Catholics and do they....

[Major. Rudiger]

My guess is no, they ruin it by trying to control people....

ok ignore the top part.....



What rules in Catholicism are opposed to the proper running of a society?

Me and my friend are arguing about how useless his religion is and how you should think on your own. It started from school to a forum and he thinks his always right blah blah... Ok I need your help, I'm not the brightest (you can tell by my crapy grammer skills)... I need to call his bluf and give him a huge-to-large list of things about the christen religion and how it fucks up about society...

Lets make a list... of...
What rules in Catholicism are opposed to the proper running of a society?

I'm not sure but... Abortion, Same-sex Marrige, Woman rights... any more...

Oh any quotes from the bible that proves this point... thanx ;)

Sleepy time :unsure:

[redstar2000]

It depends on what kind of society your friend wants.

Catholicism works great for a fascist society. Look at Italy under Mussolini or Spain under Franco...or even Cuba under Batista or Chile under Pinochet. The list is a very long one.

I forgot...don't leave out the Phillippines under the Marcos couple. Or South Vietnam under Diem.

And especially Croatia...perhaps the worst Catholic-fascist state in history. Google it and learn the gory details.

Catholicism loves order above all things: "God's" in his "Heaven" and everyone else has a "proper station" in life where they take orders from their superiors and give orders to their inferiors.

Sort of like...the Church itself.

Here's a thread about what life would be like in an American city totally run by Catholics...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36818

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[TheKingOfMercy]

Lets make a list... of...
What rules in Catholicism are opposed to the proper running of a society?

I'm not sure but... Abortion, Same-sex Marrige, Woman rights... any more...

I'm just curious as to which bit of catholicism opposes woman's rights ? This is a new one to me y'see, I know they support the idea of the family unit with defined roles, but I didn't know they would actively oppose woman's rights in the same way as homosexuality.

[Clarksist]

Ok I need your help, I'm not the brightest (you can tell by my crapy grammer skills)...


Would that be crappy? Hahahaha, I love being an asshole.


I'm just curious as to which bit of catholicism opposes woman's rights ?


The inability for females to become priests, or for that matter ANYTHING in the church.

[Black Dagger]

but I didn't know they would actively oppose woman's rights in the same way as homosexuality.

They 'oppose' abortion, and "they support the idea of the family unit with defined roles"- a 'traditional' role of subservience, of 'homemaking' and male-dependancy. It could also be argued (perhaps) that their opposition to contraception is also an anti-woman stance, coercing catholic women into pregnancies they may not want?

[Xvall]

Lack of contraceptives which result in out-of-check breeding. The fact that Darth Sidious is their god.

[Donnie]

I know they support the idea of the family unit with defined roles, but I didn't know they would actively oppose woman's rights in the same way as homosexuality.
I think just by supporting a defined family unit is enough to chuck women&#39;s rights out of the window. <_<

Abortion is a subject in which they like to go against and mess people&#39;s lives up.

Another thing that really annoys me and I suspect anyone with an ounce of intellect is the way in which the church should always have the last word on a private subject like abortion.

I was just as work today and I was reading an article the Daily Mail (Yes I know, but it’s what my work buy’s for us to read) and it said how the pope condemned children reading Harry Potter books. They said by reading the books it brings children closer to evil like witches and wizards. <_< . I mean talk about being control freaks&#33;

[Major. Rudiger]

LOL I dont like the Harry Potter books... But to deny reading to a child is kind&#39;ve idotic in my book. :unsure:

[Saint-Just]

I think that the majority of members of Catholicism are not inclined towards controlling people and harming people. It is the bishops, priests and so forth of the Catholic church that do this.


it said how the pope condemned children reading Harry Potter books. They said by reading the books it brings children closer to evil like witches and wizards.

This might be, for a small number of children, true. For example, some teenagers have been known to practice witchcraft or dark magic. Although, it is usually not taken too seriously. I think that from the Church&#39;s point of view they would not want children to read, listen or watch anything that is not designed from a Catholic perspective.

[Imperator]

The Catholic Church preserved Western SOciety through 1100 years of darkness. Abortion is murder, deal with it. The Church condemns abortion because Abortion is completley immoral and criminal. Any state that condones Abortion is misguided, amoral, and bound to fall eventually.

Also, redstar2000, you have proven your ignorance of History. The Catholic Church was opposed to Nazism and Fascism. I just did a huge history seminar on this. The Church was caught in a political quagmire, but Cardinal Pacelli in 1930s actively campaigned against Nazism as an immoral system.

You are just mad because the Church (rightly) has called the Communists bluff as a twisted, ammoral, stupid and ultimately evil political system.

[LSD]

The Catholic Church preserved Western SOciety through 1100 years of darkness.

When it wasn&#39;t burning witches, killing heretics, and destroying priceless works.

The role of the church in preserving ancient texts has been vastly exagerated. The church actually destroyed a great deal, especially that which didn&#39;t fit with their particular viewpoint.

In fact, most of the important greek texts that we still have survived through the "infidel" Muslims&#33; :lol:


Abortion is murder, deal with it.

I suppose asking for a reason would be too much?

Murder is the intentional killing of a member of society. A fetus is not a person, is not sentient, and has no rights. Until it is born, it is nothing but a body part of the mother.

In order to be a member of society, it must be an independent being.


The Church condemns abortion because Abortion is completley immoral and criminal.

And they oppose homosexuality because...


Any state that condones Abortion is misguided, amoral, and bound to fall eventually.

Again, with your powers of prognostication&#33;

Oh great one, will your visions never cease? :o

[MysticArcher]

Abortion is murder, deal with it.

Single line assertions are just that - asserstions


You are just mad because the Church (rightly) has called the Communists bluff as a twisted, ammoral, stupid and ultimately evil political system.

That&#39;s your entire premise, it&#39;s wrong "because I declare it so", or because a reactionary bunch of frauds declare it so?

You&#39;ve made plenty of assertions, are you going to back them up?

[Imperator]

Homosexuality is ammoral because it is unnatural and perverted. The sexual union is intended to bring man and woman closer together, homosexuality is clearly innatural because there is no way to produce children, and the human body was not meant for gay sex. Gay sex carries, no surprise, a much higher risk of AIDS and STDS. Who do we have to thank for the AIDs outbreak in the US? Gay bath houses in SF&#33; Whereas my faith in God enlightens me not to hate anyone or treat others poorly, that doesn&#39;t change the fact that homosexuality is simply unnatural. Deal with it, it is true, sorry if it makes you and your wussy liberal friends uncomfortable.

Also, as for abortion, if you don&#39;t think fetus are alive, tyhen that doesn&#39;t surprise me. I suppose you don&#39;t think that blacks or asians are human beings either? Figures, all Communists are hate mongerings bigots.

The Church has made its mistakes, no one can deny that, but the Church contains the keys to eternal Salvation and is the Church that Jesus Christ built in the book of John, or Matthew, I can&#39;t remember which.

Anyway, I declare everything I have said to be true and infallible. So, don&#39;t bother arguing with it. You are wrong, accept it and move on with your life. Make necessary changes, and you will be a happier and more fulfilled person. Sorry, know it sucks, but that is how things are.

Have a nice day.

[LSD]

Homosexuality is ammoral because it is unnatural and perverted.

"natural"? Who gives a damn about "natural"?

Of course, homosexuality is found across nature, so it is completely natural, but ignoring that for a second. Who cares if something is "natural" or not?

Electricity isn&#39;t "natural", but it&#39;s still a damn good thing&#33;


The sexual union is intended to bring man and woman closer together

Says who?


and the human body was not meant for gay sex

The human body wasn&#39;t "meant" for anything, it just is.


Also, as for abortion, if you don&#39;t think fetus are alive, tyhen that doesn&#39;t surprise me

I didn&#39;t say that it wasn&#39;t "alive", I said that it wasn&#39;t a "person" in society.

Try and keep up.


I suppose you don&#39;t think that blacks or asians are human beings either?

That&#39;s funny comming from you considering the historic relationship between the church and racism. Klan members are some of the most Christian people you will ever meet.


The Church has made its mistakes, no one can deny that, but the Church contains the keys to eternal Salvation

How can an organization that has the "keys to eternal Salvation" make mistakes?

Wouldn&#39;t "God" set them right?


and is the Church that Jesus Christ built in the book of John, or Matthew, I can&#39;t remember which.

:lol:


Anyway, I declare everything I have said to be true and infallible. So, don&#39;t bother arguing with it. You are wrong, accept it and move on with your life.

Again, I see that you are not planning on introducing actual evidence to this conversation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Imperator
The Catholic Church was opposed to Nazism and Fascism. I just did a huge history seminar on this.

:lol: And what prestigious institution of higher learning sponsored this "huge seminar"?

Notre Dame? :lol:

You seem to like the expression "deal with it". Very well, then I suggest that you "deal with" the intimate relationship of the Catholic Church with fascism in the past and the present.

Google Opus Dei for starters. :D

The other statements that you have made in this thread give new depth to the word "stupidity". Presumably you believe this ridiculous hokem...but is that a sufficient reason to expose us to it?

Wouldn&#39;t your time be better spent in reading "the Word of God"? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Mr Flibble]

christ had lot of quite leftwing ideas especaly for his time however the Catholic church has corrupted most of them and used his name to forge a opressive and brutal power structure

[anomaly]

I have a Lutheran buddy at school who I talk to all the time about religion. Even he hates Catholicism&#33; If you&#39;ve read some of my other posts in this forum, you know that I particularly despise Catholicism (perhaps I haven&#39;t said that yet, I&#39;ve only criticized the Pope..). The hierarchy it claims to establish is &#39;God&#39;s will&#39;, making that hierarchy unquestionable (by believers...us non-Catholics, we can criticize the old Pope all we want). Catholicism is absolutely opposed to communism, or really any idea of &#39;equality&#39;. They actively pursue a very conservative agenda, and I&#39;ve even heard of one Catholic Church in the USa that told the people of his church to vote Republican&#33; There is no hope for this Church, and like Redstar said, Catholicism is often fascism&#39;s best friend. Catholicism is anti-communism, so we all (except for restricted members) should be opposed to the Church.

Biblically, the problem with Catholics is that they only read the bits and pieces of the Bible they happen to like (They like when Jesus talks of the &#39;beauty of life&#39;, but they dislike the parts where he talks about the moral superiority of the lower classes and how rich people don&#39;t get into &#39;heaven&#39;). My Lutheran buddy who reads the Bible (I&#39;m not Christian, so I can&#39;t say I ever have) has told me that Catholics love making things up. If I may be so blunt, Catholicism plain sucks&#33;

[che-Rabbi]

Well obviously catholics dont ruin society however the vatican is a very costly operation. Anyways , i think its unfair to say that all catholics are opposed to gay marriage and anti-abortion because thats simply not true.
Most catholics look at theyre religion as we look at communism. We embrace the better points, and what we dont agree with, we reject. Also i have yet to find a single passage in the bible about gay marriage however i have seen about 4693 references to helping the poor and its funny how the christian right will ignore those who Jesus helped the most.... fuck i hate right wingers&#33;

By the way, your lutheran friend is in no position to be tarnishing catholicism considering Luther asked his followers to kill Jews who wouldnt convert...

[Haywood]

Though I think all religions are bourgeois inventions to accumulate money for a top few, I would like to say that the Catholic Church has come along way, and are nowadays very much involved fighting poverty. Don&#39;t get me wrong, they&#39;ve behaved quite hooribly in the past, but that doesn&#39;t mean they have gotten a bit more worldly when it comes to the people. And don&#39;t forget liberation-theology&#33; There &#39;s a large number of catholics supporting socialism&#33;

[Fruzz]

Hey, you said “In order to be a member of society, it must be an independent being” does this mean that disabled people are less of a member of society or that a person who is sick or in a coma is not a member? You also said: “A fetus is not a person, is not sentient,”. Sentient means Experiencing sensation or feeling, well fetuses develop sensory nerves in 8 weeks? So aren’t they sentient? You said also: “has no rights”, so because it has no rights, we can do whatever we want to it? Slaves had no rights, did that make it ok to have slaves? You also said: “Until it is born, it is nothing but a body part of the mother” so technically a mother can have a penis, 4 arms and 4 legs, kinda creepy : ) Also, does that mean that the fetus isn’t a member even 5 minutes before it leaves the womb? So, being a person is all based on geography? Also, being more developed seems to make a member of society. Cant you say that adults are more of a person than children? We developed more than children, so killing children is less wrong than killing adutls? A fetus is just a stage in life, it is a adjective. I am a teenager, I am a senior, I am a child, we are all the same being.

[Clarksist]

This thread has gotten ridiculously funny. :lol:


Homosexuality is ammoral because it is unnatural and perverted. The sexual union is intended to bring man and woman closer together, homosexuality is clearly innatural because there is no way to produce children, and the human body was not meant for gay sex.

Hahahahaha&#33; So I am immoral because I&#39;m bisexual? That sucks. Seeing as I have no choice over it. And living in a HIGHLY religious town it really wasn&#39;t my fucken choice. And believe me... I knew a LOOONG way back.

It isn&#39;t something you "pick up".

As for sex only meant for reproduction... its always a great way to burn calories, become closer emotionally, relieve stress, and have a FUCK load of fun. (pun intended)


Gay sex carries, no surprise, a much higher risk of AIDS and STDS. Who do we have to thank for the AIDs outbreak in the US? Gay bath houses in SF&#33;


No surprise? What about in Africa? Are the black people in africa immoral and are being "punished" by your great "god" with AIDs?

You disgust me.


Whereas my faith in God enlightens me not to hate anyone or treat others poorly, that doesn&#39;t change the fact that homosexuality is simply unnatural. Deal with it, it is true, sorry if it makes you and your wussy liberal friends uncomfortable.


Ahh, you have shown shallow assertions to back up an assertion. And your telling us to "deal with it".

God is a big boogeyman myth told to people to keep them "in control" and donating to a fucken group of people.

Deal with it.


Figures, all Communists are hate mongerings bigots.


This coming from someone who believes that one day almighty God&#39;s wrath will come and eternally damn people for not believing that there is a big invisible man looking at you all the time, who has only 10 individual rules to follow.

Sounds like Santa Claus. And we all know how real THAT guy is. ;)


The Church has made its mistakes, no one can deny that, but the Church contains the keys to eternal Salvation and is the Church that Jesus Christ built in the book of John, or Matthew, I can&#39;t remember which.


The church has made mistakes, you concede, but we should blindly follow it? FUCK that. How do you know its not still making mistakes? Faith? That shit that was reinforced by *ergats&#33;* the CHURCH.


Hey, you said “In order to be a member of society, it must be an independent being” does this mean that disabled people are less of a member of society or that a person who is sick or in a coma is not a member?


Well you obviously didn&#39;t read the entire statement. he also said that the person needs to be: sentient, and an independant being. One of those would be grounds to not kill someone.

Fetuses don&#39;t hold any of those qualities.


You said also: “has no rights”, so because it has no rights, we can do whatever we want to it? Slaves had no rights, did that make it ok to have slaves?


It&#39;s different fetus&#39; have no rights, because tis justified by logic. Enslaving Slaves was a capitalist venture.

I just heard a joke that may lighten the mood:
How did Jesus walk on water?
Bullshit floats.

[LSD]

Hey, you said “In order to be a member of society, it must be an independent being” does this mean that disabled people are less of a member of society

Not at all, disabled people are independent beings.


or that a person who is sick or in a coma is not a member?

Again, people in comas are independent moral actors prevented from exercizing their participation in society by an externalistic force. Fetuses are by definition incapable of participating in society and, moreover, are not even independent beings, nor were they ever independent beings. Untill they leave the mother, they are a part of her body, physically.


You also said: “A fetus is not a person, is not sentient,”. Sentient means Experiencing sensation or feeling, well fetuses develop sensory nerves in 8 weeks? So aren’t they sentient?

Debatable. But regardless, they are still not a person&#33; All requirements must be met, not just one of them.


You said also: “has no rights”, so because it has no rights, we can do whatever we want to it? Slaves had no rights, did that make it ok to have slaves?

No, because slaves should have been given rights, fetuses should not.


You also said: “Until it is born, it is nothing but a body part of the mother” so technically a mother can have a penis, 4 arms and 4 legs

She can have a fetal penis, 2 fetal arms, and 2 fetal legs in her womb, sure. So what>


Also, does that mean that the fetus isn’t a member even 5 minutes before it leaves the womb?

Yes.


Cant you say that adults are more of a person than children?

No. This isn&#39;t a gradiant scale. There is no "more" or "less", you either are or you are not.

[Major. Rudiger]

Wait Sanata isnt real.... But I believe in him and they&#39;re many stories about him... :(

[Reds]

the catholic church was founded as a economic organization.

[Le Libérer]

I&#39;m reading an interesting book "Fidel speaks about Revolution and Religion" Of course to Castro religion is the Catholilc Church and the book was written by a Catholic priest. Castro was raised by a very devote mother. But anyway, when the question was posed to him heres what he said.
*Snip*
"Basing themselves on their faith, believers can take a revolutionary
stand and ...there need not be any contridiction between their being
beleivers and revolutionaries. As I see it, that phase (religion is the
opiate of the people) cannot be, not is it, a dogma or an absolute truth;
it is a truth in specific historical conditions. More over, I beleive
that this conclusion is perfectly in keeping with dialectics and
Marxism."

"I beleive that, from the political point of view, religion is not in
itself, an opiate or a miraculous remedy. It may become an opiate or a
wonderful cure if it used or applied to defend oppressors and exploited,
depending on the approach adopted toward the political, social, or
material problems of the human beings who, aside from theology or religious
belief, are born and must live in this world."

"From a strictly political point of view-and I think I know something
about politics- I beleive that it is possible for Christians to be
Marxists as well, and to work together with Maxist Communists to transform
the world. The important thing is that, in both cases they may be honest
revolutionaries who want to end the exploitations of man by man and to
struggle for a fair distribution of social wealth, equality, fraternity
and the dignity of all human beings- that is, that they be the
standard-bearers of the most advanced political, economical and social ideas,
even though, in the cases of the Christians, their starting point is a
religious concept."

FIdel Castro
*snip*

Once again I defend the principles taught by the Catholic church as far as the motivation for a personal internalized morality of caring for others, the hungry, the sick, and the exploited, wanting to end the exploitations and unnessary struggle social needs, equality, and the dignity of everyone. The organization of the Catholic church or any other religious organization has nothing to do with it, if you intenalize the principles of a Christ consciousness.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Castro+--> (Castro)Basing themselves on their faith, believers can take a revolutionary stand and...there need not be any contradiction between their being believers and revolutionaries.[/b]

Castro here asserts a possibility...but without supporting it in any way. He just says it "can happen".

I disagree. I think that anyone who takes "a revolutionary stand" and is also superstitious will quickly run into insurmountable difficulties...and will find themselves compelled to either abandon superstition or abandon their "revolutionary stand".


Originally posted by Castro+--> (Castro)Moreover, I believe that this conclusion is perfectly in keeping with dialectics and Marxism.[/b]

Well, any statement can be made "in keeping with dialectics"...since "dialectics" is a kind of superstition in and of itself. Constructing a "Christian dialectics" or an "Islamic dialectics" would be perfectly feasible intellectual projects.

But justifying Castro&#39;s assertion in Marxist terms would be impossible -- so he doesn&#39;t even try.


Originally posted by Castro
I believe that, from the political point of view, religion is not, in itself, an opiate or a miraculous remedy. It may become an opiate or a wonderful cure if it used or applied to defend oppressors and exploited, depending on the approach adopted toward the political, social, or material problems of the human beings who, aside from theology or religious belief, are born and must live in this world.

Castro says "if it is used" -- when, in fact, it is always used to defend oppressors and exploiters.


Originally posted by Castro
From a strictly political point of view-and I think I know something about politics-I believe that it is possible for Christians to be Marxists as well, and to work together with Marxist Communists to transform the world.

I leave his claim to "know something about politics" in the hands of future historians.

His claim that Christians "can be Marxists" is self-evidently false -- and suggests that he doesn&#39;t really know very much about Marxism at all.

"Working with Christians" to "transform the world" is always an option -- but what results from such a collaboration will not have much to do with communism.


[email protected]
The important thing is that, in both cases they may be honest revolutionaries who want to end the exploitation of man by man and to struggle for a fair distribution of social wealth, equality, fraternity and the dignity of all human beings-that is, that they be the standard-bearers of the most advanced political, economic and social ideas, even though, in the cases of the Christians, their starting point is a religious concept.

Castro seems to think that "honesty" is a useful substitute for understanding.

That&#39;s not true.

Anyone may sincerely "want" to do all sorts of "nice things"...but, if one does not understand material reality, then one&#39;s desires are most unlikely to be realized -- even partially.

A Christian, by definition, does not understand the world as it really is.


Castro
Once again, I defend the principles taught by the Catholic church as far as the motivation for a personal internalized morality of caring for others, the hungry, the sick, and the exploited, wanting to end the exploitations and unnecessary struggle, social needs, equality, and the dignity of everyone. The organization of the Catholic church or any other religious organization has nothing to do with it, if you internalize the principles of a Christ consciousness.

Here Castro attempts to separate the infamous reactionary organization of the Catholic church from "Christ consciousness" -- and attempts to enlist the latter on the side of revolution.

Perhaps this illustrates his knowledge of "politics" -- try to split off the "best part" of your opposition and win them over to your side.

It&#39;s a difficult maneuver and one that rarely succeeds to any significant extent. People with "Christ consciousness" do not believe that there are or can be any "earthly" or "human" solutions to exploitation, poverty, humiliation, etc.

There is only charity...and redemption in "Heaven".

To engage in revolutionary struggle in order to permanently end the evils of class society is "un-Christian" -- it is, in fact, directly opposed to "the Will of God". (In Catholic theological terms, it&#39;s a manifestation of "the sin of pride" -- that humans know how to run things "better than God".)

Many people -- perhaps including Castro himself -- think of the communist project as a kind of "mega-charity"...a society in which people spend all their lives "caring for others".

That is simply an enormous misunderstanding.

The "nice things" that will be accomplished in a communist society are the by-products of much more fundamental changes -- namely, the abolition of wage-slavery and the devolution of political and economic power to the working class.

We are not for communism because it will "help the poor"...we are for communism because it will create a society in which the "poor" will no longer exist.

What role would there be, then, for Christians or followers of any other superstition?

Don&#39;t imagine for a second that Christians haven&#39;t asked themselves that same question.

Or that they like the answer.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Le Libérer]

Point taken, Redstar, and I agree with much you are saying. Given the religious/politcal climate of Latin America, there seems to be the "possibility to combine the two. ( Look at Fidel these days, he talks of heaven and other Catholic concepts. Both on the other hand, Cuba is one of the only vital communist states that have survived.)


"Working with Christians" to "transform the world" is always an option -- but what results from such a collaboration will not have much to do with communism.

It seems to me thats exactly what is happening in Latin America. An evolution of two extremes that have found themselves accomplishing the same goals, and maybe it is charity as you say. Maybe there is no name for it yet.

On one side, Communists balk at the ideal of Christ Concoiusness as well as Christians rebuke Communism. But isnt what is emerging from Latin America a sort of "allowance of the ideals of both camps" Winning the other side over as you stated, actually making the possiblity of demolishing poverty a reality? Isnt it worth a shot?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Debora Aro
Given the religious/political climate of Latin America, there seems to be the "possibility" to combine the two.

Of course that "possibility" exists -- the question is what would be the outcome?

Some people (perhaps including Castro himself) think that an alliance of communists and "grass-roots radical" Christians would produce a kind of "communism plus" -- a communist society that would still have a religious dimension.

I disagree. I think such an alliance would, at best, generate a tropical version of Scandinavia...a "welfare-state" variant of capitalist society. I think that&#39;s the ultimate limit of Christian vision...and very very few even approach that&#33;

To a Christian, even the most rapacious capitalist can never become a class enemy -- he is, at worst, guilty of "sin"...which must be forgiven. (He must be forgiven because we are "all sinners" and in need of forgiveness.)

Consequently, the Christian lacks the necessary determination to carry the struggle through to the finish...he always ends up pleading with the exploiter to "sin less".

A plea which exploiters have been successfully ignoring throughout recorded history.


It seems to me that&#39;s exactly what is happening in Latin America. An evolution of two extremes that have found themselves accomplishing the same goals.

People claim this is "happening in Latin America"...but I see no evidence in support of such claims.

No doubt there are people still laboring to spread &#39;liberation theology" among the peasantry...even though the official church has completely abandoned it.

In the urban shanty-towns, it is Protestant evangelicals who are the most active religious recruiters...and their politics are usually conservative or even reactionary (though it&#39;s said that in Caracas some of them support Chavez).

On the other side, the most active revolutionary guerrillas (the FARC and the ELN in Colombia) are reportedly anti-religious.

It seems to me therefore that those who say that communism and Christianity are "coming together" in Latin America have fallen victim to wishful thinking.


On one side, Communists balk at the ideal of Christ Consciousness as well as Christians rebuke Communism. But isn&#39;t what is emerging from Latin America a sort of "alliance of the ideals of both camps"? Winning the other side over as you stated, actually making the possibility of demolishing poverty a reality? Isn&#39;t it worth a shot?

No.

First of all, the Christians have already had their chances to "demolish poverty"...and they&#39;ve never done so or even made a serious effort in that direction. After 1,700 years of failure, why should anyone believe what they say now?

And secondly, all modern forms of class society require a large reservoir of "dirt cheap labor"...and hence poverty. How can employed workers be disciplined to obey orders if they cannot be replaced?

In fact, advanced capitalist societies need the desperately poor so badly that they import them in substantial numbers every year. If poverty were "demolished" in Venezuela or Colombia, the bosses there would start importing poor people from Paraguay, Bolivia, or Panama.

And the Church there would start building new cathedrals for them...as in Los Angeles.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RandomRival]

I am a Catholic Trotskyist but I do not mind other religions and I am tolerant to athiest & People who are agnostic.

The way I look at it, Jesus was nothing more than a Socialist in the way he practiced the "break bread" and "Blood of christ is divine the wine"


I am just very upset with christians nowadays because they are not true to the teachings and wanna control everything.

I am a more so newschool neo catholic.

[Le Libérer]

Christians and Communist a like havent rid the world of poverty. I dont see either camp capable of such a task independant of each other. ANd yes until recently the Catholic church balked at socialism. But thats not the case anymore. In Latin America there seems to be a joint effort and Catholic ARE being converted to Socialism and/or Communism. It seems "natural" there. There were many priests and nuns who have died defending the revolution. As per example Father Oscar Romero supposedly because he was playing into the hands, wittingly or unwittingly, of Communism.

I dunno, there are 1.5 billion Catholics worldwide available to win over. :D

And in closing I will quote Raul Castro, Mr. Hardliner...
"I have kept the principles of Christ. I don&#39;t renounce those principles. They give me the hope of salvation, and the Revolution carries them out: it sends the rich away empty-handed and gives bread to the hungry, everyone can be saved here."

It "seems" it is working in Cuba. But who knows, the jury is still out on this one.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Raul Castro+--> (Raul Castro)I have kept the principles of Christ. I don&#39;t renounce those principles. They give me the hope of salvation, and the Revolution carries them out: it sends the rich away empty-handed and gives bread to the hungry, everyone can be saved here.[/b]

By using the phrase "the principles of Christ", Raul is "covering his ass".

That is, he&#39;s clearly responding to criticisms made by the Catholic hierarchy -- saying, in effect, "I&#39;m really a better Christian than you guys".

This is, of course, a false claim -- Raul is, in fact, the Minister of Defense and in charge of the Cuban Army.

He is a secular official...and hence, in Catholic doctrine, inferior to the most obscure of priests in the eyes of "God".

I think the Communist Party of Cuba is going to live to regret its wimpy line towards Catholicism...but, we&#39;ll see,


Debora Aro
I dunno, there are 1.5 billion Catholics worldwide available to win over.

I don&#39;t think they are "winnable" until they abandon religion altogether. And while objective material conditions "push" them in that direction, we have the responsibility to make revolutionary and atheist ideas available to them.

Otherwise, even if they do make some sort of "revolution", they will do so only to hand power over to some despot and flop on their bellies before him.

And that&#39;s not going to help much.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif