U.N. bashing thread

[Skeptic]

Catholic Church, a body with a rich history of anti-semitism, bureacrtisation, corruption and scandal.

Quite true; but, boy, did the UN catch up fast in those fields!

It took the Catholic church over 1000 years to reach the point of venality and corruption exemplified in the crusades, for instance, or by the Renaissance popes; and at least the result of that was all that wonderful artwork. Even then, there were occassional flashes of honesty and bravery on their part, such as the pope who stayed in the plague-stricken Avignion during the black death, and openly declared the jews were not to blame for it. The UN passes that degree of corruption without breaking a sweat--their $12 billion bribery scandal is the largest in history, easily surpassing any graft even the most corrupt pope ever took; and for all the sexual corruption of some of the popes, some of which engaged in orgies in the Vatican, none--so far as I know--kept a brothel of children.

Or take the warm welcome the holocaust-denying Iranian thug who openly declares his goal is to destroy the jewish state with nuclear weapons recieved in the UN last month. You really have to go back to the depths of the middle ages to find the church heirarchy warmly welcoming someone who is that antisemitic, if only because of its belief that the jews must survive in order to be eventually converted. Even people like Torquemada at least allowed the jews who converted to live.

If this is how the UN looks now, one can hardly imagine how corrupt and venial and antisemitic it will become if it were to last as long as the Catholic church did.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The catholic Church, to name one, also runs many charities and helps many poor. It has no lack of scandals itself, including sexual ones, but if it was remotely as corrupt, inefficient, and involved in scandal as the UN, you'd be screaming your head off that the Church's good work should not protect it from prosecution, and that a more efficient and trustworthy organization is urgently needed.


...snip...

This is a strawman - no one has put forward this argument in this thread.

 

[Darat]

Skeptic can you provide any proof for your allegations that the UN is a particularly anti-Semitic organisation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Quite true; but, boy, did the UN catch up fast in those fields!

It took the Catholic church over 1000 years to reach the point of venality and corruption exemplified in the crusades, for instance, or by the Renaissance popes; and at least the result of that was all that wonderful artwork. Even then, there were occassional flashes of honesty and bravery on their part, such as the pope who stayed in the plague-stricken Avignion during the black death, and openly declared the jews were not to blame for it. The UN passes that degree of corruption without breaking a sweat--their $12 billion bribery scandal is the largest in history, easily surpassing any graft even the most corrupt pope ever took; and for all the sexual corruption of some of the popes, some of which engaged in orgies in the Vatican, none--so far as I know--kept a brothel of children.

Oh, man, you really need to pick up on things, if you want to argue like this...

The Catholic Church is one long story of sordid business. It has always been mired in politics on many levels, it has always had its scandals.

Since you are so eager to compare the Catholic Church with the UN, do you think the Catholic Church is more corrupt today than, say, during the Crusades? Or during the Inquisition?

 

[Geckko]

Catholic Church, a body with a rich history of anti-semitism, bureacrtisation, corruption and scandal.

That appears to be a very appropriate analogy.

Most people who defend the Catholic Church its crimes do so on the basis of the good works it does.

They also tend to say that if it didn't exist we would find a need to invent it.

 

[fuelair]

Though I've been on this forum for about 5 years now, there are still some views of right-wing Americans that I cannot get a handle on.

One of them is the hatred of the United Nations.

Yes, I understand that countries and philosophies and leaders that they don't like are members of the UN. These happen to exist in our world and I find it hard to see how one could have a United Nations which excludes that which other members don't like. How would that be a United Nations?

And yes, I understand that the Security Council of the UN has not had as many "successes" under its belt as could have been hoped for.

The UN is a lot more than the Security Council. And it is an institution which in many countries, including Denmark, carries authority. But let that lie for a minute.

What I don't understand is the direct frothing hatred of the UN.

Hence, you right-wingers out there, let this be the thread where you can not only unleash your venom but hopefully accompany it with an explanation.

Oddly, I am a libral Democrat and I am not thrilled with the UN - and I believe (since I have specifically heard this from others of my persuasion directly) that I am not alone in this.

 

[CFLarsen]

That appears to be a very appropriate analogy.

Most people who defend the Catholic Church its crimes do so on the basis of the good works it does.

They also tend to say that if it didn't exist we would find a need to invent it.

Do you think the Catholic Church is more corrupt today than, say, during the Crusades? Or during the Inquisition?

 

[a_unique_person]

So why do you protect the UN merely because it does some good works? That should not protect it from criticism.

The UN should be criticised. The criticism of the UN is not because of it's failings, but because it exists.

 

[Geckko]

Do you think the Catholic Church is more corrupt today than, say, during the Crusades? Or during the Inquisition?

Hard to say, wouldn't you think?

Do you think the protection of child molesters today is more or less morally (even legally) wrong than waging war on the basis of religigion a few hundred years ago?

 

[a_unique_person]

That appears to be a very appropriate analogy.

Most people who defend the Catholic Church its crimes do so on the basis of the good works it does.

They also tend to say that if it didn't exist we would find a need to invent it.

Given that the catholic church was created on two completely false premises, the existence of god, and it's claim that it is the one, true faith, I don't see at all why it ever had to be created if it didn't exist.

 

[Geckko]

Given that the catholic church was created on two completely false premises, the existence of god, and it's claim that it is the one, true faith, I don't see at all why it ever had to be created if it didn't exist.

The question isn't whether you would see the need to create it but whether a wider body of people ("we") would see the need to create it.

Given the ongoing demand for religous instutitions I think we can take that as being just as self evident as an observation that "we" would see the need to create the UN if it didn't exist.

 

[Huntster]

....Given the ongoing demand for religous instutitions I think we can take that as being just as self evident as an observation that "we" would see the need to create the UN if it didn't exist.

We would, and we did.

The problem is that it's not working the way we'd like.

So, do we kill it, or fix it?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, do we kill it, or fix it?

Work to fix it. Be patient. Expect it to be difficult. Don't take the easy way out, throw up hands and give up. That's a loser's approach.

UN isn't going to be perfect, but I think it can achieve a "good enough" standard.

DR

 

[SirPhilip]

One of them is the hatred of the United Nations.

Capitalism has made it this way. Old fashioned fascism will take it away.
You know that's all I have to say...
You know that's all I have to say..

 

[PogoPedant]

Work to fix it. Be patient. Expect it to be difficult. Don't take the easy way out, throw up hands and give up. That's a loser's approach.

UN isn't going to be perfect, but I think it can achieve a "good enough" standard.

DR

Hooray! We have a winner!

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, they are.

They are helping millions of people, of all ages, all around the world. With food, education, health, water, better life.

Or, just getting a life at all.

Evidence?

 

[Mycroft]

Skeptic can you provide any proof for your allegations that the UN is a particularly anti-Semitic organisation?

http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+a...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

 

[Mycroft]

Do you think the Catholic Church is more corrupt today than, say, during the Crusades? Or during the Inquisition?

What difference would that make in a discussion on the corruption of the United Nations?

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Start with polio.

http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+a...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

A google search is not proof.

What difference would that make in a discussion on the corruption of the United Nations?

If the Catholic Church can reform, then can others.

Why don't you ask Skeptic that question? He brought up the Catholic church, not me.

 

[Mycroft]

Start with polio.

You mentioned nine different UN programs. This is evidence of past success of one of them.

A google search is not proof.

It is certainly a way to find the proof. Besides, it mirrors how Darat has presented evidence in the past.

If the Catholic Church can reform, then can others.

Is that your argument? That the UN is bad but it can reform?

Why don't you ask Skeptic that question? He brought up the Catholic church, not me.

Because he only compared the UN to the Catholic Church. He didn't try to claim that the Church's past corruption in relation to present corruption is in any way relevent to the corruption of the UN. You did, so I aksed you the question.

Care to answer it?