Monday, October 7, 2013

A Tale of Three Jackasses

Today, I want to write a parable. A tale of three jackasses.

Jackass 1... we'll call him Marty. Marty's a lawyer who works for the government of San Francisco as a district attorney. One day, Marty has a little too much to drink - and on his way home from the bar, he runs over and kills a 12 year old boy. Marty flees the scene - it's a hit and run. When police start asking questions, he makes a call to his friend, the Mayor (we'll call her Donna.) Donna pulls some strings, takes the police off Marty's case. Marty's involvement in the death is covered up. He never sees a day of jail time, he never pays a cent of restitution - nor does the city.

People will see this and say the guilty parties here are Marty and Donna.

Jackass 2 is Sheila. Sheila is a software developer who works for a company out in Amarillo, Texas. One day, Sheila has a little too much to drink - and on her way home from the bar, she runs over and kills a 12 year old boy. Sheila flees the scene - it's a hit and run. When police start asking questions, she makes a call to her friend, the CEO of the company she works for (we'll call him Karl.) Karl pulls some strings, takes the police off Sheila's case. Sheila's involvement in the death is covered up. She never sees a day of jail time, she never pays a cent of restitution - nor does the company.

People will see this and say the guilty parties here are Sheila and Karl.

Jackass 3 is Donald. Donald is a Roman Catholic priest who works for the diocese in Las Vegas, Nevada. One day, Donald has a little too much to drink - and on his way home from the bar, he runs over and kills a 12 year old boy. Donald flees the scene - it's a hit and run. When police start asking questions, he makes a call to his friend, the diocesan bishop (we'll call him Rich.) Rich pulls some strings, takes the police off Donald's case. Donald's involvement in the death is covered up. He never sees a day of jail time, he never pays a cent of restitution - nor does the diocese.

People will see this and say the guilty party is Donald... and the Roman Catholic Church.

14 comments:

RD Miksa said...

Crude...OT, but I thought you might use this given the discussion over at Dangerous Idea:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/new-study-children-of-same-sex-couples-do-less-well-than-those-of-married-couples/

Crude said...

RD,

Thanks. I actually stumbled on this earlier, but I'm holding off until I get a copy of this study to see for myself. I can already predict the reaction, even if it shows what it says it shows.

"Regnerus talked about it. It's terrible and wrong, automatically."

Blue Devil Knight said...

Crude, if Sheila worked for a company with many offices distributed around the globe, that shuffled pedophiles around and seemed to insulate them systematically from prosecution, and turned a blind eye to such behavior when they knew it was happening, would you want to say "the company" is also partly guilty?

Not saying the Church has done such things, but people think it has, so that may explain the perception. I don't think people, in this case, are simply irrationally attacking the Church.

Crude said...

BDK,

Crude, if Sheila worked for a company with many offices distributed around the globe, that shuffled pedophiles around and seemed to insulate them systematically from prosecution, and turned a blind eye to such behavior when they knew it was happening, would you want to say "the company" is also partly guilty?

Who's turning the blind eye? Who knows about it? If it's just 'Sheila' again, then the shuffling is irrelevant. If one school superintendent shuffles around a bunch of school pedophiles, and they're the only authority in the school who knows about it, did 'the school system' protect a pedophile?

I don't think people, in this case, are simply irrationally attacking the Church.

It depends on who's saying it and what they know, but that requires an investigation into the knowledge of the claimants which is nearly impossible to conduct.

However, there's one point of criticism that often comes up, and I think in reality fails dramatically: connecting the Church abuse situation with 'religion'. It makes about as much sense to say 'religion' was at fault as it does to point at various incidents of sexual abuse and predator shuffling in public schools or at the BBC and say 'broadcast media' or 'public schooling' was at fault.

malcolmthecynic said...

I think Crude knows about this, but really take a look at the case of Fr. Gordon McCrae if you want to see a true tragedy (as well as a fantastic blog in its own right). It's written by a Priest who was (probably) falsely accused of sexual abuse.

thesestonewalls.com

Crude said...

The false accusations are definitely worth attention. But my main focus is on the claim where things like 'the sex abuse scandals' get filed under "crimes of religion." I think that's bullshit.

Another way it's comparable is when talking about civil war era slavery. You hear 'People justified their keeping of slaves with bible quotes', and some people really seem to then make the jump that, 'Therefore, religion is responsible for civil war era slavery.' Beg your pardon, but I'm pretty effing sure there were secular interests at work there.

Crude said...

BDK,

Does the name 'Zach' ring a bell?

Blue Devil Knight said...

>>>Does the name 'Zach' ring a bell?

If it did, I would want to say that he sounds like an idiot who let his attempt to be anonymous escalate into contemptible full-blown trolldom. His behavior, especially the two-faced way he acted toward people he likes and respects, says something about his character that he clearly needs to address at a personal level. He obviously could not handle anonymity in a mature way, and will not be posting anything new.

Crude said...

Well, that answers that.

Crude said...

Actually, no, If you're Zach, this was not a one-time thing. It wasn't even directed totally at me. You went after ingx24 and others pretty ferociously, you presented yourself as a dualist who 'had knock-down arguments against materialism' yet who suspiciously and somewhat famously only attacked anti-materialist arguments, I even recall you talking about how 'great intelligent posters like BDK' were driven off DI by the likes of me. This lasted for, what - over a year?

This is small shit ultimately - I always said, blog comments aren't much of a battleground. But I'm not going to pretend this was some meager one-time slipup. Ilion's gotta be tearing his hair out right about now if he sees this.

I'm not saying anything more about this, but I'm pointing out the situation as it stands.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Crude you are right it wasn't a one-time thing: I posted for a few months, I believe. While I didn't say anyone drove off BDK, I did say a lot of crappy things to provoke people (e.g., ingx, crude, benyachov), and I cannot defend them. The best I can do is to stop doing it, apologize (as I already did to Victor), pledge that it won't happen again, try to be a better person online, and spend less time online.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

That "whoa" was from me, accidentally posting under my wife's Gmail.

Crude said...

Hey Codg. Scrapped the first woah in case that's supposed to be a private email.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Thanks, yeah, I was about to write you about that, but you're savvy. ;)