RE: Damned Jews
April 19, 2011 at 7:10 am
(This post was last modified: April 19, 2011 at 7:11 am by Zenith.)
By the way, I've remembered something.
You know, in politics, if a politician is corrupt (and, for instance, he's stolen something), he is not the only one! So, When accused of it, a lot of politicians defend him, calling it a political reason, and that they are "certain" that the man is "innocent", and accusing the accuser of dirty methods of trying to get rid of their enemies. And when he is judged, and found guilty, they call it that the judges were bribed or something, to do unjust things when there was actually no "real"/"good" evidence, and that X political party is the only guilty for that. Others may try to call this politician which was found guilty that "he has mistaken", that he needs to be forgiven, in an attempt to do something, if it's possible, to get that politician out of the dirt. And ALL THIS is because of good reasons: that politician that was accused might say "but I'm not the only one: X did this, Y did that, etc." Also, there are all kinds of political relations and benefits that would all be gone if they would not try their best to defend their 'friend'.
The same in the religious hierarchy: his 'friends' may fear that he tell what they did, if they do not do everything they can to get him out, and there are all kinds of advantages/benefits, relations that would be lost if they would simply leave him.
Also, I've noticed a strange kind of loyalty of the "religious" people: a layman may defend a certain priest that molested a child in order to defend his church! i.e. he would feel that, by condemning that priest, he would betray his own church. i.e. If you believe the Catholic Pope that he is what he claims to be, you cannot condemn his cardinals, because it would sound like "I'm not catholic!" (betraying his own church). I did notice this kind of attitude.
You know, in politics, if a politician is corrupt (and, for instance, he's stolen something), he is not the only one! So, When accused of it, a lot of politicians defend him, calling it a political reason, and that they are "certain" that the man is "innocent", and accusing the accuser of dirty methods of trying to get rid of their enemies. And when he is judged, and found guilty, they call it that the judges were bribed or something, to do unjust things when there was actually no "real"/"good" evidence, and that X political party is the only guilty for that. Others may try to call this politician which was found guilty that "he has mistaken", that he needs to be forgiven, in an attempt to do something, if it's possible, to get that politician out of the dirt. And ALL THIS is because of good reasons: that politician that was accused might say "but I'm not the only one: X did this, Y did that, etc." Also, there are all kinds of political relations and benefits that would all be gone if they would not try their best to defend their 'friend'.
The same in the religious hierarchy: his 'friends' may fear that he tell what they did, if they do not do everything they can to get him out, and there are all kinds of advantages/benefits, relations that would be lost if they would simply leave him.
Also, I've noticed a strange kind of loyalty of the "religious" people: a layman may defend a certain priest that molested a child in order to defend his church! i.e. he would feel that, by condemning that priest, he would betray his own church. i.e. If you believe the Catholic Pope that he is what he claims to be, you cannot condemn his cardinals, because it would sound like "I'm not catholic!" (betraying his own church). I did notice this kind of attitude.