Skip to main content

View Diary: When a nation says, 'We are sorry.' (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you trying to say that there is no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Denise Oliver Velez

    connection between religion and what happened to children in Australia and the US southwest?

    It's nice to know I have a fan following me, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to comment inappropriately about the appropriatness of my posts.  However, Miss Manners is appropriately proud of you!  

    •  I'm not sure what was meant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yasuragi

      and though you responded to Murphoney, I commented to you - below, since I don't want to only point a finger at specific religious institutions - for me the larger issue is what are societal norms (where do they come from. who "enforces" them) and how do they negatively affect segments of populations. There are nation/states which profess to have no religion - and can be equally brutal.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate you comment below and replied to it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez

        The most secular countries of the world right now with the lowest populations of active religious people are also the countries that take the best care of their people in terms of poverty and health care. Read Phil Zuckerman's Society Without God.

        I would need you to be more specific as to this statement...

        "There are nation/states which profess to have no religion - and can be equally brutal."

        •  China, North Korea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yasuragi

          fairly recent history - Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by Denise Oliver Velez on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How was their religious status expressed? (0+ / 0-)

            Written into government documents? Surveys of population religious adherences?  Personal statements of leaders?

            Dictators who act as or declare themselves god-like are not atheists.  Atheists do not believe in any gods, especially self made human ones. And if you look behind the curtains of these countries you list, there is always some collusion between the "godless" leaders and religious institutions.

            I still say that religious thinking and institutions and beliefs and actions have created more misery in the world than good.  When an example comes up, I point it out.  You really don't want to start comparing the death and destruction numbers between communist regimes and "holy" ones. You may not like the results.

            •  You are derailing the conversation from (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DAISHI, Denise Oliver Velez

              the topic of this diary.

              I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd stop.

              I, too, hold organized religion accountable for many of the ills of this world, but that's not the subject of this diary, nor do I think you are contributing to a relevant discussion of the topic.  

              I can appreciate a lot of what you're saying, but, frankly, at this point, you're threadjacking.

              "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

              by Yasuragi on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:16:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And Denise is not? (0+ / 0-)

                Please read my first comment.  It has everything to do with the topic of what happened to the arboriginal children, and any accounting of this generations long event will tell you of the key role of religion and religious institutions played.   Just look it up.

                Whatever conversation played out past that had to do with people's responses to those facts... the first one telling me that my factual observations were not "appropriate".   If anyone "derailed" the conversation, it was those who didn't want to admit to these facts or had a bee in their bonnet about non-religious nations being brutal, which is certainly not topic related.

                The subject of this diary is the apology made by a government for abuses of native children and their families. A large part of the abuse stemmed from robbing these people of their culture and RELIGION and replacing it with another culture and RELIGION. Plus the angst of stealing children to achieve those ends.

                I stand by my original observation as being totally topic appropriate, and my responses to others as being simply responses to whatever THEY brought up.

    •  I don't actually comment on your argument so much (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denise Oliver Velez, Yasuragi

      as comment on your thematic use of it, today, at the least.

      Separately, specifically to answer your question -- no.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:01:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

        The issues with the aboriginal children (by the way, Canada had to apologize for much the same thing) are DIRECTLY related to the issue of religion because these kids were taken from their homes and placed in Christian homes and missions where they were converted. Christian organizations and institutions had a direct hand in the planning and implementation of these policies.

        Since this is the only article on the topic of aboriginal children in Australia, how could my points on it be used as a "theme" in other diary posts?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site