“I didn’t say [the Church role in oppression] was unique”

Then why single it out unless you were just engaging in standard left-liberal toss away boilerplate? Why bring it up at all? It is so off the wall to think it’s part of a lazy political narrative?

I’m saying, why go after the Church at all? Saami society is clearly regressively similar to other (Finnish) social models, which mean that most societal influences are not religious. I don’t have a problem with your reaching back into Christianity’s origins, I was asking why you went after religion in what is a mostly a secular society. There is a similar strange political attack going on in a Canadian child abuse scandal right now with the same narrative to it: the Church is somehow responsible for a huge (ten times the society at large) amount of male pedophilia in Indian reservations. The Church was the narrative until it was noted that fewer than 15% of the Indians were actually Catholic (and that attacks on boys were uniform through socviety, not concentrated among Christians) it eventually was shown to be a long standing societal problem among the tribes since before they were Christian. So when I see another set of Church-based accusation levelled at another minority, I notice a trend.

“I [recognize the unique role of the Church] too. Where did I say that Christianity doesn’t a “unique historical role in the advancement of the human race”?”

By enlisting it as the role of oppressor of Saami women, an idea I find highly dubious (and find your source a rather boringly predictable example for Finnish media to focus on: Finnish higher political society being fans of the more agressive French ‘le secularisme’ instead of the more neutral secularist position of the anglosphere).

Oh, and speaking of that article there was an honest miscommunication with that:

me: ““Which, of course, fools like this ignore because it suits their sad, pathetic little point scoring politics.”

you: “I’m not point scoring anything.”

Argh. I should have noted that I meant the report was point scoring, not you. I’m actually impressed you didn’t fly off the handle. You kept an even keel in responding when you thought it was you. Good on you. Sorry. I did mean the report, not you. It’s not that I don’t do it, but I would like the credit for it when I do. Not you, them.

Ok, I’ll assume I was wrong in my accusation that you were trodding down a well-worn ideological path. Let’s say for argument it wasn’t a frontal attack on the Church- do you see how easily one could assume from the sparcity of your comments and the complete lack of other context how it looks like that?