Here's a list of people inspired by religious fantasies to mass murder.
They ONLY appear on this list if they have definitely used, over a period of time, religious authorities and doctrine to justify their attacks.

(All 'vice versa' of course):

Joseph Stalin (trained as orthodox priest, enlisted the Russian Orthodox Church in struggle against both Nazism and Jews in the Party)
Pol Pot (trained as buddhist priest, killed vietnamese, destroyed country in name of buddhist national morality)
All the american presidents , eg Bush (except lincoln!)
Tony blair (catholicism)
Adolf Hitler (ditto) to attack Jewish Bolshevism
The catholic nazis against the protestant saxons
the austrians against the serbs
the turks and iraqis against the kurds (fireworshippers etc)
India v pakistan
The serbs against the muslims
The sudanese against the black african christians
The israelis against the christians and muslims of palestine and lebanon
the poles against the jews, the ukrainians
the ukrainians against the jews the poles
The russian monarchy to attack and occupy siberia
The russian monarchy to attack japan, finland
the irish catholics against the irish protestants (V.V)
the spanish v the moors
the moors v the jews
the spanish v the jews, the carribbean indians (wiped out)
the spanish v the mexicans (attempted conversion preceeded invasion - pretext provided when conversion was rejected)
the spanish v the incas (ditto)
the french slaveowners against the haitian rebellion (voodoo)
the american plantation owners to justify slavery
the afrikaaners to justify slavery (dutch reformed church doctrine of cain and abel, cain to serve abel forevermore)
the taliban to attack the peaceful socialist government which preceeded it, with american money and training
Osama bin laden to attack new york (jews, crusaders etc)
George Bush's "crusade" to attack osama bin laden - missed him, found afghanistan, somalia, sierra leone, colombia, iraq (and soon iran) instead. Maybe the saudi is in pakistan (where the taliban come from) or saudi arabia???
america to attack godless communists
egyptian terrorists to attack godless american tourists
algerians to attack french
morrocans to occupy western sahara
indonesia to occupy christian timor
australia to occupy christian timor ("protection"!)
islamists to bomb bali (hindu)
Buddhists of sri lanka to attack tamils (hindus)
Pakistanis to attack catholic pakistanis
LORDS RESISTANCE ARMY of uganda
GUERREROS BLANCOS of the central americas
The white armies of central europe to install facsist dictatorships (eg IronGuard, Ukrainian nationalists, slovakian catholic dictatorship, breakaway from democratic czech republic, hungarian dictorship which murdered bela kun)

This is the tip of the iceberg. I could go into detail about history before the last few hundred years, and then how big would Christ and Ali's blooddebt grow?

Moderator, why aren't you forcing this DNS to rise up and reject his fascist beliefs? Moderator! Waaaaaaaah!

Last Edited on 6-Jul-2007 6:27 AM

The cause of fascism is religion.

There's more!

Who doesn't know that the vatican invests in arms companies?
Isn't it a sin to "invest" at all? To lend money at interest in usury. Something the catholics used to burn jews in their houses for. In england, the jews were expelled during the ongoing religious struggles between elisabeth and the catholics, no doubt to make her look more christian.

You show your complete lack of reading comprehension again; also your one-track-broken-record mind. I stated that I'm in FULL agreement with your list. You don't teach us anything with your list. You are not our moral conscience nor our historian. You're really the ranter here! Just because Engels wrote about primitive religion doesn't mean he had the last word. You are really a one-dimensional person. Fascism and communism BOTH glorify the state. Communism just force feeds the people lies that the state is in their service. Both are run by a murderous elite that has utter contempt for the populace. The CAUSE of fascism is GREED and LUST for POWER you hapless little twit!!! It is pointless to argue with brainless fanatics. I take it back when I said you are brilliant and funny.You are really a lost cause.

In the name of god, some of these jews have set up a new promised land in newyork and israel. As the chosen people of God, they encroach gradually upon the lands of palestine, a new bit every decade.

There is a wall in israel, higher, deadlier, one hundred times longer and uglier than the berlin wall.
Does peaceful gathering lead to change? Protest and be shot at, child or man. This is democracy, according to america.

America supports all these churches. The only stance it doesn't support is non-religion. Why? Because faith can be adapted to any murderous policy, whereas facts can't.

One state even changed its motto, around the same time it acquired nuclear weapons and new slavestates.

1892:

Francis Bellamy, a Socialist Christian, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in August of 1892:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
He originally wanted to add the word "equality" but the group he was proposing this for was against equality for women and blacks.

1892 to 1923:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1923 to 1954:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1954 to Present:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

In this we can see clearly:

The replacement of revolutionary feeling for jingoism.
The replacement of local loyalty to an ideal, to loyalty to the authority of an individual state.
The usurpation of the power of the individual state by the centralised military power of the "USA".
Followed by the usurpation of free thought by the churches.

Relgion is not just a harmless passtime. I've provided the evidence - can you provide the case for?

You say "I'm single minded" (etc) hapless, twit etc.
But here are the fruits, where are yours?
At least Nok had something to say. Bring back Nok....

We had this discussion years ago, I know. The purpose of propaganda, whether racism or religious or whatever, is to convince the masses on terms they understand, to do the bidding of the financial oligarchy.

Look how we in the US have demonized illegal immigrants from south of the border as the cause of the plummeting standard of living of the working and middle class; when the real issue is capitalism trying to drive down wages for workers around the globe to stave off that thing Marx called the falling rate of profit.

I'm certainly not trying to excuse the cruelty carried out in the name of religion, but here I think Marx-Engels-Althusser-Poulantzas threw away the baby with the bath water. Religion is far more complex.

I'm speaking as an athiest. I read a book by the Dalai Lama. He loves science and finds no incompatibility between religious beliefs and science. If interested, when I get home, I'll track down the name of the book.

Thoughts?

"Bring Nokangs back" ??? It's much better having a foolish and brutish adversary isn't it me? It makes you look a lot better. Right now, you look bad dude, real bad;resorting to child molester stories. My how the mighty have fallen! Communist Russia, for those that didn't know, among it's myriad perfections was totally free of capitalist pig child molestation; which there was called capitalist exploitation of juvenile genitalia. Perhaps though, I'm being insensitive to you and there is a real reason why you hate the religious so much. If that is the case, a personal problem is not an excuse for the kinds of crude generalizations you are making that intellectually and logically just don't cut it.I also repeat, I am not a "religious" person; I'm just giving the impulse and the concept it's proper perspective in the realm and limits of logic.

Me's justifiable outrage at the violence and chaos of the world is ultimately more religious than anything. He is essentially shouting at God and he is saying,"I hate and deny you!" I think this shows that he believes in God much more strongly than the average, doltish religious hypocrite. I think he loves humanity and wants justice and simply cannot accept any excuse for it's abscence; especially talk of a loving God. I applaud him for that.In the end, it is perhaps a more potent prayer than anything.

In brief, my view is that religious and non-religious people are equally capable of being kind, humane, and active, or cruel, inhumane, and political aloof.

Looking at Me's list, I see some of the many atrosities that occured in the name of religion. This is commmon. Other atrosities occur based on ficticious ideas of genetics or other hegemonic ideologies. But in the end, it is almost always about resources and power.

ME and I have debated this extensively. And while I think religious indoctrination is a major hindrance to critical thinking, so is any indocrination, if not rigorously questioned. Also, a vast amount of people that have fought for justice and social change have a religious component to to their belief system, including Malcolm X, who both ME (last I checked) and I like.

Similarly, being agnostic or atheist does not define a person's character. Religion, culture, politicals, art, individual brain chemistry, kinship ties, and environment are all intwertwined in the personality and actions of a given human being.

For me, a deity is unecessary. I am not anti-religion, but strongly oppose missionaries.

Secondly - DNS and DPS. You're saying the opposite things, yet agreeing with each other. One is saying its all economics, the other is saying its all will and whim.

Thirdly - JB, all the genocides you care about are heavily indebted to religion. It's not just a personal choice. Without religious justification, do you think rwanda and the sudan, and the ongoing iraqi civil war would be likely?

I've only got five minutes, i'll spend the rest reading - try to hold your shame in a bit more, DNS

Now you know I'm cut out from the same "commie autopilot" one dimensional whatever blah blah that thingy was on about, so I'm hardly going to disagree with you, am I?
But reducing it all to economics is something both marx and engels have themselves rejected. Marx himself said that power comes from economic relations, yes; but that it becomes in itself an economic force.
They emphasised economics in contrast and to balance with, the unbalanced un-materialist daydreamers of their day. But as you know, they recognised that quantitive changes were also accompanied by definite qualitative changes. That something eg a society, a human body, is a collection of parts, but arranged in a way which makes them more than just those parts (in terms of effect and motional possibilities).

On the other hand, putting it all down to whimsy, and believing that enough will can conquer over any fact-of-life, and that there is inherent evil which must be wiped out, like sonnyjim believes, is not a bit different from the basis of national socialism which he attacks, but doesn't hurt.

He says he wonders if any marxists have read their own literature. One things for sure, he hasn't. But he still feels capable of driving his arguments, under the influence of crack (which he wants legalised!) and without being tested on either his theory or his practicals.

Let him tell us more about his ideas, before hopping to defend religion as a harmless by-product, misused.

I would say to you - and I've talked about Israel and I could equally talk about turkey, iraq, iran, right here and now (not 'in the past' as you say) for whom religion is not just an optional extra in their state repression policies.

You're saying that religion has been mis-used. I wouldn't claim a teleological origin to religion, that it was originally created to deceive and control. But in the age of aeroplanes, stellar physics, Genetic modifyed organisms and nuclear bombs - what bit of religious doctrine has not already been falsified?
Keeping it going strong, statifying it as is even true of america, there is no 'use' here that isn't 'misuse'.

Nowadays, we who have doctors and not curanderos, guns and not magic boomerangs, must push for an anti-religious world view. Think what damage that would do to all these regimes that survive on the credulous voter/serf, including your own? Attacking superstition is the key to freeing america.

There once was a poor boy named me
Who instead of a brain had a theory,
He said,"GOD IS DEAD!" and "I am a red!"
And all other colors are dreary!

I don't think our square Brit really would have appreciated a rap, so I served him up something from his neck of the woods.

My point is that religion IS used to ideologically support the genocide. However, the REAL reasons, that the soldier or civilian often do not know, are that it is about power and resources. So the people who benefit (or think they will benefit) from the war USE religion. Still, genodices are not necessarily INHERENT outcomes of religion. They are inherent outcomes of IMPERIALISM.

All that said, for the reasons you describe, I stay away from religious ideology (while respecting the values and actions that have produced justice) the same way I stay away from the flag and am uncomfortable with the concept "patriotism." To me, it is all containing.

Still, the atrosities are more about indocrtination in general, and a lack of critical thinking skills about global affairs, then they are about religion. But, yes, it has over and over again been manipulated as an opiate and as a justification for dehumanization and war and genocide. Excessive greed and thirst for power will use ANYTHING.

I strongly contend that any belief that murderous shits may have is simply a rationalization for psychosis that finds an easily adaptable outlet in religion and allows itself to be cloaked in piety.The end, in this case the "glory of God" or the "triumph of good versus evil" is the ULTIMATE end: justified by any means! The attempt to fashion idolatrous warrior deities goes back to the earliest stages of the coopting of the religious impulse. Me's real list, would require it's own forum to compile! The leaders place slogans on banners and belt buckles and what-have-you. They annoint themselves the emissaries of a wrathful deity: be they popes, imams or fascists. this gives the soldiers a cause far greater than anything so mundane as money and land that they'll never have anyway. They are now free to die for God! Onward Christian soldiers, scream "Allah akbar!" every time you pull the trigger; or else leave the farm in Iowa to the martial strains of "I'm Proud to Be an American". Just brainwashing; NOTHING to do whatsoever with the poetic and extremely ancient beauty and message present in many parts of the great religious texts, and the poetry inspired by these. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of nonsense and violence in those texts too; but in the old testament much of it is simply mundane historical narrative glossed in with the rest. In Hindu texts a lot of it is spirit battles between demons and gods etc. Anyway, don't forget that most morons don't read, don't want to read and most importantly don't even think- they just react.

Hitler wouldn't have been possible without the crusades and crusader imagery provided earlier.

Last Edited on 10-Jul-2007 1:18 AM

It may be an excuse, yes, it may not be the 'real' reason for war, sure, but it REALLY helps when it comes to motivating murder. So shouldn't we, regardless of "personal religious freedom" (which even in stalinist russia was ENCOURAGED let alone allowed), shouldn't we aim to take any reference to justification from the unseen and unknowable out of important decision making?

If we allow murderers and tyrants to appropriate religious belief, and all the complex feelings that are associated with it; then it is not only an easier march down the road to destruction, but it is a sin against LANGUAGE itself. What I am fighting for here is the right to not allow them to DEFINE the concept, and other concepts, be it religion, patriotism, race or even love! Their true aim is to own or "brand" the word itself! Just like they want to own the water, the sun and the air!!! Once they accomplish this, and I agree with me that they already have, it is easy to sway the people towards violence. In order to claim that God is on your side, or that you represent the national interest or the nation you must first impose your false definition of these things on gullible minds. I'm simply asking intelligent people not to RELINQUISH this word, religion to them!

The great thing that I'm seeing unfold here is that concepts and language are refining themselves and gaining focus and clarity through discussion. This is the joy of the variety of human thought and speech patterns, that after a bit of invective and ridicule, shared beliefs can still be refined and PROGRESS in depth and meaning. Me has hit on a very refined version of the overall goal here, using a very focused language; that is: to "aim to take any REFERENCE(my emphasis) to justification from the unseen and unknowable out of important decision making." Now that is getting down to it folks! A viable and perfectly rational request that could be codified in any constituional amendment and implemented immediately.Take "In God We Trust" off the U.S. currency, it was added much later anyway,also, do away with any God reference in any sort of song or pledge used to imply patriotism; most of all this crap was added much later anyway. refine and clarify the separation of church and state references, and simply bring the discussion to the forefront! Also, really GO AFTER the bastards that keep saying America was FOUNDED on christian principles! This has really infected the general populace. I'm of course talking about the U.S. here.

You want to let the individual think whatever he likes, however strongly he likes, and this is 'healthy'. But then you want to ban the use of religion at a state level.

A state does exist above society, in the sense that it is an organised force which can exert more effective power than any other organisation within its society.
But it is also part of that society, and its officials and drones and queenbees are individuals with whims and beliefs. (Unity and contradiction, as ever)

How can you expect a society full of individuals who are radically racist, bible-bashing, mentally backwards, paranoid (good qualities aside) to produce a state that refrains from using religious iconoclasticisms on its money, in its 'pledges' , in schools etc?

Are you an anarchist? This is anarchist think. the idea that the people are pure, the state is bad, and if we only change (or abolish, don't ask them how though) the state, then the people will be happy.
The people are not ready-made for positive change. This is why it is important to know which of the mass of people is ready for positive change (eg urban people on the coast) and which are the backward morons incapable of any positive change (texans).
Marx identified the working class (communist). Kropotkin argued that the underclass was more postively radical (anarchist). Hitler chose the underclass, and the impoverished lower middleclasses too (National-Socialist). Thatcher relied on the dying lowermiddleclasses (monetarism) and revived their snobbery to fight the manual workers. All of them made a difference, good or bad. But unlike the democrats now, who don't know who to enlist the help of to change things, they changed things in the direction they wanted.

How do you propose that you have all the ingredients for a hamburger (the american people as individuals and small groups) yet put them all together and you can have beetrootsoup or a rocket-ship (a completely different state)?

Last Edited on 11-Jul-2007 1:24 PM

This is a bit long, but see what you think. Much of what I'm going to write here is, of course, just self-justification (perhaps) and arrogant lecturefying, but that aside...

Here's my take on 'The People'. Actually, all I can talk about is the people here in england. And even then, I'm talking about my bit of lancashire.

The people here don't know much. Particularly about politics. I still like them, but it's a fact.
But just like people everywhere, the less they know, the more confident they are about what little they do know.

What I have noticed, is that badgering and haraguing and scoring points doesn't work. One can be right, perfectly right, but no-one will accept that you are right, even when they accept that all the facts you have are right, and the argument is right, and that no other explanation fits; If this were a sherlock holmes novel, we'd have all we need to point to the murderer. But they just don't care. But you can make them care, by relating things to them personally. But I'll get to that - these are by the way, just my thoughts from my practice, my failures, successes etc I'm just them sharing with you.

When you go about it the wrong way, you've probably found this too: they do this thing where they AGREE with what you say at the time;
but months later you hear the same falacies and arguments from them you've heard before. Unchanged completely! As if they had their memories zapped. This is of course a result of emotionally rejecting what you are saying, That and decades of brainwashing by newspapers, television, experts in simpleexplanationisms (like rush limbaugh, littlejohn, ricky lake etc). But we have to work with what we've got, brainwashed nazis or openminded liberals.

So with The People, unlike the smart little bunnies who turn up here, the most effective you can hope for is to plant a contradiction inside their head. In psychology, this nagging doubt is called "disonnance" (basically meaning, 'doesn't sound right'). The dissonant idea you plant has to be solid, preferably a tautology, and most inportant of all, it must be a contradiction within the doctrine that they themselves are wiitingly or otherwise propounding.

Take my arguments with one of the people, jopaku. He claims to be a christian. Now I know christianity very well. I work for a church myself most weeks. I could try arguing with him from an atheist point of view, could introduce ideas from buddhism (particularly on the godless cycle of universes, no beginning no end) which abolishes the need, very well, for the idea of one-off creation, and even goes well with big-bang theory.
By what would that achieve? Within itself, if you accept the idea of a judgemental God, then all the rest follows. A better way to dispute a church (i.e. priests, MEN) who claim to speak for god is to highlight the differences between what the great man says, and what the church does.
The dissonant idea is not that christianity is wrong. Because what are we replacing it with - something better? Hardly. Nothing won't fill a gap that something used to.
No, the dissonant idea, the contradiction which works best will be (and incidentally it is totally true and relevant, not just propaganda) that all these christian churches, run by MEN who claim to speak for God, are liars, perverts, corruptors of their own doctrine, dogmatists, blasphemers; that their God certainly would reject them and their claim to speak for him. So that's the idea, a true idea no less, that will, maybe years later blossom into a hunger for more truth (as opposed to priestly lies). It may take years, but remember yourself, that you were not always a finished product, were susceptible to influence from liars and priests (i'm guessing, I mean, coz I was).

As always happens I get short of time, so here's what I think works - and really, I've learnt this off JB actually, since I came here in the same mood as you did, and I find it funny you accused me and her of being christian pacifists, because I remember myself accusing JB of that, but now I think otherwise... blah blahh! Ok here's my list of results/ideas:

-People listen to a humble mistake maker. People envy someone they can't keep up with.
-People get emotionally attached to ideas. This takes time to undo, because it took time to attach.
-Some people will never respond. True. But you don't know in advance that they never will. Islam is a dangerous religion, like nazism. Mohammed lined up all the male jews in medina and killed them, and then enslaved the women. Is that Nazism? Yes. But do we therefore have to kill all muslims, or should we try to deprogram them first (and isolate and kill the bombers instead).
-people like to be flattered. As you know! Flattery works when it is genuine, just look for good points that are actually there.
-people can only take in so much at a time. Don't bore them.
-People are interested in themselves. So make the arguments about them. Use them as examples in hypotheses. EG someone says prison is too easy. If you disagree, then you would say, "yes it seems that way. But I still wouldn't want to go there eh?" 100% of the time you will get agreement, and you'll have planted the seed of a contradiction: that prison is 'easy' (media says) versus: I sure as hell hope I never go there...

Gotta dash

Let's thrash this out

Moving over to religion(ME's obsessed with it!),
I don't define myself as a Christian, even though I consider myself to be one. I do have an inherent belief in some sort of creator, how judging he(they?)is, I really don't know. I have tried to NOT believe this, but it doesn't take. I can't say that I learned it, I come from an extremely non-religious family, and my catholic school education ended in 2nd grade. People believe in God because it is natural to do so. You have to be taught NOT to believe. Religion and Atheism are learned, but faith isn't.

And for the ever so mentioned pedophile priests, if it's an epidemic, then every group, organization, culture, is affected. How many public school teachers do you read about? Boy scout leaders? Little league coaches? Family members? And in every instance there is someone trying to cover it up, just to avert a "scandal".

Last Edited on 16-Jul-2007 4:56 PM

But where else can you get the following conspiracy of circumstances, but a catholic orphanage? (maybe a muslim 'madrassa')

-Men who have not had normal sex for many, many years.
-vulnerable, weak children with no-where else to go.
-a strong organisation capable of hiding and protecting internal crimes.
-all-day, all-night opportunity for the criminals.

Here's something from just TODAY. This is your backyard! I'm disgusted. You like this? This is who you admire and defend?
If you want to claim to be a christian, why not follow what christ would say instead of these kiddy-rapists?

ARTICLE

Judge OKs $660M clergy abuse settlement By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 17, 2:51 AM ET

LOS ANGELES - Sobs and a moment of silence for those who died during years of negotiations punctuated a Monday hearing at which a judge accepted a $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and alleged victims of clergy sex abuse.

"This is the right result," said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz.

The settlement is by far the largest payout by any diocese since the clergy abuse scandal emerged in Boston in 2002. Individual payouts, to be made by Dec. 1, will vary according to the severity of each case.

Cardinal Roger Mahony, whose archdiocese counts 4.3 million Catholics, sat through the hearing but did not speak. He issued an apology Sunday after the settlement was announced and said Monday in a statement that he would spend the rest of the day praying for those who claimed abuse.

Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, asked his clients to stand during the hearing and thanked them for their resolve and their courage, before breaking down in tears.

"It's their courage and commitment that made this possible, and I think they deserve a tremendous debt of gratitude," he said.

"I know it's hard for most of the victims whose scars are very deep ... and I know many will never forgive the cardinal," he said. "But he took steps that I think that only he could take, and if left to the lawyers and others in the church, he would not have settled this case."

The attorney for the archdiocese, Michael Hennigan, also appeared emotional as he told the court that his views of clergy sexual abuse changed dramatically during the years he spent trying to hammer out an agreement. He said private meetings with 70 of the plaintiffs made the most impact.

"It changed us all, and it changed our perspective on what's happened here," he said.

"I'd like to say that the church would have been reformed without these cases, but I don't know that's true," he said. "These cases have forever reformed the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It will never be the same."

Mahony made several trips to Rome in recent weeks to get the Vatican's support for the settlement, Hennigan said.

District Attorney Steve Cooley said in a statement that there could still be a criminal case, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on statutes of limitations in molestation cases.

"We are aware there could be records that may become available to us as a result of today's settlement. If these documents reveal evidence of criminal activity on behalf of individual priests or anyone else, we will pursue them," Cooley said. "The book is not closed on our investigation."

Dozens of people who have alleged abuse gathered outside the courthouse to talk about the settlement.

Mary Ferrell said she was abused for two years beginning in 1956 by a priest in San Pedro. Ferrell said she never imagined she would be talking about it in a public square.

"When I was 7, I didn't tell anyone," she said. "I didn't know what he'd done to me, and I didn't have the terms. I was totally alone, and I carried it with me for all these years."

Because of the abuse, Ferrell said, she has spent a lifetime battling with alcoholism and drug abuse.

"I isolate myself because it's the only place I feel safe. Having met all these other victims, it's like they're my brothers and sisters," she said.

Esther Miller, 48, said she was repeatedly sexually abused as a teenager by a deacon in Van Nuys. The deacon, who was later defrocked, would sing Gregorian chants and make her wear a scapular while he molested her, she said.

Because of the abuse, Miller said, she has lost 19 jobs and been divorced three times. She currently does not work and has problems controlling her anger, she said.

"This settlement means I was telling the truth, I was telling my truth. It was not an allegation," Miller said, crying. "I'm going to show the world."

Mahony said Sunday that the settlement will not have an impact on the archdiocese's core ministry, but that the church will have to sell buildings, use some of its invested funds and borrow money. The archdiocese will not sell parish properties or schools, he said.

The deal settles all 508 cases that remained against the archdiocese, which also paid $60 million in December to settle 45 cases that weren't covered by sexual abuse insurance.

The archdiocese, the nation's largest, will pay $250 million, insurance carriers will pay a combined $227 million and several religious orders will chip in $60 million.

The remaining $123 million will come from litigation with religious orders that chose not to participate in the deal, with the archdiocese guaranteeing resolution of those 80 to 100 cases within five years, Hennigan said. The archdiocese is released from liability in those claims, said Tod Tamberg, church spokesman.

Plaintiffs' attorneys can expect to receive up to 40 percent of the settlement money — or $264 million.

The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion.

Previously, the Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders had paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims. Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion.

CATHOLICISM=NOT CHRISTIANITY

Last Edited on 17-Jul-2007 4:34 AM

Yes corporations do all these things. And change needs to be sudden, violent, and revolutionary.
Company law makes companies that way. So, you'll agree, at some point there needs te be not just gradual 'making nice' of companies, but actual hacking at the root of their justification for operating irresponsibly. Limited liabity, and secondly, social production and yet with private gain.
But can we go straight there?

I'd say is not *either* revolution *or* evolution. Neither work without the other. Whether this applies to biology, society etc.
You pointed for example, to the long, oh so long period of violence preceeding the russian revolution. The revolution was a culmination of centuries, and was attempted three times. That's why its such a crime that it's now gone lawless. The russian people worked very hard to get rid of the Tsar. The polish people did. And now he's been made a saint.

Evolution, revolution: these cannot function independently. The best 'analogy' would be a biological one.
Essentially we're talking about change. So imagine an egg. And egg is the midpoint between a bit of dna which is dead, becoming a new thing, which is alive. At what point does the miracle occur? Who gives a shit. It happens though. Maybe God farts on it. How does it happen - this is what matters.

The mistake that evolutionists minus revolutionists (democrats) make in this regard, is that they want the egg to continue to grow gradually into a chicken, without any sudden changes. In other words, they want a chicken, but they don't want the chick to break the shell.

The mistake that revolutionists minus evolutionists (anarchists) make in this regard, is that they want to hatch the chicken before it is ready. They don't want to nurture with their heat and effort the chicken inside the egg first. They think by taking a hammer to the egg, that we can get at the chicken sooner.

To get a change in quality, to a higher organism, in this case from virtually dead DNA to fully living chicken, requires both a period of cultivated growth, but also, a point where a break must be made from the old condition. A break, definte cut-off: out the egg, no going back.
When you do 'go back' you must always end up worse off. (Africa, india and russia all attest to this).

I know it isn't fashionable, but lenin had this and only this one quality (he was ugly, moody, vindictive, dictatorial but also:) He understood that timing and effort applied without waste was vital to long term success.

I mean anyone could have led a revolt. But few could urge it, stoke it, carry it through under the right conditions and then successfully help to defend it from a devastating american invasion. All credit to the soviet people, but a good theory (what to do, how, when) means energy will not be wasted.

Last Edited on 17-Jul-2007 4:54 AM