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

[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.