Comments on Sauce for the GanderTypePad2013-04-12T21:32:18ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/04/sauce-for-the-gander/comments/atom.xml/Robert Hockett commented on 'Sauce for the Gander'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017eea34e361970d2013-04-13T01:01:50Z2013-04-13T01:01:50ZRobert HockettI appreciate your effort to distinguish, Thales (as I appreciate your name), but I remain skeptical (call me 'Sextus Empiricus'...<p>I appreciate your effort to distinguish, Thales (as I appreciate your name), but I remain skeptical (call me 'Sextus Empiricus' for present purposes). </p>
<p>On point 1, please reexamine the first paragraph - and indeed even the title - of Patrick's post. (I first linked to the wrong post, which might be the one that you visited, but have since corrected the link.)</p>
<p>On point 2, the leadership referenced in Claim 1 did not approve - or even know of - the problematical message. As the story to which Patrick linked (in a notoriously rightwing organ, no less) indicates, the leadership and institution expressly denied, with evident embarassment, knowledge of the clumsy assimilation that so exercised Patrick, and pulled the slide once they found out. It accordingly seems to me that the institution officially/publicly endorsed that clumsy assimilation no more than the Church officially/publicly endorsed child abuse. As it happens, moreover, no general or colonel or any one else in the Army Reserve's 'Chain of Command' seems to have been accused of covering anything up or hiding the 'perpetrator' in Case 1. They corrected the mistake as soon as it was called to their attention, and publicly distanced themselves from the doofus. It seems to me, then, that the institution in Case 1 is no more to be taken, on the basis of one doofussy slide show, to have a policy of assimilating Catholics to jihadists (let alone planning to make war on them), than is the institution in Case 2 to be taken, on the basis of a surprising number of apparently paedophile Priests and priest-protective Bishops, to have a policy in favor of paedophilia or paedophilia-protection. </p>
<p>Thanks for your thoughts, though, even if I do not yet find them to hold water (if you'll pardon the appreciative allusion to your name's other bearer)!</p>
<p>Bob </p>Thales commented on 'Sauce for the Gander'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017eea34c25c970d2013-04-13T00:28:48Z2013-04-13T00:28:48ZThalesI think there are two flaws in the post: 1. First, a minor quibble: It's unfair to characterize Patrick's point...<p>I think there are two flaws in the post:</p>
<p>1. First, a minor quibble: It's unfair to characterize Patrick's point as "the Army endorses that assimilation and, as an institution that makes war against alQaeda, now plans a war against Catholics." The first part of the statement is a fair characterization (i.e, the Army endorses that assimilation) but the second part is unfair (ie, the "now plans a war against Catholics"). (Now one can disagree whether the first part is true or not -- that is, one can disagree with Patrick's notion that the Army, as an institution, has endorsed the idea that Catholics are equivalent to alQaeda and that, instead, it was one lone wacky presenter who doesn't reflect institutional policy -- but Patrick isn't saying that the Army plans to start blowing bombing Catholic churches.)</p>
<p>2. My main point: I think the two claims presented aren't equivalent. Two claims are presented with an objectionable policy. In Claim 1, the objectionable policy is "Catholicism is equal to alQaeda terrorism"; in Claim 2, the objectionable policy is "child abuse is okay." But in Claim 1, the objectionable policy is publicly approved by the institution's leadership and publicly promulgated to the members of the institution as being the institution's policy (at least, that's Patrick's position consists of, which one can disagree with -- see parag. 1 above). In Claim 2, the objectionable policy is not publicly approved by the institution's leadership and is not publicly promulgated to the members of the institution as being the institution's policy --- instead, the objectionable policy is a private behavior that the leadership disapproves of (at least publicly) and does not endorse or promulgate to the institution's members.</p>Nancy commented on 'Sauce for the Gander'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2017c3890d2b2970b2013-04-12T22:01:32Z2013-04-12T22:01:32ZNancyProfessor Hockett, for the sake of clarity, I think it is important that before you have Patrick answer your question,...<p>Professor Hockett, for the sake of clarity, I think it is important that before you have Patrick answer your question, you are aware that it was not The Faithful who were responsible for the abuse crisis in The Catholic Church, it was persons who denied the Church's teaching on sexual morality.</p>