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

[kandrathe]

As to the Pope (or Catholics at any rate) and Marxists, may I suggest a little research for our OP on a thing called "Liberation Theology" and where it was most common.

Yes. And, particularly in how this Pope addressed it when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I see him seeking more of a Peronista position.

Principally, Bergoglio is critical of LT's use of a Marxist interpretation of biblical thought and ignoring the importance of the primacy of faith in judging reality and inspiring the consequent practice. The seduction of Gustavo Gutiérrez's work is that it accurately appeals to the Christian teaching regarding attitudes towards wealth and the poor. The balancing act Bergoglio performs is to embrace all those things in LT which are Christian theology, while rejecting all those things in LT which are not Christian. Namely, the reliance upon State or "Communista" to provide for earthly needs. My view of the stance of this Pope is that Christians are called upon to do all they can do to help people in need, and that their sins (of commission, or omission) will be judged by God. Bergoglio is equally critical of the state Secularist apparatus promoting anti-religious social activism.

It is new for a Pope to bring Christianity to the Vatican, but it is fundamental to Christian thought, ala Mathew 19 (Matthew, the former corrupt tax collector), "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a rope (or camel - kamilos vs kamêlos) to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. " It is the evident self-conflict of being willing to walk away from all earthly possessions and desires, in order to pursue spiritual treasures. This conflict of spiritual journey is also universal to most of the worlds religions. I believe this Pope is seeking to enact the vision compiled by the conclave of Bishops, and which he authored in Aparecida in 2007.

[FireIceTalon]

This has to be a joke. LT and Marxism have nothing in common in terms of both theory and praxis, especially the latter. Nor does LT use a Marxian analysis of Biblical thought in any shape or form, though I suppose it TRIES to. Any Marxist would laugh at the notion of preaching the words of Jesus (whom most Marxists don't even believe existed) to bring about socialism: It's based on the same idealistic nonsense that Christians tell you when your child gets sick, to bring him/her to a church instead of a hospital (even if LT itself doesn't preach this specifically). LT reduces everything to the supernatural at the end of the day, and it can easily be hijacked by reactionaries to use as a tool for their own ends. Marxism has the distinct advantage in that it can provide a much clearer path to emancipation of humanity by focusing on social relationships and material circumstances than LT could never hope to - because it (Marxism) doesn't rely on the supernatural to explain both causes of material conditions, as well as solutions to change those conditions. Historical Materialism has a much better track record at explaining the world than LT does as well as putting theory into praxis. LT relies entirely on faith. Besides, religion is inherently oppressive, reactionary, and hierarchal anyways, and therefore is antithetical to socialism. Therefore, LT is a paradoxical framework at best. It's also incompatible with Marxism as a system of analysis, since one is set on idealist foundations, and the other on materialist analysis of society - Trying to combine the two is like trying to mix water and oil. I look at this so-called 'Christian communism' as nothing more than some sort of alternative hipster lifestyle, and it is in no way, scientifically speaking, able to provide a realistic praxis for social change (because it provides no scientific or objective understanding or critique of the capitalist mode of production, nor can it). There isn't a single historical example of it doing so.

LT is just another type of utopian socialism that has no relevance for Marxists, religion cannot be used as a tool for human liberation (nor can it be used as some cohesive theoretical framework for understanding the world), and the Pope is not nor ever will be a Marxist. /thread

[shoju]

As to the Pope (or Catholics at any rate) and Marxists, may I suggest a little research for our OP on a thing called "Liberation Theology" and where it was most common.

It was more the point that a republican conservative in the US was calling him a marxist. The same type of people who both hate the marxist ideology, yet so profoundly espouse portions of it as "good ideas" whenever it fits their needs.

This essay written by someone who's opinion I'm fond of, sort of sets the backdrop for my feelings on the whole thing, and says it far better ways than I could have.

Marxist, Nazi, Communist, Socialist, are all buzzwords that the current cookoocachoo conservative movement uses to brand people they don't like, even though their very ideology is rife with those ideas.

EDIT:

and holy shit. I actually agree with FiT's last post....
/heartattack

[FireIceTalon]

Just curios, In what way are republicans ideologically connected to communists/socialists? And where in their analysis of society do they implement (or at least attempt to implement) Marxist thought? I can see those persons who have only a very superficial understanding of Marxism at best as conflating it with LT, but outside of that I don't see this in the contemporary conservative movement at all, but perhaps I'm missing something. They deny Marxism as a legitimate theoretical framework as much as they deny the theory of evolution. I see nothing within Marxism that fits into conservative ideology or their outlook on the world, and moreover Marxism itself isn't an ideology, and is in fact, actually ANTI-ideological. Otherwise, me and conservatives would agree on much, but me and them agree on virtually, NOTHING. Saying their ideology contains elements of communism or Marxism just doesn't compute to me (though I certainly do agree that there is plenty of elements of Fascism within conservatives nowadays, and even Nazism within certain sects or individuals).

[shoju]

It's not as much pure marxism, but base level communism that they seek to use, as influenced by Marxist ideologies. As to the point made in the article I listed, in which the talking heads of the Tea Party gleefully want the government to build and drill for oil in Alaska to pay off the debt, or to sell off the totality of the land, to pay off the debt.

And while this article speaks to the hannity / beck conversation, there are plenty out there in the insaniTEA Party who have embraced this type of ideology. It's only small government, and limited oversight of private lives, when it concerns them. The rest of us are fucked, and they are willing to deny rights, steal our shit, embrace governmental control of industry, and eminent domain of land to achieve their goals.

[kandrathe]

This has to be a joke. LT and Marxism have nothing in common in terms of both theory and praxis, especially the latter. Nor does LT use a Marxian analysis of Biblical thought in any shape or form, though I suppose it TRIES to.

Says the guy who couldn't be bothered to read enough to even understand what I wrote. I didn't say "analysis". LT was successfully attacked by the same right wingers with the same tactic of labeling it the evil "Marxism".

Any Marxist would laugh ... {evidently, closed mindedly at anything not Marxist...}

Let's not go here again.

LT is just another type of utopian socialism that has no relevance for Marxists, ...

Again, I never said it did.

... religion cannot be used as a tool for human liberation (nor can it be used as some cohesive theoretical framework for understanding the world),

It's just a belief system, and we've all got one.

...and the Pope is not nor ever will be a Marxist.

Here we agree on the Pope.

/thread

Its kind of obvious thread trolling if you begin a thread, but don't intend to discuss the topic.

---

And while this article speaks to the hannity / beck conversation, there are plenty out there in the insaniTEA Party who have embraced this type of ideology. It's only small government, and limited oversight of private lives, when it concerns them. The rest of us are fucked, and they are willing to deny rights, steal our shit, embrace governmental control of industry, and eminent domain of land to achieve their goals.

Do you really think it is correct to bundle all the bat crazy crap from the right, label it "insaniTEA Party", then paint everyone with that broad brush? There is much ignorance all around us. But, I get it. Sometimes you cannot help but to laugh at it. But... I think often it is a political strategy to marginalize and ridicule. It doesn't lead to educating the ignorant, or resolving any political debate. Just more buffoonery, ranting idiocy, and more ignorance. I'm just a bit weary of all of it. FOX, MSNBC, CNN, PBS et. al. As Jon Stewart said, "You're hurting America. Please stop."

Rule 11 + Rule 5.

Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

And... The Stonekettle article is spot on in calling out the type of Statism advocated by some people. What about that State's rights 10th amendment bluster that they whip out when it's convenient?

These are the same buffoons who also call for using our military to police every backwater uprising around the globe where they think we've got some national interest. So, being that we're a global economic infrastructure... Where in the world do we not have a national interest?

[FireIceTalon]

@ Shoju. Well, this goes back to the Marxist view of the state - that it is essentially a committee for managing the common affairs of the ruling capitalist class. People like me and you are not part of that ruling class, so indeed, we are fucked (at least in the long run of things). It is true that the state will intervene when class conflict reaches certain boiling points, by making small concessions for the ruled class to protect the current social order. The invention of the 'welfare state' for instance was one such example. But even though the working class made gains, these weren't given to them to make their lives easier (and these gains themselves weren't just given to them, they had to be fought for), but for the specific purpose of protecting the long term interests of the ruling class. Such gains can be, and currently are, rolled back when private capital deems it necessary. This is why we are living in this new era of austerity.

But I think your concern of the hypocrisy of conservatives wanting minimal government for themselves and maximum for everyone else only looks at things in a social context. Economically, conservatives want as little government involvement as possible, because they believe the free market will solve all the worlds problems (even though it is actually responsible for them). Socially though, they want as much government as possible, because they are control freaks and want people they view different from themselves to be marginalized and oppressed, since it is in their economic interests for such things to be as they are. A ostensible exception are Libertarians, who want as little government as possible in both realms, but have the mistaken idea that this can be achieved under a capitalist mode of production - it cannot. Firstly, you cannot separate the economic from the social - they have a symbiotic relationship in a complex, ongoing historical process, and secondly in any class based society you NEED a heavy handed state to maintain that social relationship, or the whole thing will fall apart either naturally, or by revolution.

It's impossible for them to use communism for them to do this though, since we live under capitalism, and communism is a classless and stateless society that can only be realized once capitalism is completely gone. This is why the whole concept of 'mixed economies' is a fallacy, there is no such thing. Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark are still capitalist, as are China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Conservatives aren't using communism for anything, except as you mentioned as a scapegoat or redbaiting those they dont like or who happen to be a millimeter to the left of them politically. Of course on people like me, it doesn't work, since I am already a unapologetic communist

What they are doing is relatively business as usual from a Marxist perspective: using the state, as needed, to see their interests met and maintain their privileged position in society. But when it comes to us normal, working folk, they don't want the state to intervene, because we arent the ruling class. The whole political gridlock we are seeing in Washington is two sides of the ruling class fighting over how many table scraps the rest of us get, and the direction that capitalism should take. Nothing more, nothing less.

@Kandrathe, I didnt create the thread. Shoju did.

[kandrathe]

@Kandrathe, I didnt create the thread. Shoju did.

My mistake. It was YATAM, so I incorrectly attributed it to you. Sorry.

[FireIceTalon]

No problem. I guess while I am here I will reply to your last comments.

At your first point, fair enough. I felt the need to make clear though that LT theory and Marxism have very little if anything in common though, since you stated that LT theory uses a Marxist analysis of the Bible. But if you were just doing this just in reference to the conservative attacks on LT, your statement makes more sense.

As for Marxists laughing at LT, it isn't so much that we are close minded at anything non-Marxist, so much as that LT specifically and Marxism simply are not at all compatible for reasons I stated. As a Marxist, I have many disagreements with Anarchists, but I could find more common ground in both theory and praxis with one that I could with a LT, just because of their respective foundations.

Sure, we all have a belief system of some sort. But my problems with LT are from a pragmatic standpoint, since it relies entirely on faith. "Jesus was commie, lets all just spread the word and gospel of our savior around, and socialism will come about". Ok, maybe thats an oversimplification of LT, but nevertheless there is no way to make a praxis out of it for obvious reasons.....idealism and materialism, are again, like water and oil. The two just cannot mix.

[shoju]

And while this article speaks to the hannity / beck conversation, there are plenty out there in the insaniTEA Party who have embraced this type of ideology. It's only small government, and limited oversight of private lives, when it concerns them. The rest of us are fucked, and they are willing to deny rights, steal our shit, embrace governmental control of industry, and eminent domain of land to achieve their goals.

Do you really think it is correct to bundle all the bat crazy crap from the right, label it "insaniTEA Party", then paint everyone with that broad brush? There is much ignorance all around us. But, I get it. Sometimes you cannot help but to laugh at it. But... I think often it is a political strategy to marginalize and ridicule. It doesn't lead to educating the ignorant, or resolving any political debate. Just more buffoonery, ranting idiocy, and more ignorance. I'm just a bit weary of all of it. FOX, MSNBC, CNN, PBS et. al. As Jon Stewart said, "You're hurting America. Please stop."

I'm not bundling everyone on the right into the same thing. I'm bundling the Tea Party & the Fundies, and painting them with the "Stereotype" Color. It is absolutely infuriating to me, that here we are, in the 21st century, a golden age of advancement in so many ways, yet we are still fighting to attain rights and liberties, and equalities for people that we have branded as different, while trying to tell the creation math, science hating, backwards thinking populace that they are hurting our kids with their insanity.

If the pope is a marxist, then I guess.... I am too. And here, I always thought of myself as more of a moderate. This is the first pope I can look at, and read about, and think "well, he's got shortcomings, but damn he's trying REALLY hard to clean up, and modernize the church."

I have no use for fundamentalist christian ideologies. I sadly, and more intimately familiar with that lifestyle than most, having grown up the son of a fundie pastor, and learned first hand the sectarianist, xenophobic, believe in the mysticism, ways from a very early age.

I also have no use for a political movement like the Tea Party, whose PRIMARY GOAL has been obstructionistic in design. And I think we can agree, that by merely calling it obstructionistic, that's being pretty kind.

So yes, in those instances, I'm going to be harsh. It's my real, honest, no bullshit opinion of it. I've tried really hard to be rational with them. I've tried really hard to have legitimate conversations with them. But in the end, it boils down to an emotional position that is shared by both groups I've pointed at in this post.

They are right. They are just. They have the moral high ground. If you aren't with them, you are against them. There is no gray area. There is no compromise. And I just can't accept that.

[FireIceTalon]

If the pope is a marxist, then I guess.... I am too.

!!!!

Sig worthy quote hehe. You damn closet Marxist you

[kandrathe]

... If you aren't with them, you are against them. There is no gray area. There is no compromise. And I just can't accept that.

Well... This is also my point. A whole bunch of people have a whole bunch of opinions, and not all of them are whack-a-doodle, or closed minded and uncompromising.

What I saw from the emergence of the "Tea Party movement" was a pretty coordinated group of grass roots support around a slim number of populist political points involving pretty basic ideas like broken entitlement programs, federal taxes, and deficit spending.

The "Republican Party, Inc." (in this case, Joe Wierzbicki) saw the movement go off without them, and so they quickly recruited their media extremists, ala. Palin, Hannity, Beck, to literally drive something called "The Tea Party Express" which co-opted the original movement into the tired old worn out Republican tent. So, when people say Tea Party now, what is really meant is Republican.

The original 2009 era Tea Party is dead. What is left is just the branding, owned by the Republican party.

So... Sorry about your dad. I feel you have much anger there, and I'd council you to find a way to let that go and not blame the diaspora of Christianity (even the fundies) for all the pain you suffered. People have the right to believe whatever they like, even if you believe it to be wrong. It's a freedom thing. I mean, things like Joe Smith, golden tablets, and visits by angels really? But, there you go. You can't enlighten people with ridicule, anger or the point of a gun.

It was just your dad's fault in how he treated you. I'd say write him a really, really angry letter, telling him exactly how you feel. Then, burn it. Trust me, it works. I did something similar for dealing with my dad/anger issues.

[Occhidiangela]

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

I'd start here. Pew "Nine-in-ten of the leaders (90%) reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith."

I think the core scriptural support for the prosperity gospel comes from Matthew 6:33, and a particular reading of that passage. FWIW.

As far as the Pope being socialist, the book of Acts has a clear reference to living in a commune. The early American Puritans tried to establish a commune of the faithful in some of the early colonies here ... with mixed results at best.

Acts 2:42-47 (King James version)

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

"As you have treated the least of them, so have you treated me."
That's a core bit of scripture supporting the general Christian ideal of taking care of those whose condition is less than ideal.

[kandrathe]

As far as the Pope being socialist, the book of Acts has a clear reference to living in a commune. The early American Puritans tried to establish a commune of the faithful in some of the early colonies here ... with mixed results at best.
...

"As you have treated the least of them, so have you treated me."
That's a core bit of scripture supporting the general Christian ideal of taking care of those whose condition is less than ideal.

Which is why Christianity doesn't advocate any form of government, other than every person being subservient to the will of God. Monarchy, democracy, communism, theocracy, benevolent dictatorships would all fit. Another often misinterpretation of the message is much more about self sacrifice, and purely altruistic. As Mother Teresa said, "Give until it hurts." and Matt 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I don't think that means we should seek persecution. More that we should do what is right, without regards to the consequences should we become persecuted for doing the right thing.

For me (Randian influence, I guess), I can't accept that either. If my neighbor is starving, I will share what I have. But, my family and I will not go hungry, and we will have our share too. The latter being my responsibility, and the former being goodness (righteousness if you will). I do adhere to the idea of a responsibility to self-interest or what according to Poor Richard would be "God helps those who help themselves", which according to Obama's WH is not actually in the Bible after all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. According to scripture, we are all helpless, and only God can save us, or help us... spiritually.

[FireIceTalon]

Which is why Christianity doesn't advocate any form of government, other than every person being subservient to the will of God. Monarchy, democracy, communism, theocracy, benevolent dictatorships would all fit.

This may or may not be true, but either way I'm pretty sure Christianity and a communist society would be entirely incompatible, since the former is inherently authoritarian while the latter is the material expression of the interests of the working class. Religion has too many reactionary tenets that are used to oppress, marginalize or otherwise discriminate against certain groups of people - a set of social relationships that are exclusive and unique to class based societies (in particular capitalism). Furthermore, religion is also there to provide reassurance and make a hopeless world seem livable (albeit ineffectively).

Edit - thinking about it further, religion in itself does not advocate any form of government since religion is effectively a lifestyle. But this doesn't take human agency into account, which always must be considered, whether it is through the state (resulting in a theocracy), or the power of religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church). In essence I don't see Christianity or any religion for that matter being compatible (and certainly not necessary) with the social relations that constitute a communist society. It's why the whole idea of "Christian Communism" is silly to me - Christianity is a lifestyle while communism is not.

[LemmingofGlory]

It's why the whole idea of "Christian Communism" is silly to me - Christianity is a lifestyle while communism is not.

In Christian Communism, you stand in line all day for bread and end up with some fish too.

"Lifestyle" is probably a poor descriptor of Christianity, honestly. Someone telling me they're Christian gives me no particular information about their way of life and habits. It tells me only that they're fans of this Jesus guy and a deity that goes by the rather inventive name of "God." In contrast, being Amish is a lifestyle. I have an idea of how the Ameletes wanna be, on their knees every night, scorin' points for the afterlife. Plus barns and no tech and all that. Some religions are closely associated with lifestyles, but certainly not a category as broad as "Christians."

-Lem

[DeeBye]

Which is why Christianity doesn't advocate any form of government, other than every person being subservient to the will of God.

This sentence is frightening.

[ShadowHM]

Which is why Christianity doesn't advocate any form of government, other than every person being subservient to the will of God.

I don't often poke my nose in here, due to lack of time for crafting responses, but I have to respond to this one.

Historically, Christianity thrived by allying with government. Much of the preaching involves subservience to the government of the day, with the promise (explicit or implied) that the flock will be repaid by God in the next life. This deal by Christian leaders allowed them to keep and expand their power/trappings of power. Useful things like tax exemptions and, indeed, exemption from many other government rules have flowed from this very practical decision by bishops in the first millennium of the C.E.

[kandrathe]

Historically, Christianity thrived by allying with government. Much of the preaching involves subservience to the government of the day, with the promise (explicit or implied) that the flock will be repaid by God in the next life. This deal by Christian leaders allowed them to keep and expand their power/trappings of power. Useful things like tax exemptions and, indeed, exemption from many other government rules have flowed from this very practical decision by bishops in the first millennium of the C.E.

And... I would agree. Much as Occhi hinted, and I believe this is a perpetual problem from antiquity to the present. I would say it was a subtle coercion, that twisted the intent of the teaching. I don't know of anything more fearful to freedom than a theocracy, or a government held sway by the dominant religion.

I don't want to confuse Christianity with the Christian Church (esp. that one in Rome), and its history of using scripture for its own enrichment and power. Much like King Josiah, and the book of Deuteronomy. What better way to herd the sheeple, than to change their philosophy by executive order?

My interpretation of that particular teaching from Christ's sermon on the mount (Matt 5-7) was, and I'm paraphrasing; Get your head and your heart in the right place, rather than building earthly kingdoms on the misery of others. I've been to the Vatican a few times, and building an earthly kingdom on the misery/guilt of others is exactly what the Roman church did after the usurpation by Constantine, which resulted in a world wide papal authority and much historical revisionism to justify their power over the people. The Vatican has much to answer for in its history, but my first impressions of the Pope is that he is more about Christianity, than perpetuating the wealth and power of the Holy See.

For me, I like to contemplate these philosophic ideas in a full context of the time, the place, and the origin. For thousands of years we've built our societies with a common core of beliefs derived first from the Hebrews, and Greeks, and later the Roman empire. But, then also in our modern society we've inherited much wisdom from the East, particularly China, and India.

I find it is as Santayana said,

"Experience has repeatedly confirmed that well-known maxim of Bacon's that "a little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." At the same time, when Bacon penned that sage epigram... he forgot to add that the God to whom depth in philosophy brings back men's minds is far from being the same from whom a little philosophy estranges them."

In local news, MPR has burst the bubble of secrecy here in Minnesota. The future of the diocese is in question, as they now must deal publicly with the payoffs, scandals and crimes committed by their priests that they've been hiding for decades. So, not only does one need to keep their light from under the basket, but we've learned that keeping your fetid offal under the basket is equally detrimental. The Catholics in our area are rightly upset that their donations are in part used for payoffs to criminals to maintain a positive public appearance. In fact, there may be some evidence the diocese is complicit with not reporting the crimes. It is an example of the same hypocrisy that Christ railed about way back then. They forgot the part; "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." Justice in these cases demands prosecution of the accused, judgment by a court, reconciliation with the victims, and in the full light of the congregation.

[ShadowHM]

I don't want to confuse Christianity with the Christian Church (esp. that one in Rome), and its history of using scripture for its own enrichment and power.

I don't see how you can tease the two apart. Without those alliances between early Christian leaders and their governments, Christianity as we know it would not exist today.

And, as a corollary to the above and apropos of your comments about the state of the RC Church in Minnesota:

The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.