If anyone does any serious research into some of the more recent tragedies in Africa, a lot of well respected “good” organisations come out of it looking very bad.
* The bishop in Rwanda who encouraged tribal genocide, but whose proscecution was obstructed by the Church. If he is guilty, then is the Church guilty of collaboration by virtue of their obstruction? I suppose the same principle could be extended to the Catholic Church’s protection of paedophile priests in the UK and US, which is threatening to bankrupt it from litigation.
* The complicance of the charities with Robert Mugabe’s policy of only allowing those who voted for him to receive food aid, with opposition voters told to ask Tony Blair for food. Are the charities guuilty of complicity?
By: Comet - 27th March 2003 at 13:34
Originally posted by Tempest
[I might suggest some charities and the people who work for them should be locked up in Guatanamo Bay! ]
I agree with this little snippet from Tempest – I can think of one organisation and its members who should be transported to Guantanamo Bay, they are so fond of the bloody vermin holed up there that they should be incarcerated with them. Who am I talking about? Amnesty International of course!!
By: frankvw - 26th March 2003 at 19:59
I think people usually justify their unacceptable acts by “God told me to…”
Examples are crusades, inquisition, but also the actions of some french kings, the religious wars preached by some leaders of muslim countries, and many other “religious” dictaded wars…
But so far, in the actual religions (I won’t talk about some which do not exist, nor about sects), I have not seen one who preaches such acts of war, violence, theft, or other.
So, no, the Church, or any other Religious institution, should not be judged. The ones to judge are those who dictated that in the name of God. And I am sure that if the human justice can’t do it, God, however you call him, will judge.
By: Tempest - 26th March 2003 at 17:09
There are a lot of charities that should be prosecuted for war crimes. I think it is shocking how these vampires prey on liberal guilt and get away with it. I’m not going to mention any names because it might be slander, but I can think of a few charities which gave food to Somali warlords for example, knowing the warlords would only sell it on. Also a lot of charities in Africa, the type that advertise in Guardian regularly, like to “discover” famines or crisises in Africa to keep the money flowing into their coffers. The trouble with these famine charities is that they impose a culture of hand-outs on poor people who become so dependant on aid they forget basic skills like farming.
The causes of famine in Africa and other places are complicated, but often the situation is caused by increasing population numbers on an environment that simply cannot support extra numbers. Simply giving out medical care, not in itself a bad thing, often increases populations and this deacreases available food. One solution would be to impliment a total strategy of western style family planning alongside giving out western medicine. But many aid charities have little idea of these kinds of population dynamics and continue to exploit this cycle of poverty with weepy ads in newspapers etc to encourage people to assuage their middle class guilt by handing over money, ostensibly for a good cause. The tragedy with this kind of emotional response is that it often ignores the hard and complicated facts of life in developing countries. As well as the fact that many charities have a vested interest in sustaining their “causes.”
I might suggest some charities and the people who work for them should be locked up in Guatanamo Bay! Emotional terrorists who exploit the guilt of others to extend to cycle of poverty in order to massage their own “save the planet” egos.
By: Geforce - 26th March 2003 at 01:57
Yes, but I still believe one should not neglect its religious past. I`m still convinced that, despites the Crusades, the Roman Catholic Church ie has brought more good to the west than bad. So for all of you guys who think I`m anti-religious, I`m not.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th March 2003 at 23:14
..why does it matter?
I don’t care if you work for GOD…because if you commit a crime against humanity KNOWINGLY and in an orderly planned fashion, then yes you should be punished without question. But, Arthur, please don’t just name “Western” religions, why such guilts? People everywhere have claimed genocide as work for GOD. And they should be punished. The question is what does “serious consequences” really mean?
By: Arthur - 25th March 2003 at 22:03
The inquisition, the crusades, religious expansion at the cost of native populations in South America, Africa, Asia and the Baltics, Northern Ireland…
If you think i’m going to believe in a god which was the inspirating factor for abovementioned horrors, you’re wrong.
By: Hand87_5 - 25th March 2003 at 19:29
Too many atrocities have been done and still are “in the name of God”
By: kev35 - 25th March 2003 at 19:23
I don’t know enough about the charities but I do believe the Catholic Church should be brought to book over their continued covert support for paedophile priests. I suppose the Church believes it to be alright if it is done in the name of God. One really has to wonder whether this abuse is random or whether it is symptomatic of something far more sinister.
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
March 25, 2003 at 7:07 pm