So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[shoju]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02...?hpt=hp_t1

At least according to the 2nd craziest man on american tv/radio.

I giggled. A lot.

[FireIceTalon]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02...?hpt=hp_t1

At least according to the 2nd craziest man on american tv/radio.

I giggled. A lot.

Who is the first craziest?

Yea, the pope is just sooooooooo Marxist, despite his ultra-homophobic and chauvinistic views towards the lgbt community and women respectively. Then again, this isn't as crazy as some other shit I've heard -I've seen Republicans actually call Hitler (yes, the most anti-communist, anti-worker, racist and reactionary dictator the world has ever seen) a Marxist. Calling the pope a Marxist? It's still pretty damn crazy, but this is par for the course for goons like Rush. Sadly, half the populace will actually believe him.

[kandrathe]

... I've seen Republicans...

As if they had the monopoly on doing and saying stupid stuff? I'm not implying Libertarians or any aggregated mass of humanity are more brilliant either. Limbaugh is one shock jock for about 14 million weekly like minded rightists. That's about 14/230 or 6% of terrestrial radio listeners. Impressive, but still a slim minority. He intentionally goes out of his way to dance on the boundaries of acceptable and be controversial -- its good for ratings, and good for his bottom line. He's not good for Republicans, or their cause -- and tends to "eat his own". Meaning, he's more likely to impact who the far right Republicans choose, than to sway anyone left of Dick Cheney.

I'd say the Pope is being Christian -- the Pope was asking government leaders to take heed, and "broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and health care" His message is not to politicians, but the rank and file of his Christian flock. He's not espousing Marx, from my interpretation, but he's certainly a 99%er. Not news. CNN is also perhaps also making hay from controversy.

Evangelii Gaudium

It is in fact ironic that within the document the Pope says (page 30-31), "If we attempt to put all things in a missionary key, this will also affect the way we communicate the message. In today's world of instant communication and occasionally biased media coverage, the message we preach runs a greater risk of being distorted or reduced to some of its secondary aspects. In this way certain issues which are part of the Church’s moral teaching are taken out of the context which gives them their meaning. The biggest problem is when the message we preach then seems identified with those secondary aspects which, important as they are, do not in and of themselves convey the heart of Christ’s message. We need to be realistic and not assume that our audience understands the full background to what we are saying, or is capable of relating what we say to the very heart of the Gospel which gives it meaning, beauty and attractiveness."

I'm just saying... if you cast a broad net on humanity, your gonna come up with stupid -- and in this day and age, it'll most likely end up on the Internet for posterity. In this case, my vote for stupid is... Daniel Burke who should have left the manure in the manure pile, and not reacted to the shock jocks shock.

[FireIceTalon]

Liberals say plenty of stupid stuff. I've seen plenty of self-proclaimed socialists and anarchists say stupid stuff as well. But nothing quite of the magnitude of calling Hitler, or even the Pope, a Marxist. The Pope cannot be Marxist by default, since religion (a form of idealism) is completely incompatible with Marxism's 'materialist conception of history'. One can be religious and be socialist, but that is another thing entirely. Socialism ≠ Marxism. Though had Rush called the Pope "socialist", he would still be quite wrong. But yes, Rush is a troll, so him spouting such drivel shouldn't really surprise anyone. *shrugs*

Politically speaking, the Pope is a typical bourgeois liberal - nothing more nothing less. Critical of some of the negatives of capitalism, but merely wanting to contain it (or reform it), and not overhaul it completely (as in Marxism).

[kandrathe]

But nothing quite of the magnitude of calling Hitler, or even the Pope, a Marxist.

Well, you have a low threshold to stupidity "magnitude". Stay away from Twitter.

The Pope cannot be Marxist by default, since religion (a form of idealism) is completely incompatible with Marxism's 'materialist conception of history'. One can be religious and be socialist, but that is another thing entirely. Socialism ≠ Marxism. Though had Rush called the Pope "socialist", he would still be quite wrong.

I think in religious circles there would be more concern of creeping Liberation Theology in the new Pope. But in reading the aforementioned tome, I didn't see the twisted justification for revolutionary action which characterizes LT. (I still have my first edition LT book by Gustavo Gutiérrez).

Politically speaking, the Pope is a typical bourgeois liberal - nothing more nothing less. Critical of some of the negatives of capitalism, but merely wanting to contain it (or reform it), and not overhaul it completely (as in Marxism).

I'm encouraged by the "lead by example" of this Pope, who is attempting to shift the "wealthy entrenched Catholic Church body" toward frugality, humility and aiding the poor. Which is a far cry from where they've been for the last 1000 (or so) years. We shall see whether the Church follows their leader, or ignores him.

[DeeBye]

Yeah. The rich taking care of the poor is really out of touch with what the Bible actually teaches.

[shoju]

Yeah. The rich taking care of the poor is really out of touch with what the Bible actually teaches.

and shows how truly out of touch some of the insane talking heads in this country truly are.

[kandrathe]

Yeah. The rich taking care of the poor is really out of touch with what the Bible actually teaches.

The mainline Christian concept is that compassion is crucial, and worldly things (like wealth) are not crucial. To pursue worldly things over faith is considered idolatry (not so much the calf now, but the gold). Franciscans, like the new Pope, are the most renowned mendicants (rely on charity) of the Catholic church. The hardest part of being a Christian (imho), is that so called "people of the book" are some of the worst sinners and hypocrites (now and historically). Like other beliefs requiring discipline, it remains difficult to be the only vegetarian in a room full of avowed omni/carnivores. Religion like other popular social movements is often twisted to justify horrific attitudes and crimes against otherwise innocent people.

I would not want you to confuse Franciscans with prosperity gospel, while there are the same charismatic elements. But, I do believe 1/2 of what is "advertised on TV" Christianity is related to the ~17% of Christians who might be considered prosperity gospel adherents (aka. following the snake oil salesmen "gimme all your money" aka Joel Osteen), with the other 1/2 of the noise being the slim minority of hard line (extremist) fundamentalists bucking the current social norms.

[FireIceTalon]

To be honest, I don't blame Christianity on some of the horrors committed in its name (such as The Inquisition) anymore than one should blame the human suffering that took place in the former Soviet Union on Marxism, or the Nazi regime on Darwinism. It is silly to do so. Theoretical frameworks and ideologies don't hurt and kill people, just as guns and knives do not - people hurt and kill people. A lot of atheist historians will blame The Inquisition on Christianity, but I attribute its mass genocide and ethnocentric horrors to the material development of capitalism rather than the spreading of Old Testament values, as chock filled as it may be with genocide, despotism, slavery, oppression, and various other crimes against humanity.

My main problems with Christianity, and all religion as whole, are that it pacifies and divides us, and makes us believe in strange, unnatural things. Not to mention, it is extremely authoritarian, dogmatic, and I dont think it has or can have any material praxis in improving the human condition or society as a whole. That being said, I have met a number of very nice Christians, but that is a very different thing entirely.

[DeeBye]

The mainline Christian concept is that compassion is crucial, and worldly things (like wealth) are not crucial. To pursue worldly things over faith is considered idolatry (not so much the calf now, but the gold).

I know all of this, probably more than the average person. I attended Roman Catholic schools well into high school. I've read the Bible more than once, cover to cover. I was an altar boy for a few years.

I remember watching Pat Robertson launching into a diatribe against the Mars Pathfinder mission in 1996. I was just idly flipping through channels and came upon his broadcast. He was saying that Earth belongs to Man, but the Heavens belong to God - so any interest in anything beyond our atmosphere is akin to idolatry. He said that the space-seeking idolaters should be stoned to death. His message was broadcast to me via satellite.

Pat Robertson is absolutely filthy rich, based almost solely on begging for money from his followers in the name of Christianity. His use of that money to make more money is questionable at best, and criminal at worst.

None of what Pat Robertson says jives with what I was taught about the Bible and Christian beliefs. He sits upon a throne of gold and judges those that he deems unworthy. He gets away with it because of his vast wealth. If that's not idolatry, I don't know what it.

This describes almost 100% of the Christian politicians (and head talkers like Rush and O'Reilly), and it makes me facepalm. They are so incredibly hypocritical that it makes my head hurt. They are rich, yet strive to take away or prevent benefits for the poor. Healthcare for the poor? Nope. Feed the hungry? Nope. Educate the poor? Not a chance.

My Christian education taught me that the poorest among us deserve the best that we can give them.

Prosperity theology is just an excuse that rich Christians use to justify their greed.

[LochnarITB]

the poorest among us deserve the best that we can give them.

[kandrathe]

The mainline Christian concept is that compassion is crucial, and worldly things (like wealth) are not crucial. To pursue worldly things over faith is considered idolatry (not so much the calf now, but the gold).

I know all of this, probably more than the average person. I attended Roman Catholic schools well into high school. I've read the Bible more than once, cover to cover. I was an altar boy for a few years.

I remember watching Pat Robertson launching into a diatribe against the Mars Pathfinder mission in 1996. I was just idly flipping through channels and came upon his broadcast. He was saying that Earth belongs to Man, but the Heavens belong to God - so any interest in anything beyond our atmosphere is akin to idolatry. He said that the space-seeking idolaters should be stoned to death. His message was broadcast to me via satellite.

Pat Robertson is absolutely filthy rich, based almost solely on begging for money from his followers in the name of Christianity. His use of that money to make more money is questionable at best, and criminal at worst.

None of what Pat Robertson says jives with what I was taught about the Bible and Christian beliefs. He sits upon a throne of gold and judges those that he deems unworthy. He gets away with it because of his vast wealth. If that's not idolatry, I don't know what it.

This describes almost 100% of the Christian politicians (and head talkers like Rush and O'Reilly), and it makes me facepalm. They are so incredibly hypocritical that it makes my head hurt. They are rich, yet strive to take away or prevent benefits for the poor. Healthcare for the poor? Nope. Feed the hungry? Nope. Educate the poor? Not a chance.

My Christian education taught me that the poorest among us deserve the best that we can give them.

Prosperity theology is just an excuse that rich Christians use to justify their greed.

Aye. Surveys have shown that the philosophies of prosperity gospel, even with its snake oil charm, comprises less than 17% of the Christian population. Less than that are adherents.

I do compartmentalize Church and State. So, I don't really care what religious beliefs drive Rush, or O'Reilly, or any politician. And, we shouldn't be too concerned about prominent religious persons (except in how it shapes their theology) , or the Pope's political leanings, unless we happen to live in Vatican City. The people who are in favor of smaller government aren't heartless, wanting to deny impoverished people food, shelter, or health care. The arguments are more about who qualifies as impoverished, how much do they get, and how long should we support them. Opting more for a safety net, and not a hammock. Obviously some people will be unable to support themselves, and then it falls upon others to help to support their basic needs.

I would argue that as a part of our history much of those others are charitable organizations. The question comes down to the level of your faith in humanity. Do you think people in your community will step up to help others, or do you want to use the force of taxation to redistribute the money from those who have earned it to those who need it? This is not a black and white decision, since both approaches are needed. It comes down to which shade of gray you prefer. Money = power too, so controlling vast sums of money make you powerful. There is justifiable fear over what a US government would do with more power.

As it stands now in the US (and probably everywhere), there is vast inequality in how the rich (top 5%), and the upper to middle 45% are treated. 50% of adults in the US pay very little to no taxes. The people in the upper to middle range are double income families, people with great jobs, or people with good jobs living in expensive areas. The bulk of the burden of our ballooning deficit and debt falls mostly upon a small number of upper-middle people to carry. With the wane of the baby boom, the needs are growing while the number of supporters is dwindling.

We are just at the beginning of a social support crisis.

To be honest, I don't blame Christianity on some of the horrors committed in its name (such as The Inquisition) anymore than one should blame the human suffering that took place in the former Soviet Union on Marxism, or the Nazi regime on Darwinism. It is silly to do so. Theoretical frameworks and ideologies don't hurt and kill people, just as guns and knives do not - people hurt and kill people. A lot of atheist historians will blame The Inquisition on Christianity, but I attribute its mass genocide and ethnocentric horrors to the material development of capitalism rather than the spreading of Old Testament values, as chock filled as it may be with genocide, despotism, slavery, oppression, and various other crimes against humanity.

First, the first Inquisitions began in the 12th century in France. The civilized world was something more like a feudal theocracy depending on the stance of the head man in charge. It was around this time that Templars began what would become banking. The earliest forms of Mercantilism were late 15th century. The inquisition, when used as a political tool, was a way to homogenize fealty to the Church and King. Next, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence of the Catholic Church directly committing "genocide, despotism, slavery, oppression, and various other crimes against humanity." It was frequently the political actors with State power (with perhaps Church complicity) who ordered the troops, and headsman. Finally, this brutality was not uncommon. Historical context is important here.

My main problems with Christianity, and all religion as whole, are that it pacifies and divides us, and makes us believe in strange, unnatural things. Not to mention, it is extremely authoritarian, dogmatic, and I don't think it has or can have any material praxis in improving the human condition or society as a whole. That being said, I have met a number of very nice Christians, but that is a very different thing entirely.

My ancestors pillaged and enslaved people in much of Northern Europe for about 1000 years attempting to die in glorious combat in hopes of reaching Valhalla. Pacification is sometimes a good thing for a prosperous society. I don't see much difference from the common barbarity of that age to what occurs on our streets. MS13, Bloods, and Crips are the new Visigoths, Saracens, and Huns. We haven't evolved much in 1000 years.

[shoju]

Just one slight nitpick.

Next, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence of the Catholic Church directly committing "genocide, despotism, slavery, oppression, and various other crimes against humanity.

As long as you look from the 12th century onward, Yes. I would agree, that as time has gone on, the church has become less "terrible" about these things, but their history, even in a Post AD Historical Timeline, one could make a definitive argument that the Crusades, were in fact, the very epitome of many of the aforementioned atrocities.

I would also debate that

My main problems with Christianity, and all religion as whole, are that it pacifies and divides us

Isn't necessarily true either. Christianity has it's fair share of wars fought in it's name, Their God, even more wars fought in his name. Then you have the terrorism, murders, violence, that range from the Crusades, to Modern Extremist Terrorism, Ireland/England, The Abortion clinic/dr murders, racism, slavery, and on and on, that have all been done either "In God's Name", or "because the word of God says so", or "because the word of god claims it right and just".

While I would 100% agree that Religion, and Sectarianism only further serve to divide humanity, I don't believe that it has done much to pacify anyone. Not when, in the 21st century, we still have Pastors that would advocate high voltage fenced death camps for those who live a life they don't agree with, Pastors advocating violence towards your gay child, Pastor's who thought they could rape the gay away.

I could go on, but really, that's just piling on for the sake of making them look bad. If I were going to do that, I'd feel the need to start going through each denomination, and then each Abrahamic religion sect in the US, and showing the ugly side of all of them, and I'm just not looking to bash religion, just make the point that they aren't doing a good job of teaching pacification.

[kandrathe]

... one could make a definitive argument that the Crusades, were in fact, the very epitome of many of the aforementioned atrocities. ...

Pope Urban II urged people to wrest the Holy Land from "that wicked race", but he didn't pay for or field any armies. The ones that weren't slaughtered outright were led by various nobility. Complicit, yes. Are you also counting the atrocities committed by the Muslims on the Europeans?

Isn't necessarily true either. Christianity has it's fair share of wars fought in it's name, Their God, even more wars fought in his name. Then you have the terrorism, murders, violence, that range from the Crusades, to Modern Extremist Terrorism, Ireland/England, The Abortion clinic/dr murders, racism, slavery, and on and on, that have all been done either "In God's Name", or "because the word of God says so", or "because the word of god claims it right and just".

It is people with bad wiring who do this, perhaps inspired by some hate monger, or a twisted understanding of Christianity (or other life philosophy).

While I would 100% agree that Religion, and Sectarianism only further serve to divide humanity, I don't believe that it has done much to pacify anyone. Not when, in the 21st century, we still have -- pastors that would advocate high voltage fenced death camps for those who live a life they don't agree with, pastors advocating violence towards your gay child, pastor's who thought they could rape the gay away.

Humanity is pre-disposed to be divided. We are tribal, and suspicious of outsiders. I'd say it is probably an evolved innate behavior. Biologically, outsiders bring new diseases, and spread infestations. But, see also my previous point about bad wiring -- there is no "test" to ensure the word Pastor means anything more than that they've (possibly) been ordained by their particular often twisted fundamentalist denomination. Some anecdotes of idiots do not convict the millions.

I could go on, but really, that's just piling on for the sake of making them look bad. If I were going to do that, I'd feel the need to start going through each denomination, and then each Abrahamic religion sect in the US, and showing the ugly side of all of them, and I'm just not looking to bash religion, just make the point that they aren't doing a good job of teaching pacification.

They are all sinners, right? But, your issues with religion are based on your {bad} experiences.

[shoju]

Point 1:
It's a little more than complicit when you are asking people to go slaughter people on your behalf. Trying to say that is complicit, and nothing more is not a very realistic approach.

Point2:
That doesn't change the fact that these things were done by religious people, and these things done in the name of religion show that it does not pacify the populace.

Point 3:
I'm not trying to convict millions. Otherwise, I would have brought up the super awesome funding that people like Focus on the Family gets, or some of the atrocious groups that work to further perpetuate stereotypes. I could convict millions on those accounts, but I purposely left them out, because that wasn't my intent. My point was to show that it isn't a pacifistic teaching coming from the pulpit. And you can do a little research / read those links I posted, these aren't people ordained by the holy baptist church of bob, or the WBC. they are from nationally recognized, nationally run denominations.

But since I've now brought it up, we can use groups like Focus on the Family, and their ilk, coupled with the record that we have of pastors who are still out there, preaching the approval of violence towards LGBT, towards the continued subservience of women as a lesser to man, and on and on, to show that the current religious structure in Christianity is not pacifistic in practice. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't pacifistic sects of modern christianity, or that there aren't entire denominations that do embrace the "legitimate" teachings of the New Testament.

Point 4:
If you read the bible, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. Sometimes, there are groups of christians who forget that, especially when it fits to further divide the populace, protect their own interests, persecute those who have a differing viewpoint, or lifestyle than their own.

As an aside, the the pre-disposition to being divided, Sectarianism, pushes this to an extreme, by working to further create derision amongst a group of believers. This is beyond the normal "divisionist" behavior of the human condition.

Also, While my current posts are focusing on Christianity, I would hold most other world religions (short of buddhism) to the same standards, and point to the same issues associated with all of them.

[FireIceTalon]

It pacifies people in the sense that those who follow its doctrine submit themselves to the will of a perceived supernatural entity, in addition to being used as a tool to control large groups of people by having them be convinced (despite not having a shred of empirical evidence) that the "next life" will be better (or that there even is a "next" life), and also being used a crutch in the current life for making an inhumane world feel or seem more humane. As a result, many act against their own rational material interests because of the ideological control that religion has on many of its followers - whether it is on their own accord or by the power of a ruling class. Or, in Marxist terms, false consciousness. When he said "religion was the opium of the masses", there was more than grain of truth to the statement - although I would argue that Nationalism is beginning to override religion as the most prominent form of false consciousness. One might argue that it already has been for some time.

[DeeBye]

Surveys have shown that the philosophies of prosperity gospel, even with its snake oil charm, comprises less than 17% of the Christian population. Less than that are adherents.

I'd like to see links to those surveys. I know you have them

My main beef with prosperity theology is that the rich people get a large audience to preach it, simply because they are rich. How many of the remaining 83% Christian speakers do you see with their own radio shows and TV networks that reach millions of people? I'd suggest that the 17% are worried about this new Pope because he has a platform to reach out to billions with a core Christian message that terrifies them (and their projected earnings for the upcoming quarter).

I do compartmentalize Church and State. So, I don't really care what religious beliefs drive Rush, or O'Reilly, or any politician.

This may come as a shock, but most people are not like you.

[Hammerskjold]

Franciscans, like the new Pope,

Hmm, I thought he was from the Jesuit Branch.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...301218.htm

He adopted a Franciscan stage name, but from what I understand Franciscans and Jesuits are distinct from each other.

[Alram]

Christ was a Jew. The earliest Christians were all Jews. Yet from the Council of Nicaea in 325 until the 2nd half of the 20th century, the official Catholic positions regarding Jews and the Jewish faith were hostile. For centuries the Jews were persecuted. So, what does that say about what it means to be Christian?

[kandrathe]

Christ was a Jew. The earliest Christians were all Jews. Yet from the Council of Nicaea in 325 until the 2nd half of the 20th century, the official Catholic positions regarding Jews and the Jewish faith were hostile. For centuries the Jews were persecuted. So, what does that say about what it means to be Christian?

I'm not a very big fan of Constantine.

I think TJ said it best, "Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson, January 19, 1810

Franciscans, like the new Pope,

Hmm, I thought he was from the Jesuit Branch.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...301218.htm

He adopted a Franciscan stage name, but from what I understand Franciscans and Jesuits are distinct from each other.

Aye. My bad. I often confuse them.