didn't compensate for the fact that they were comparing children from same-sex couples who were not continuously coupled." My question: isn't it a fact that same-sex couples have a higher break-up rate? The 2010 longitudinal study of children raised by lesbian couples found that they had a higher break-up rate (about double that of the heterosexual parents, if I recall rightly). Complaining about comparing apples and oranges is one thing, but how informative is to compare the very best 10 of farmer A's apples with the best 100 of farmer B's apples? "The current study only looked at lesbian households, because when households were finally matched and controlled for continuous relationships, there were too few male same-sex households." A very revealing fact. "The study did note that lesbian parents seem to exhibit higher levels of parenting stress, which Gartell attributed to perceived homophobia." That's just Gartell's interpretation. I say: stick to the facts.vjtorley
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
Hi Indiana Effigy, You ask: "Do you consider what happened to these children to be no different than forced conversion?" I thought I had answered this question in my post #93 above. To be clear, my answer is: "No." Indoctrination is morally wrong; however, there is something uniquely evil about doing violence to someone, to make them change their mind. And now I'd like to ask you a question: do you consider indoctrination to be morally wrong in all circumstances? Or do you think there are some opinions which are so obviously true, or whose denial leads to such pernicious social consequences, that it would be morally justifiable, on purely utilitarian grounds, to indoctrinate children in these opinions? Just curious.vjtorley
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
KF: "IE, you demand a loaded simplistic yes/no, with an accusation in the guise of a question. You refused to seriously address responses that brought out that the circumstances are not as simplistic as you have made out. You have proceeded to trip several red warning flags. On fair comment, those are trollish patterns, not responsible ones, and your evident educational level is well past the level where one could expect that sort of thinking. KF" Your equivocation and avoidance of the question is duly noted. Let me repeat the question. It is simple. And it is not loaded. Trying to avoid the answer by slinging ad-hominems is a cowards move. Do you consider what happened to these children to be no different than forced conversion? I will give you my answer if it will make it easier for you. Yes. See how easy it is?Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
IE, you demand a loaded simplistic yes/no, with an accusation in the guise of a question. You refused to seriously address responses that brought out that the circumstances are not as simplistic as you have made out. You have proceeded to trip several red warning flags. On fair comment, those are trollish patterns, not responsible ones, and your evident educational level is well past the level where one could expect that sort of thinking. KFkairosfocus
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
KF, all I have asked is for people to acknowledge that what was done to the Indian children for a century was no different than forced conversion. The evidence is there for all to see. But you would rather talk about is some red line, that exists only in your head, that I crossed. I will make it simple for you. A yes or no question. Do you consider what happened to these children to be no different than forced conversion? A yes or no is all that is required. I would welcome answers from News and VJT as well. Who, unlike you, did not respond by attacking me. They were very civil. You could learn much from them. G'day.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Aleta, Doing just fine depends crucially on what that is meant for the insider and on how that is projected to the outsider. (And there are sobering studies and reports to the contrary of what is being suggested.) I am still busy locally, so I will just clip this Dominical warning:
Mt 18: 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Temptations to Sin 7 “Woe to the world for temptations to sin![b] For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! [ESV]
Also, Isaiah:
Is 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
We live in a suicidal, increasingly endarkened, conscience benumbed civilisation. Such does not end well. Which is what Boethius' warning should give us sobering pause about. G'day. KFkairosfocus
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
IE, it seems you do not wish to recognise the red line you crossed when you responded to a linked discussion of the issue of the sins of Christendom at 92 above with blah blah blah. You have now confirmed your diagnosis as trollish. G'day. KFkairosfocus
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
I forget what thread the discussion was on, but here's a new study showing that children of same-sex parents do just fine: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/health/health-of-children-with-same-sex-parents/Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
KF: "let me add: blah blah blah..." There is a correlation coefficient of 1 between your use of phrases such as strawman soaked in oil of red herring seasoned with ad-hominem and the irrelevance of what you are talking about. If you want to address the fact that 150,000 Indian children were forcefully removed from their parents, against their parents' will, and indoctrinated into the christian faith (or be punished), I would be glad to hear your words. But you have done nothing but patronize, sermonize and toss out ad-hominems. I am not saying that this practice was official church policy, because it wasn't. But it went on for 100+ years, with the full knowledge and support of the church. Those are the facts. So arguing that it wasn't "forced conversion" because guns weren't held to their heads is just blatant equivocation. The intent of the church and government at the time was noble. They honestly felt that "taking the Indian out of the child" was the best thing for the children. But what they did was morally and ethically wrong. G'day.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
PPS: I think it is also relevant to put this from Plato on the table:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
kairosfocus
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
IE, we both know and understand the passive aggressive atheism game. I am pointing out that from 92 above a serious set of answers on the sins of Christendom has been on the table from me (as in, follow the links . . . ), and reasonable responses have also been there from VJT and News. Instead of reasonable engagement, we have seen piling on behaviour -- let me add: blah blah blah, a sign that you refuse to listen or read but angrily brush aside in classic passive aggressive behaviour -- that begins to remind me of the current rule of thumb; never apologise to those who will just use it to pile on. You broke a bigtime rule of civility and I am going to the root issue, as you and I both know that the evolutionary materialist atheistical undermining of the IS that grounds OUGHT opens the door to might and manipulation make "right' nihilism. Boethius -- judicially murdered on false accusations -- shows where that ends. So do 100 million and more ghosts from the past 100 years; we know all about the sins of atheism, if you want to play with those matches. Obviously, you cannot deal with that either. Yes, as noted repeatedly and willfully ignored the better to pile on, Christendom, over 2000 years, has its fair share of sins and wrongs to face; which it has resources for reformation to do so with, as it has again and again. When we see one sided litanies of the sins of Christendom, without reckoning with that balance, and then unresponsiveness to reasonable reply, plus piling on, that is a big red flag as to what is really going on. You plainly wish to undermine and silence voices that support the Christian moral heritage in our civilisation, and then to substitute that which has no foundation for morality beyond might and manipulation. Boethius shows where that ends, it never ends well. A lesson paid for in blood. Again and again. So, it is time to say, enough is enough. Beyond a certain point with such behaviour, the right term to use is misanthrope. As in, Robespierre seeking power. KF PS: Let me clip from 1 John and Eph 4, to show some of the resources for reform I speak of:
1 Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. [ESV] Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. [ESV]
The struggle of reformation and growth at personal and institutional levels and in the wider community, directly follows from such.kairosfocus
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Thanks rhampton for doing searches for Effigy. This way he has more time to cry hereEugen
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
KF: "IE, it seems you are unaware of the fires you play...blah, blah, blah" And what fires would those be? The ones where an atheist such as myself is appalled by the actions of my government and the church towards several generations of native children when a supposedly good Christian such as yourself is not? That speaks volumes. But if it allows you to sleep better at night to pontificate and sermonize and toss ad hominems at me, fill your boots. G'day.Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Rhampton7, thank you for this. I was not aware of this apology.Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Pope apologizes for abuse at native schools CTV.ca News, April 29, 2009 Pope Benedict has said he is sorry for the physical and sexual abuse and "deplorable" conduct at Catholic church-run Canadian residential schools. The Vatican says the pontiff expressed his sorrow and emphasized that "acts of abuse cannot be tolerated" at a meeting Wednesday with representatives of native Canadians. "Given the sufferings that some indigenous children experienced in the Canadian residential school system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity," a statement from the Vatican said. Archbishop Gerard Pettipas of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who attended Wednesday's meeting, says it was an important moment. Until today, the Church as a whole had never apologized for the abuse that aboriginal students suffered at the hands of Catholic missionary congregations. "What we've been trying to do is to bring about healing and reconciliation between the Church, the government of Canada and our First Nations people," he told Canada AM shortly after the meeting. "There was a feeling that despite the apologies that were offered by the oblates and some bishops, that the Catholic Church as a whole has not recognized the part that we played. "As a gesture of reconciliation... it was important to hear from the one person who does speak for the Catholic Church around the world, to hear him say 'I am sorry. I feel for what you people have suffered. We hope that we can turn the page and move toward a better future together.'" Chief Edward John of the Tlazten First Nations says he hopes the apology will help "many people move forward." . . .
rhampton7
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
IE, it seems you are unaware of the fires you play with and have studiously ignored the response I made at 92 above as well as those of the thread owner and news; and just now there is a remark that tends to distort news and by extension VJT and myself in ways that are strawmannish. The turnabout rhetoric just above fails, and I repeat, Boethius shows what happens when might vs right nihilism prevails in a community and what it costs. Yes Christendom has its many flaws and sins across 2000 years and many have erred and done wrong even in the name of the church or the gospel; that does not negate the power of truth and reformation in both, nor the only sound foundational IS that grounds OUGHT: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Even, when our progress in the good is flawed and stumbling. So, the much despised Christendom also has in it the means of reformation and a solid foundation for ought. Those who consistently flail at it and make no due balance even in the face of a reasonable response that acknowledges the tension between is and ought in particular cases and/or in general, flag themselves as needing the sort of reminder Boethius provides. Or at any rate, there will be record that warning was given. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
We are grateful to the survivors, whose courageous witness has touched the heart of the life of our churches. There have been apologies from our churches, yet we know that our apologies are not enough. And so we are grateful as well to the Commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for their findings and for their clarity about our continuing responsibilities.
Strange, from News's posts, I would have thought that they had nothing to apologize for.goodusername
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
KF@102, unless you can address the serious issue on the table without resorting to these patronizing sermons, your opinions are not worth anyone's time. G'day. Rhampton7, thank you for this. I was aware that there were some apologies from local churches and this one, in a somewhat backhanded way, appears to be sincere. But after the Truth and Reconciliation report, they weren't left with much choice. But what stands out is that this apology was only signed by the Canadian affiliates of the churches. Are you aware of any apologies from the international leaders of these churches? For example, the Pope?Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Ottawa – June 2, 2015 The Anglican Church of Canada, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Roman Catholic Entities Parties to the Settlement Agreement, The United Church of Canada and the Jesuits of English Canada make the following statement in response to the findings and Calls to Action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
It is with gratitude and humility that we are here today to speak together as representatives of churches that participated in the operation of Indian Residential Schools. We are grateful to the Commissioners and staff of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada for the commitment with which they have carried out their mandate, and we are humbled in the knowledge that we continue to share a responsibility to ensure that the task of reconciliation does not end today. Beginning in the 19th century and continuing until the late 1960’s, our churches were partners with the Government of Canada in running Indian Residential Schools. Notwithstanding the good intent and care of many who worked in the Schools, it is clear that Indian Residential Schools, in policy and in practice, were an assault on Indigenous families, culture, language and spiritual traditions, and that great harm was done. We continue to acknowledge and regret our part in that legacy. Those harmed were children, vulnerable, far from their families and communities. The sexual, physical, and emotional abuse they suffered is well-documented. Over the past six years we have, along with the Commission, listened to the experiences of those former students, who are no longer children. They are adults, some very old, who tell heart-breaking stories. We have heard them speak of wounds so deep that healing could not happen, and of damage visited upon their own children. We have also heard them witness to their resilience, and that of their communities, which has made possible many healing journeys. We have heard of friendships formed in the Residential Schools in which students supported one another, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Perhaps most humbling of all, we have heard survivors speak with enormous grace and generosity of teachers and others whose kindness offered some respite from the pain and humiliation that so deeply marked the overall experience of the schools. We are grateful to the survivors, whose courageous witness has touched the heart of the life of our churches. There have been apologies from our churches, yet we know that our apologies are not enough. And so we are grateful as well to the Commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for their findings and for their clarity about our continuing responsibilities. We acknowledge and welcome the specific calls to action that offer direction to the churches in our continuing commitment to reconciliation. In particular, we are committed to respect Indigenous spiritual traditions in their own right. As individual churches and in shared interfaith and ecumenical initiatives – for example through Kairos, through interfaith groups, and through the Canadian Council of Churches – we will continue to foster learning about and awareness of the reality and legacy of the residential schools, the negative impact of such past teachings as the Doctrine of Discovery, and the new ways forward found in places, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We will continue our commitment to financial support for community-controlled initiatives in healing, language and cultural revitalization, education and relationship-building, and self-determination. We welcome the Commissioners’ call to the parties to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement for a new Covenant of Reconciliation that would renew and expand our shared commitment to the continuing work of reconciliation, and invite others into that work, including new Canadians, who, while they were not part of the historic injustice, are now part of a country in which understanding and addressing that injustice is a national priority for all Canadians. We also welcome wider Calls to Action that include our members as citizens and residents of Canada. There is a crucial need for the kinds of public and governmental initiatives that the Commissioners identify, including the establishment of a National Council of Reconciliation that would continue to hold this work before parliament and the Canadian people. We recognize the need for equity in access to education and health care, and the critical need for new and culturally-appropriate ways of ensuring the welfare of children who are at risk. And we enthusiastically support the call for teaching about the history and legacy of the residential schools in all Canadian schools, and commit ourselves to ensuring that the teaching ministry of our churches also acknowledges these realities. Above all, we welcome the Commissioners’ Calls to Action as providing the basis for a wide and transformative conversation among Canadians about the better future we intend to foster, not just for Indigenous peoples, but for all of us who long to live in a society grounded in right relationships and equity. We will continue to share in the work of healing and reconciliation, respectfully following the leadership of Indigenous communities and leaders, and to offer leadership among non-Indigenous Canadians where that is appropriate. May the Creator guide us as we continue in the work of healing, justice, and right relations for the generations it will take to address that harm “and guide this country on a new and different path”. (Remembering the Children prayer, 2008) Representatives of the Church entities making the joint statement: Archbishop Fred Hiltz Primate, The Anglican Church of Canada The Rev. Dr. Stephen Farris Moderator, The Presbyterian Church in Canada Archbishop Gerard Pettipas President, Catholic Entities Parties to the Indian Residential School Settlement The Right Reverend Gary Paterson Moderator, The United Church of Canada Peter Bisson, SJ Provincial, Jesuits of English Canada
http://www.anglican.ca/tr/response-of-the-churches-to-the-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-of-canada/rhampton7
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
IE, The answer continues, in hopes that at the last some spark may catch and burst into awakening: _______________________ >> IV. 'Dost thou understand?' she asks. Do my words sink into thy mind? Or art thou dull "as the ass to the sound of the lyre"? Why dost thou weep? Why do tears stream from thy eyes? '"Speak out, hide it not in thy heart." If thou lookest for the physician's help, thou must needs disclose thy wound.' Then I, gathering together what strength I could, began: 'Is there still need of telling? Is not the cruelty of fortune against me plain enough? Doth not the very aspect of this place move thee? Is this the library, the room which thou hadst chosen as thy constant resort in my home, the place where we so often sat together and held discourse of all things in heaven and earth? Was my garb and mien like this when I explored with thee nature's hid secrets, and thou didst trace for me with thy wand the courses of the stars, moulding the while my character and the whole conduct of my life after the pattern of the celestial order? Is this the recompense of my obedience? Yet thou hast enjoined by Plato's mouth the maxim, "that states would be happy, either if philosophers ruled them, or if it should so befall that their rulers would turn philosophers." By his mouth likewise thou didst point out this imperative reason why philosophers should enter public life, to wit, lest, if the reins of government be left to unprincipled and profligate citizens, trouble and destruction should come upon the good. Following these precepts, I have tried to apply in the business of public administration the principles which I learnt from thee in leisured seclusion. Thou art my witness and that divinity who hath implanted thee in the hearts of the wise, that I brought to my duties no aim but zeal for the public good. For this cause I have become involved in bitter and irreconcilable feuds, and, as happens inevitably, if a man holds fast to the independence of conscience, I have had to think nothing of giving offence to the powerful in the cause of justice. How often have I encountered and balked Conigastus in his assaults on the fortunes of the weak? How often have I thwarted Trigguilla, steward of the king's household, even when his villainous schemes were as good as accomplished? How often have I risked my position and influence to protect poor wretches from the false charges innumerable with which they were for ever being harassed by the greed and license of the barbarians? No one has ever drawn me aside from justice to oppression. When ruin was overtaking the fortunes of the provincials through the combined pressure of private rapine and public taxation, I grieved no less than the sufferers. When at a season of grievous scarcity a forced sale, disastrous as it was unjustifiable, was proclaimed, and threatened to overwhelm Campania with starvation, I embarked on a struggle with the prætorian prefect in the public interest, I fought the case at the king's judgment-seat, and succeeded in preventing the enforcement of the sale. I rescued the consular Paulinus from the gaping jaws of the court bloodhounds, who in their covetous hopes had already made short work of his wealth. To save Albinus, who was of the same exalted rank, from the penalties of a prejudged charge, I exposed myself to the hatred of Cyprian, the informer. 'Thinkest thou I had laid up for myself store of enmities enough? Well, with the rest of my countrymen, at any rate, my safety should have been assured, since my love of justice had left me no hope of security at court. Yet who was it brought the charges by which I have been struck down? Why, one of my accusers is Basil, who, after being dismissed from the king's household, was driven by his debts to lodge an information against my name. There is Opilio, there is Gaudentius, men who for many and various offences the king's sentence had condemned to banishment; and when they declined to obey, and sought to save themselves by taking sanctuary, the king, as soon as he heard of it, decreed that, if they did not depart from the city of Ravenna within a prescribed time, they should be branded on the forehead and expelled. What would exceed the rigour of this severity? And yet on that same day these very men lodged an information against me, and the information was admitted. Just Heaven! had I deserved this by my way of life? Did it make them fit accusers that my condemnation was a foregone conclusion? Has fortune no shame—if not at the accusation of the innocent, at least for the vileness of the accusers? Perhaps thou wonderest what is the sum of the charges laid against me? I wished, they say, to save the senate. But how? I am accused of hindering an informer from producing evidence to prove the senate guilty of treason. Tell me, then, what is thy counsel, O my mistress. Shall I deny the charge, lest I bring shame on thee? But I did wish it, and I shall never cease to wish it. Shall I admit it? Then the work of thwarting the informer will come to an end. Shall I call the wish for the preservation of that illustrious house a crime? Of a truth the senate, by its decrees concerning me, has made it such! But blind folly, though it deceive itself with false names, cannot alter the true merits of things, and, mindful of the precept of Socrates, I do not think it right either to keep the truth concealed or allow falsehood to pass. But this, however it may be, I leave to thy judgment and to the verdict of the discerning. Moreover, lest the course of events and the true facts should be hidden from posterity, I have myself committed to writing an account of the transaction. 'What need to speak of the forged letters by which an attempt is made to prove that I hoped for the freedom of Rome? Their falsity would have been manifest, if I had been allowed to use the confession of the informers themselves, evidence which has in all matters the most convincing force. Why, what hope of freedom is left to us? Would there were any! I should have answered with the epigram of Canius when Caligula declared him to have been cognisant of a conspiracy against him. "If I had known," said he, "thou shouldst never have known." Grief hath not so blunted my perceptions in this matter that I should complain because impious wretches contrive their villainies against the virtuous, but at their achievement of their hopes I do exceedingly marvel. For evil purposes are, perchance, due to the imperfection of human nature; that it should be possible for scoundrels to carry out their worst schemes against the innocent, while God beholdeth, is verily monstrous. For this cause, not without reason, one of thy disciples asked, "If God exists, whence comes evil? Yet whence comes good, if He exists not?" However, it might well be that wretches who seek the blood of all honest men and of the whole senate should wish to destroy me also, whom they saw to be a bulwark of the senate and all honest men. But did I deserve such a fate from the Fathers also? Thou rememberest, methinks—since thou didst ever stand by my side to direct what I should do or say—thou rememberest, I say, how at Verona, when the king, eager for the general destruction, was bent on implicating the whole senatorial order in the charge of treason brought against Albinus, with what indifference to my own peril I maintained the innocence of its members, one and all. Thou knowest that what I say is the truth, and that I have never boasted of my good deeds in a spirit of self-praise. For whenever a man by proclaiming his good deeds receives the recompense of fame, he diminishes in a measure the secret reward of a good conscience. What issues have overtaken my innocency thou seest. Instead of reaping the rewards of true virtue, I undergo the penalties of a guilt falsely laid to my charge—nay, more than this; never did an open confession of guilt cause such unanimous severity among the assessors, but that some consideration, either of the mere frailty of human nature, or of fortune's universal instability, availed to soften the verdict of some few. Had I been accused of a design to fire the temples, to slaughter the priests with impious sword, of plotting the massacre of all honest men, I should yet have been produced in court, and only punished on due confession or conviction. Now for my too great zeal towards the senate I have been condemned to outlawry and death, unheard and undefended, at a distance of near five hundred miles away.[C] Oh, my judges, well do ye deserve that no one should hereafter be convicted of a fault like mine! 'Yet even my very accusers saw how honourable was the charge they brought against me, and, in order to overlay it with some shadow of guilt, they falsely asserted that in the pursuit of my ambition I had stained my conscience with sacrilegious acts. And yet thy spirit, indwelling in me, had driven from the chamber of my soul all lust of earthly success, and with thine eye ever upon me, there could be no place left for sacrilege. For thou didst daily repeat in my ear and instil into my mind the Pythagorean maxim, "Follow after God." It was not likely, then, that I should covet the assistance of the vilest spirits, when thou wert moulding me to such an excellence as should conform me to the likeness of God. Again, the innocency of the inner sanctuary of my home, the company of friends of the highest probity, a father-in-law revered at once for his pure character and his active beneficence, shield me from the very suspicion of sacrilege. Yet—atrocious as it is—they even draw credence for this charge from thee; I am like to be thought implicated in wickedness on this very account, that I am imbued with thy teachings and stablished in thy ways. So it is not enough that my devotion to thee should profit me nothing, but thou also must be assailed by reason of the odium which I have incurred. Verily this is the very crown of my misfortunes, that men's opinions for the most part look not to real merit, but to the event; and only recognise foresight where Fortune has crowned the issue with her approval. Whereby it comes to pass that reputation is the first of all things to abandon the unfortunate. I remember with chagrin how perverse is popular report, how various and discordant men's judgments. This only will I say, that the most crushing of misfortune's burdens is, that as soon as a charge is fastened upon the unhappy, they are believed to have deserved their sufferings. I, for my part, who have been banished from all life's blessings, stripped of my honours, stained in repute, am punished for well-doing. 'And now methinks I see the villainous dens of the wicked surging with joy and gladness, all the most recklessly unscrupulous threatening a new crop of lying informations, the good prostrate with terror at my danger, every ruffian incited by impunity to new daring and to success by the profits of audacity, the guiltless not only robbed of their peace of mind, but even of all means of defence>> _________________ We have been there before, and it does not end well. Beginning to see that the line between good and evil passes not between classes and nations but through the individual human heart? Beginning to recognise the futility of assailing sound philosophy, sound theology and sound religion, by way of well poisoning and atmosphere poisoning? Beginning to see that if you fail to respond appropriately to a civil and balanced acknowledgement of wrongs and the to the principles of reformation then you leave only a fight without Marquis of Queensbury rules? Nihilism, in one word. That is what we must name and exorcise, if we are to be men of civil temperament and not brute beasts playing nihilistic agit prop games and not caring what happens when one burns down civilising influences. KF PS: EZ, some of my ancestors were slaves, some were indentured servants, some overseers and some masters. All, eventually tamed by the gospel that you would dismiss and discard. Tamed to the point where a certain name sits above a certain parliament written in martyr's blood, descended from master and slave alike. Blood unjustly spilled for standing up with unwelcome truth spoken from Christian concern to unreasonable domineering power.kairosfocus
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
KF #99 I don't understand your response at all. How did your ancestors arrive in the Western Hemisphere by the way?ellazimm
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
KF: "PPS: Let us clear the air, by restoring tone...[followed by sermonizing]" What about not "sermonizing" don't you understand? Do you really think that your tone filled patronizing sermons restores tone? And how does this change the fact that Indian children in Canada were treated in the way they were, with the church taking an active and willing part. And, correct me if I am wrong (I might be), the church has never offered an apology for their complicity in this action.Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
PPS: Let us clear the air, by restoring tone: >>II. 'But the time,' said she, 'calls rather for healing than for lamentation.' Then, with her eyes bent full upon me, 'Art thou that man,' she cries, 'who, erstwhile fed with the milk and reared upon the nourishment which is mine to give, had grown up to the full vigour of a manly spirit? And yet I had bestowed such armour on thee as would have proved an invincible defence, hadst thou not first cast it away. Dost thou know me? Why art thou silent? Is it shame or amazement that hath struck thee dumb? Would it were shame; but, as I see, a stupor hath seized upon thee.' Then, when she saw me not only answering nothing, but mute and utterly incapable of speech, she gently touched my breast with her hand, and said: 'There is no danger; these are the symptoms of lethargy, the usual sickness of deluded minds. For awhile he has forgotten himself; he will easily recover his memory, if only he first recognises me. And that he may do so, let me now wipe his eyes that are clouded with a mist of mortal things.' Thereat, with a fold of her robe, she dried my eyes all swimming with tears. SONG III. The Mists dispelled. Then the gloom of night was scattered, Sight returned unto mine eyes. So, when haply rainy Caurus Rolls the storm-clouds through the skies, Hidden is the sun; all heaven Is obscured in starless night. But if, in wild onset sweeping, Boreas frees day's prisoned light, All suddenly the radiant god outstreams, And strikes our dazzled eyesight with his beams. III. Even so the clouds of my melancholy were broken up. I saw the clear sky, and regained the power to recognise the face of my physician. Accordingly, when I had lifted my eyes and fixed my gaze upon her, I beheld my nurse, Philosophy, whose halls I had frequented from my youth up. 'Ah! why,' I cried, 'mistress of all excellence, hast thou come down from on high, and entered the solitude of this my exile? Is it that thou, too, even as I, mayst be persecuted with false accusations?' 'Could I desert thee, child,' said she, 'and not lighten the burden which thou hast taken upon thee through the hatred of my name, by sharing this trouble? Even forgetting that it were not lawful for Philosophy to leave companionless the way of the innocent, should I, thinkest thou, fear to incur reproach, or shrink from it, as though some strange new thing had befallen? Thinkest thou that now, for the first time in an evil age, Wisdom hath been assailed by peril? Did I not often in days of old, before my servant Plato lived, wage stern warfare with the rashness of folly? In his lifetime, too, Socrates, his master, won with my aid the victory of an unjust death. And when, one after the other, the Epicurean herd, the Stoic, and the rest, each of them as far as in them lay, went about to seize the heritage he left, and were dragging me off protesting and resisting, as their booty, they tore in pieces the garment which I had woven with my own hands, and, clutching the torn pieces, went off, believing that the whole of me had passed into their possession. And some of them, because some traces of my vesture were seen upon them, were destroyed through the mistake of the lewd multitude, who falsely deemed them to be my disciples. It may be thou knowest not of the banishment of Anaxagoras, of the poison draught of Socrates, nor of Zeno's torturing, because these things happened in a distant country; yet mightest thou have learnt the fate of Arrius, of Seneca, of Soranus, whose stories are neither old nor unknown to fame. These men were brought to destruction for no other reason than that, settled as they were in my principles, their lives were a manifest contrast to the ways of the wicked. So there is nothing thou shouldst wonder at, if on the seas of this life we are tossed by storm-blasts, seeing that we have made it our chiefest aim to refuse compliance with evil-doers. And though, maybe, the host of the wicked is many in number, yet is it contemptible, since it is under no leadership, but is hurried hither and thither at the blind driving of mad error. And if at times and seasons they set in array against us, and fall on in overwhelming strength, our leader draws off her forces into the citadel while they are busy plundering the useless baggage. But we from our vantage ground, safe from all this wild work, laugh to see them making prize of the most valueless of things, protected by a bulwark which aggressive folly may not aspire to reach.'>>kairosfocus
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Starting in the 1870s and closing in 1996, over 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children were sent to residential schools across the country, where they were banned from using their own languages and often subjected to physical and sexual abuse.
Were the descendants of European immigrants subject to such denigration until 1996 in Canada? Why is anyone trying to excuse or 'apologise' for this treatment? Denyse, when did your family migrate to Canada? Do you think their claim to land that once belonged to generations upon generations of native north americans superseded the natives? My ancestors emigrated to Wisconsin in the mid-19th century. I don't know what legal justifications were given for them to be granted acres upon acres of farm land. I can't undo the past. But I'm not going to pretend it was for the best for the peoples who had been there for centuries. The Americas were conquered, pure and simple. The exploits of the Christian Spanish conquistadors would make any caring person cringe in repulsion. All in all, it was a damn dirty business.ellazimm
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
KF: "It is clear to me that you have a fundamental hostility problem." The only hostility I have is towards mischaracterizing the truth. Feel free to provide evidence that demonstrates that what I said is incorrect. If you can do this without ad hominems and sermonizing (as News has demonstrated is possible) I will certainly engage in discussion. If not, G'day. IE.Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
IE, I passed back again to see the onward developments. It is clear to me that you have a fundamental hostility problem. In my view, sufficient has been pointed out or to for the reasonable person. G'day. KF PS: It strikes me those with an itch on such matters would find Boethius' Consolation of Phil useful reading, noting his unjust death sentence as context, esp -- as Dembski clips aptly:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
I 'spect there is a fundamental resentment out there that the Christian tradition has resources to address deep moral dilemmas and challenges of a magnitude we had better pray we never face. That seems to lurk behind all too many well poisoning, heart hardening attempts. Link: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htmkairosfocus
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
News, your interpretation is just a sanitation of what happened. The compulsory education act didn't physically remove generations of people of European descent from their communities and families for ten months of the year. They received their educations in their communities. Were kids of European descent punished for speaking their home language in the school yard? Were they punished if their religion was anything other than Christian? Were they denied basic medical attention when tuberculosis ran through their community schools?Indiana Effigy
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Indiana Effigy at 90 (but more for anyone likely to listen): There was no simple solution to the problem of integrating stone age cultures rapidly into the steel age. (Who knows? Luck may improve in the digital age!) Compulsory education acts required that all children, even in remote areas, go to school. Schooling in western Canada was only available in English. Churches were the only available group to provide people who would live and work in a harsh northern environment. Many individuals were underqualified or unfit but the only thing of which I can be quite certain is this: Detractors today would have a way better case if generations of natives were illiterate and not fluent in English, due to some alternative government policy. Unfortunately, the grievance industry is making a fortune out of the sorts of claims IE advances. But almost none of that will help native peoples. Only integration into the larger society would actually help them (though that is not the grievance industry's interests). In Canada (which does NOT see itself as a melting pot), there is much less risk of simple assimilation and cultural loss than integration might entail in some places. In plain English: Most of the problems of many reserves would be best solved by not living there. Cf. Attawapiskat. But it is not politically correct to say that. The reserves are cash cows for the social justice industry. Historical note, for any interested: Natives were not the only people affected by compulsory education acts. My father, 97 next month, recalled the truant officer having to round up the children of immigrants from Europe who were convinced that book learning was a waste of time when there was land to till. Girls, they believed, should just learn to help out at home anyway, until they get married. And then thy can help their mothers-in-law. And so forth. My father's father was the local schoolteacher, and that sort of thing used to drive him crazy. And Grandpa was right. He could not have foreseen the mechanization of farming post-WWII, which resulted in swarms of (literate) kids heading for the cities for jobs. But he did have the right instincts.News
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Indiana Effigy, There is a difference between indoctrination (which many Canadian children may well have been subjected to) and forced conversion. In the former, an attempt is made to control the victim's thought processes; in the latter, the threat of violence is employed to change the victim's mind. Both practices are fundamentally immoral, but the former is not violent, and cannot accurately be described as forceful. Of course, the act of removing a child from his/her home involves some degree of force, which is clearly wrong (unless, of course, the child is being abused by his/her parents, which was not the case in the instance that we are discussing). What you fail to mention, however, is that it was not the churches, but the (secular) Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that removed about 150,000 children from their homes from 1876 to 1996. What the churches did was school them and attempt to Christianize them. Whether they actually engaged in systematic indoctrination - in the way that Scientologists do, for example - is open to question. I'd want to see evidence for that. Even if it were true, there is nothing in Catholic (or Anglican, or Methodist) teaching which justifies the indoctrination of children. On the Christian view, parents have a duty to instruct their children in the truth and tell them about God's redemption of the human race through Jesus' saving death on the cross. And those parents may send their children to schools which continue this godly work of instruction. However, instruction is not the same as thought control. Telling children that there is a God Who loves them, and Who personally saved each and every one of them by living among us as a man and dying for us, 2,000 years ago, is not child abuse. (And I might add that neither the Catholic Church nor the Anglican Church nor the United Church of Canada has ever taught that unbaptized children are punished with eternal torments in Hell, so don't try that one.) I might add that the Catholic Church's foremost theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, maintained that parents have a natural right to bring up their children in the religion of their choice, even if it is a badly mistaken one. He also wrote that "it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents’ custody, or anything done it against its parents’ wish." That's about as clear as you can get. Moreover, the Vatican has officially deplored the abuse suffered by indigenous children in the Canadian Residential School system at the hands of some members of the Church. Finally, please don't confuse the doctrinal teachings of a church with the misguided actions of some of its members (including clergy). And I repeat: the Bible does not condone indoctrination or forced conversion.vjtorley
April 17, 2016
April
04
Apr
17
17
2016
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply