Latin america

[Global_Justice]

i understand latin america is predominantly catholic, or a large part of it is catholic, is that right? so are socialists in latin america also catholic? :unsure:

[Delirium]

There is Liberation Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology) but they are definatly not socialist.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:09 PM
i understand latin america is predominantly catholic, or a large part of it is catholic, is that right? so are socialists in latin america also catholic? :unsure:
Some are, some aren't.

In Brazil, one would expect neo-protestants to be right-wingers or apolitical. Besides that, practically all other religions, including Catholicism, include people from the extreme right to the extreme left. There are some far right circles that are exclusively Catholic, but they aren't much strong, either in Brazilian Catholicism or in the Brazilian far right.

In organised leftist circles, though, the proportion of atheists and agnostics is far above their proportion in the population at large.

Luís Henrique

[Ligeia]

:huh: you say in all the religions there can even be people from the extreme left in Latin America,say, a communist catholic?(a contradiction,isn't it?)

I've known very catholic,agnostics and atheists sofar and seems like their belief has not much influence in their political point of view.

Many say that revolutions can (most hopefully) come true in developing countries such as those in Latin America but there is always this aspect that religion is reactionary but most people in Latin America are religious in some way or another so where is the point in this?

Why shouldn't or can't people be extreme left while belonging to a religion or have leftist views on things,where does religion restrict them?why is it that harmful?(i'm not talking about religious institutions and hierarchy but on beliefs)

I've always thought that such views restrict helpful alliances among people...I still can't see the sense in this?

In the soviet union e.g. many people (especially the very catholic polish,most are catholic)did see a big mistake in restricting the practice of religion and postulating no religion,and see there one big cause for the uncomfortness among the masses,so why should people be radically forced to change their mentality?they won't do that,there has to be a fusion of old and new thoughts.....sorry,if Im getting off topic ;)

[Sentinel]

Many say that revolutions can (most hopefully) come true in developing countries such as those in Latin America but there is always this aspect that religion is reactionary but most people in Latin America are religious in some way or another so where is the point in this? Why shouldn't or can't people be extreme left while belonging to a religion or have leftist views on things,where does religion restrict them?why is it that harmful?(i'm not talking about religious institutions and hierarchy but on beliefs)

People can sympathize with the cause of the proletariat and even fight for it despite being religious. Note, despite. Religion is an obstacle for true progressive thinking, though, since it makes a rational point of view impossible.

The power might be seized in a country with the help of emotionally committed religious people. But to actually be able to build communism is something much more complicated. A rational and scientific worldview is definitely required for that.

Since religion must be abandoned anyway, for the post-revolutionary development to be possible, we should already start among our ranks.

After the revolution we will have "a lot to do" in building the new society.
We don't want the opinions of a "god" hindering us in our work then.


In the soviet union e.g. many people (especially the very catholic polish,most are catholic)did see a big mistake in restricting the practice of religion and postulating no religion,and see there one big cause for the uncomfortness among the masses,so why should people be radically forced to change their mentality?

In the USSR and the socialist bloc in general, the religious were among the most fervent counter-revolutionaries and worked relentlessly to re-instate capitalism.

You might when looking at this phenomenon in retrospect understand, why religion should be abolished before the revolution, not after it.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 06:21 PM



Religion is an obstacle for true progressive thinking, though, since it makes a rational point of view impossible.

The power might be seized in a country with the help of emotionally committed religious people. But to actually be able to build communism is something much more complicated. A rational and scientific worldview is definitely required for that.



That I know,too,reiligon makes thinking more emotional than rational but pure rationality makes automatism arise....and what about historical materialism?sometimes i've got the impression that out of historical materialism arises some kind of belief or superstition,which could lead to passivity than activity.


In the USSR and the socialist bloc in general, the religious were among the most fervent counter-revolutionaries and worked relentlessly to re-instate capitalism.

You might when looking at this phenomenon in retrospect understand, why religion should be abolished before the revolution, not after it.

That's true most were but not all were against revolution and for some the reason for this attitude was this try to change their mentality.It's kind of cruel to try to change minds radically,this had to be a process for generations.Nobody likes to be changed in a direct way,at least they could have tried an indirect way....well but as far as I know the percentage of atheist or agnostics in industrialised countries rises,anyway but not in developing countries,there is the opposite.

What was the reason for the catholics to be conter revolutionaries?Was there any religious reason?

[Sentinel]

and what about historical materialism?sometimes i've got the impression that out of historical materialism arises some kind of belief or superstition,which could lead to passivity than activity.

You bring up an interesting point. It can definitely not be called a belief or a superstition though! :lol: A superstition is something not based on scientific facts.

I think it can lead to passivity among those who want to be passive, it can be used as an excuse in other words. But historical materialism doesn't forbid anyone from trying to speed up the process, right?

Many of it's followers are very much against Leninist ideas of a "vanguard party" leading the "masses" but that's not the same thing as being opposed to educating the proletariat about scientific facts and the inevitablity of the revolution.

And thus making people progressive and bringing the revolution closer.

But I'd rather let redstar2000 take this one, so to say. What he doesn't know about historical materialism propably isn't worth knowing, I think. :)


That's true most were but not all were against revolution and for some the reason for this attitude was this try to change their mentality.It's kind of cruel to try to change minds radically,this had to be a process for generations.Nobody likes to be changed in a direct way,at least they could have tried an indirect way.

I'm with those who say that public religion must be banned. Then the whole concept of superstition will wither away very fast imo.


What was the reason for the catholics to be conter revolutionaries?Was there any religious reason?

They were and are counter-revolutionaries because communism is the fundamental opposite of religion since it's based on materialism. They naturally feel threatened by it. And they should! ;) :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ligeia
Why shouldn't or can't people be extreme left while belonging to a religion or have leftist views on things, where does religion restrict them?

Start with how people acquire a religion in the first place. Their parents tell them, right? Their parents take them to church. The schools reinforce their parents' teachings. In other words, everything in their immediate environment conspires to tell them that a particular religion "is really true".

By the time someone reaches adolescence, religious belief is "burned in". Most people cannot question it unless they should happen to have real world experiences that contradict their beliefs in a dramatic way.

Let's suppose such a young person finds the egalitarian perspective of communism attractive. Could such a person "become a communist"?

It's possible but highly unlikely.

Why? Because as soon as a person like that starts really digging into communist ideas, they run into a mass of contradictions with the religious faith that they've been indoctrinated in since childhood.

Religions "explain" economic inequality in terms of "human sin". If people would "stop sinning", then we'd have a "just world" more or less as soon as that "happened".

Historical materialism explains economic inequality in terms of the technological development of the means of production and the rise of classes that result from that level.

"Sin" has nothing to do with it.

And, if that were not "bad enough", communism is a modern paradigm...which rejects the supernatural altogether. There's simply no role for the supernatural in the communist outlook on why things happen the way they do.

Thus a young person is "torn" between two opposing forces. To actually "become a communist", s/he must resolutely give up everything s/he was taught as a child about "how the world works" and learn a whole new way of looking at things.

And that's hard!

In fact, it's almost a kind of "time-travel". The person who abandons all forms of religious superstition is like someone who jumps two or three or even five centuries into the future.

Imagine how disorienting that must be!

Imagine how even the "smartest" person in the world (whoever that might be) would feel if they suddenly found themselves in 2600CE. :o

I think that's why we have so many threads in this subforum about how "Jesus was a communist" or "what can't I be religious and also be a communist", etc.

It comes from people who are disoriented and confused by the huge gap between the ideas they were taught to believe (15th-19th century) and the modern era of atheism.

They are scrambling, rather desperately, to make sense of a "new world" in the ways they learned about an "old world" that's passed away.

Young people are especially "flexible" both mentally as well as physically; and find it sometimes much easier to "adapt" to a new intellectual world.

Indeed, they often find it liberating to be free of all the "ghosts and goblins" of superstition and actually do "become communists"...with no regret at all for their "lost faith" except for the time they wasted believing a word of it.

A rational approach to the world doesn't make it "better"...things are still "fucked up".

But what people have made can be unmade by people. What happens is not "the Will of God" or, for that matter, the "Devil's work"...it has real causes invented by real people in the real world.

The causes can be understood by people...and the world can be changed by people.

It's not "easy"...in fact, it's very hard.

But it can be done!

This is so alien to the entire structure of religious belief (all versions) that for thousands of years it was thought to be impossible.

The only "change" that the sincerely religious can really imagine is one in which all the unbelievers in the "true faith" become believers or die. :o

Anything else is, perforce, "the work of the Devil".

The religious "line" on communism is that it is "the work of the Devil". In Latin America, the Catholic clergy are adamantly opposed to even the mild social-democratic reforms of Venezuela's Chavez.

As I understand it, the Protestant evangelicals are very active among the urban poor in Latin America...with an explicit message of submission to things as they are.

This does create a terrible dilemma for communists in that unhappy continent.

If they attack the popular superstitions, they will alienate the vast majority of people there. But if they ignore those superstitions or try to pretend that they "don't matter", they will end up, at best, with a "following" of people who can't think rationally about the real world.

And that's not even good enough for modern capitalism, much less communism. :o

In my opinion, communists in Latin America will probably end up supporting the most extreme reformists that they can find. Chavez is the obvious example.

But they should be attacking all forms of pre-capitalist ideology...especially religion.

Why? Because until the people there mentally "time-travel" into the modern world, proletarian revolution and communism will remain simply utopian.

Sad but true.

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

[Ligeia]

You bring up an interesting point. It can definitely not be called a belief or a superstition though! A superstition is something not based on scientific facts.


Well,it's more scietntific than a reiligion ever could be,but I just was pointing out this characteristic about creating passivity(as does religion many times) and when there is a defeat or a step backwards then it creates hope and comfort amongst some with another type of will (like religion does).

If you take h.m. like an automatism out of economy there's always the point that most forget that materiality is nothing(not enough) without ideas and ideologies,ideas are not enough without the material conditions.




I'm with those who say that public religion must be banned. Then the whole concept of superstition will wither away very fast imo.

They were and are counter-revolutionaries because communism is the fundamental opposite of religion since it's based on materialism. They naturally feel threatened by it. And they should!

What does that mean "it's based on materialism"?

And are you really sure it will wither away fast,there are different types of religious people,some won't give up that easy and don't forget that banning something,making it illegal attracts...although I don't see any reason why religion is needed and can't understand this ,I'm not sure about this,that it could be that easy,this folcloristic mentality in populations should be studied,since a fatal error could happen if you ignore it.

Subjective factors are also of importance.People will first change their minds as the economic system changes and even then not totally...first there has to be somekind of mental preparation,at least a bit.

Furthermore,there are enough religion-followers who wished communism or socialism then capitalism and don't feel threatened also they should;they still feel there could be a tolerance.So why destroying such a group?They won't understand and drag communism down?but why exactly?......Im still searching for a reason.


Start with how people acquire a religion in the first place. Their parents tell them, right? Their parents take them to church. The schools reinforce their parents' teachings. In other words, everything in their immediate environment conspires to tell them that a particular religion "is really true".

That's quite obvious,today people don't accquire religious beliefs on a natural way but religion like ,say, reformism is somewhere in history a natural reraction out of people's mind(or was).It was an attempt to try to build an utopian world,escaping reality,an expression of their needs and interests and at the same time ,later,trying to build a better world on unscientific,irrational grounds but today this mostly has lead to hipocrisy but there are still some with really good will in them.


Religions "explain" economic inequality in terms of "human sin". If people would "stop sinning", then we'd have a "just world" more or less as soon as that "happened".

Well,if you take catholicism for example,people are allowed to sin or not,they are totally free to choose doesn't matter if the world gets unjust..etc.,since Jesus already died to save us all ,clear our sins up,and in the end of time there'll be the reign of God anyway,so all doesn't matter at the end---a contradiction but intresting...there's no good reason to refute this.


If they attack the popular superstitions, they will alienate the vast majority of people there. But if they ignore those superstitions or try to pretend that they "don't matter", they will end up, at best, with a "following" of people who can't think rationally about the real world.


Well,isn't there a way inbetween?And don't forget that religious doesn't have to mean faithfully and totally religious,believing in God's will..etc.,this can mean also that they only believe there's a god and that was it.They can think rationally as long as they know that God's will isn't logical even from a theological point of view especially in christianity since they believe in free will,consequently god does absolutely nothing and they have to do everything and can do everything they want,they won't even suffer in hell,even if you don't believe in God,so another contradiction.On the other hand there are many who believe that god leads them or stuff like that which I find like a blindness,they contradict their own religion with this.

Nevetheless there exists people who can think rationally about the real world,there's no reason why they shouldn't since believing in such a god,is equally to believe in nothing,it only changes views on death but i think,that's all.


Why? Because until the people there mentally "time-travel" into the modern world, proletarian revolution and communism will remain simply utopian.



Don&#39;t be bothered but I don&#39;t understand that arguement about "time travel". <_<

What&#39;s got time travel to do with utopia?

And as far as I know religious people already got their transcendend utopia,why should they make out of communism a utopia then?

Is it all about confusion?Just because you believe in a god or gods?I think this belief came also out of the deception most people have about the world in general,seeing rationally,that humans were the ones making the world like it is and thus they can&#39;t imagine humans carry the goodness of their principles(also made by themselves)and create a non-human that is more believable to carry their aims or being the cause of it,it&#39;s simply or this was simply easier for the people but all the same I ask myself if this is such a big mistake,if you veil a good truth so that people can understand it and want to understand it better.

There&#39;s always the argument without religion most would lose their orientation but I think this all roots in this transistion of goodness into something alien.Of course,they wouldn&#39;t people always find a way to orientate themselves towards an aim out of material conditions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ligeia
...but there are still some with really good will in them.

How could that be known? Of course, all sorts of people claim to "have good will" and "mean well".

Even neo-Nazis say that&#33; :o

What we do, if we&#39;re rational, is take a look at what those sorts of people did when they had a chance.

We try to match up the "ideas" with the practice.

In the case of religion, it quickly becomes clear that whenever and wherever they had the chance to put their beliefs into practice, the consequences have been pure shit&#33;

It&#39;s so blatantly obvious in the Muslim world that it hardly even merits discussion. But consider the historical dominance of Catholicism in Latin America. In what country, other than Cuba, is a woman&#39;s right to abortion on demand respected? Are there any???


Well,if you take Catholicism for example, people are allowed to sin or not, they are totally free to choose; doesn&#39;t matter if the world gets unjust..etc., since Jesus already died to save us all, clear our sins up, and in the end of time there&#39;ll be the reign of God anyway, so all doesn&#39;t matter at the end---a contradiction but interesting...there&#39;s no good reason to refute this.

Other than the fact that it&#39;s total nonsense&#33;

I&#39;ll grant you that if Catholics (or Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.) confined themselves to saving their own souls, then it might be possible to "live with that".

But they never do&#33;

Once again, whenever they get the opportunity, they enforce their "religious commandments" on everyone&#33;

People express "shock" that the Muslims call for death to the cartoonists who "committed blasphemy" by drawing unflattering pictures of Muhammad.

But the English laws against "witchcraft" were not repealed until the early 1820s. And the last Scottish execution for "blasphemy" was around the same time.

In the state I grew up in, I can remember as a child seeing all the alcohol displays in the grocery stores covered up by a large tarp on Sundays...it was a "sin" to "drink on the Lord&#39;s Day", you see.

And it was also a crime to sell alcohol on "the Lord&#39;s Day".

See what I mean? No matter what their strength might be, they&#39;ll do whatever they can to fuck people over and make them be "right in the eyes of God".

Where do you think the whole world-wide "war on drugs" actually comes from? It comes from Protestant fundamentalists in late 19th and early 20th century America&#33; It was a "war on sin" that has totally destroyed millions of lives&#33;

And this, they tell us, is "virtue". :angry:

So I am in no mood for "compromise" with those bastards&#33; I think revolutionary communists should take a position of intransigent hatred towards all religions&#33;

And at such time as we "get our chance", I think we should fall on them like the proverbial ton of bricks.

Sure, they&#39;ll "promise to play nice" and "not be counter-revolutionary", blah, blah, blah. They&#39;ll say anything to preserve their filthy racket.

I will not believe them.

Nor should anyone.

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

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:45 PM


In the case of religion, it quickly becomes clear that whenever and wherever they had the chance to put their beliefs into practice, the consequences have been pure shit&#33;
Most who do such things,are fundamentalists,there are still others who just believe and that was it.Are they dangerous,as well?


Well,if you take Catholicism for example, people are allowed to sin or not, they are totally free to choose; doesn&#39;t matter if the world gets unjust..etc., since Jesus already died to save us all, clear our sins up, and in the end of time there&#39;ll be the reign of God anyway, so all doesn&#39;t matter at the end---a contradiction but interesting...there&#39;s no good reason to refute this.


Other than the fact that it&#39;s total nonsense&#33;

That was no pro-arguement.it was just a remark on the ilogical character and not more.Nonsense as you said,so don&#39;t bother ,just think about the reason why I wrote this.It was a rhethorical question.


See what I mean? No matter what their strength might be, they&#39;ll do whatever they can to fuck people over and make them be "right in the eyes of God".

That&#39;s intresting but that are mostly the very religious ones who do that and I don&#39;t agree with them either since I think all this is only the popular concept of religion and most who hear the theological "truthes" are shocked since it destroys their popular views on religion,imagine you tell them they better watch out if they start holding this popular believes?....well,nevermind.


So I am in no mood for "compromise" with those bastards&#33; I think revolutionary communists should take a position of intransigent hatred towards all religions&#33;".

You are only talking about fundamentalist,the very religious ones,I hope the ones weaker in their believes will change their minds before the "chance " comes.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Luis pretty much described the situation.

I would only add that there are also a sizeable number of atheists in Uruguay, Argentina & Cuba (both before the revolution, and now many more).

There are also many who are &#39;Catholic&#39;, but have never gone to church in their lives. Most of them still have superstitious views though.

[Sentinel]

What does that mean "it&#39;s based on materialism"?

It&#39;s the scientific, materialistic theory of class society and the inevitable proletarian revolution. Nothing "supernatural" there.

The superstitious are allergic to science, since it refutes their bullshit theories. And so, they are reactionary by default.


And are you really sure it will wither away fast,there are different types of religious people,some won&#39;t give up that easy and don&#39;t forget that banning something,making it illegal attracts...

Yes, I&#39;m convinced that when superstition is made invisible and propagating for it illegal, it&#39;s condemned to become nothing but small, hidden sects. It&#39;s power will be broken.

While it&#39;s impossible to stop people from believing whatever they want inside their heads, spreading of superstition can and will be condemned. And so will indoctrination of children into superstition.

I warmly recommend The Cathedral and the Wrecking Ball (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083428859&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) by redstar2000. It deals with this issue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ligeia
Most who do such things are fundamentalists...That&#39;s interesting but that are mostly the very religious ones who do that and I don&#39;t agree with them either...You are only talking about fundamentalist, the very religious ones...

This is such a frequent response that it deserves a "special treatment".

Why is it that the "fundamentalists" are able to do the bad things that they do?

Let&#39;s say, for example, that only 5% of the followers of a given religion are "very religious fundamentalists" and all the rest (95%) are far more "moderate" and even "perfunctory" in their observances.

Who will "set the tone" for that religion? Who will tend to "rise to the top" of its clerical hierarchy? Who will "interpret" the "holy book"?

Who will tell all the followers of that religion what it really means to be religious?

The average Muslim has better things to do with his life than blow up infidels. The average Christian does not lust to burn a "witch" or a "heretic". The average Hindu is not interested in traveling to a Muslim village and killing everyone there.

But they will do those things when their "spiritual leaders" -- the "very religious fundamentalists" -- tell them to do it&#33;

And there you are. The medieval popes didn&#39;t burn any "witches" themselves. The mullahs don&#39;t blow themselves up.

But if you "believe in God" and there&#39;s this guy who you think is "especially holy" and he tells you "God wants you to do something really nasty"...how will you respond?

The historical answer to that is already known.

Only the people who are so alienated from religion that they&#39;ve ceased to pay any significant attention to it at all are "immune" from the "very religious fundamentalists".

All the "ordinary believers" are perfectly harmless...until their "very religious fundamentalist" LEADERS tell them that "the TIME is AT HAND" to do something really awful.

If you are especially perceptive, you will have left the country right before that happens. :o

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

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:31 AM

This is such a frequent response that it deserves a "special treatment".



I was waiting for this treatment to come,thank you.


But they will do those things when their "spiritual leaders" -- the "very religious fundamentalists" -- tell them to do it&#33;

Are you sure?I always thought the ones doing such things were actually the fundamentalists or simply someone desperate.

I always had the impression that as people(very religious ones,or moderates if you wish to call them so)started to do this atrocities the most would
just look with disgusie at this,and be ashamed,and would never want to give their life nor make their hands blood-red just because of their religion.Their good lifestandard (especially in industrialised countries or european countries,is more adequate here)would be a good reason for them not to do so,the decadent lifestyle....This people are the hipocritical ones but there exist also enough in the religions.

I think those are really not harmful,they are almost atheistic since they just believe since they became their belief indoctrinated in childhood or just for the reason that you have to believe in something( in their point of view).

The spiritual leaders are not the only ones to be very religious,surely they are the cause or one cause for people becoming "very religious".


But if you "believe in God" and there&#39;s this guy who you think is "especially holy" and he tells you "God wants you to do something really nasty"...how will you respond?

I don&#39;t know any religious persons who believe that humans can be "especially holy".There may be some and maybe too much of them but there are also enough who think the other way.There are for example many christians (or bettter catholics) who think that there is no need for having a pope or even believing that he is holy or the loudspeaker of God,and there are also some(I would say many)who don&#39;t see much reason in church buildings.They are not very likely to do any "nasty" things since they don&#39;t believe that much and don&#39;t believe in holiness in the existent world.


All the "ordinary believers" are perfectly harmless...until their "very religious fundamentalist" LEADERS tell them that "the TIME is AT HAND" to do something really awful.


But those aren&#39;t the same as the "alienated"persons,are they?



If you are especially perceptive, you will have left the country right before that happens. :o

That&#39;s what I&#39;m trying to do,being perceptive but also being perceptive for differences and not generalizing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ligeia+--> (Ligeia)That&#39;s what I&#39;m trying to do,being perceptive but also being perceptive for differences and not generalizing.[/b]

We are often told, by all sorts of people, to avoid the "error" of "generalization".

What is it, exactly, that we are supposed to avoid?


Dictionary.com
1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances; 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles

In other words, if we were to "avoid generalities" then it would be impossible to say anything of substance about the world. We&#39;d be restricted to the "fine details".

Quite a number of scientists have pointed out that humans are "pattern seeking" animals; that is, our brains "look for generalizations" naturally.

It&#39;s the "way we think".

Most generalizations are wrong...or at least inadequate.

But enough of them have proven to be correct often enough as to allow our species to both survive and prosper.

Tigers like the taste of people...and one should therefore be extremely cautious in their presence.

It&#39;s not true "every time". Sometimes the tiger is not hungry or may be on the scent of a potential mate or may be suffering from a terminal illness and thus be too weak to pounce on a human.

But the "general pattern" is "tigers will eat people if they have the opportunity"...and that "generalization" is true.

We have something on the order of 4,000 years of written history on the practices of religion. What&#39;s been the pattern?

Pretty bad, eh?

A lot worse than hungry tigers, when you get right down to it. :lol:

Is there any evidence to support the proposition that religion is "better now" than it "used to be"?

I know of none. Some religions speak in "softer voices" than they used to...for fear of alienating modern sensibilities.

But none of them have actually repudiated their past atrocities. I see nothing to suggest that they wouldn&#39;t do the same things if they thought they could get away with it.

Just as I see nothing to suggest that the neo-Nazis wouldn&#39;t rebuild Auschwitz if they thought they could get away with it.

Thus I argue that communists must regard all forms of religion with intransigent hostility. If the seriously religious are not doing something nasty to people (except lying to them and sucking money out of them) at the moment, it&#39;s simply because they don&#39;t think they have the chance to do it and get away with it YET&#33;

The pattern is clear and the evidence, both historical and contemporary, is overwhelming&#33;

You see, some generalizations are really true.

And this is one of them.

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

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:11 PM
i understand latin america is predominantly catholic, or a large part of it is catholic, is that right? so are socialists in latin america also catholic? :unsure:
Well, yes, Latin America is predominantly catholic (with a bunch of other superstitions sometimes mixed in).

There are many of what I call "Latin socialists": catholic, idealist, anti-imperialist nationalists. The spanish forum got lots of them. Many of them repeat the same old crap about jesus being a "revolutionary", and that the "christian morality" is "socialism" and that kind of silly comparisons (Chavez said such things too). They of course follow it with slogans like "Patria o muerte&#33;" or "Hasta la victoria siempre&#33;" or "Viva el Che&#33;" or "Viva la revolución bolivariana&#33;", which makes "the left" look like idiots.

Don&#39;t be fooled by these pseudo-revolutionaries.