For instance, in Brazil, we went through a coup and elected a fascist because most people really believe the previous two governments were corrupt and would implement a communist dictatorship given time.
The fact they are not measurably more or less corrupt than their predecessors, that they formed a coalition with Center-right parties in order to govern, and that their platform is timidly social democratic were, and continue to be, largely ignored.
To the point that now, after more than 600 thousand avoidable deaths, unprecedented unemployment, countless corruption scandals directly connected to him, and the worst economic crisis since the 90’s, only 58% support his impeachment.
If you really want to know how to manufacture consent for war, you should study Goebbels works, or Russian propaganda (Putin likes Goebbels).
Catholicism argues for allegiance to Christ through the Holy Roman Church not some earthly authority. It’s pretty clear that’s taken to heart when you look at the system that is the Catholic Church. I mean the pope has his own country?
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Catholicism is all about “working with what you have”. Abide by the earthly rules of your government, but your obligation to god is separate.
The idea that government and state should be be separate was driven by the desire to be free of the church being completely enmeshed with state.
But these things only hold personal spiritual/ redemptive value if done voluntarily.
Forced charity isn't charitable.
Not all ideals that you believe in (religious or not) should be manifested through political and then legal implementations.
And if you miss that key aspect... then it just becomes another philosophy where the ends justify the means.
If you voluntarily elect a government that will make it into law or work toward its establishment, your redemption is assured, because you did it voluntarily.
In this case, the end being the eradication of poverty and all its ills, wouldn't be a noble goal we could all work towards?
And, even if it never becomes codified as law, if it just become a universal social norm, to not work for the accumulation of resources and power, but instead to work for your own and other's betterment, wouldn't that goal be fulfilled?
'Voluntarily' supporting mandatory laws misses the entire point: that individual acts matter and sacrifice for others matters.
Especially when voting for tax schemes that might cost you very little because they're sold as "only taxing those that can afford it" or "the 1%" or whatever.
>If you voluntarily elect a government that will make it into law or work toward its establishment, your redemption is assured, because you did it voluntarily.0
You've just re-invented indulgences.
Catholicism (and Christianity more broadly) is close to 2000 years old, whereas the concepts of "left" and "right" are less than 250 years old, originating in the French Revolution. Both terms represent alliances of political positions on rather disparate topics, and many of those linkages may be more due to accidents of history than any essential connection. The precise mix of positions that make up the "left" or the "right" varies from country to country, and changes over time. The terms are useful as a rough approximation in describing the politics of some countries in particular: I think the hard two party system of the US encourages "left-vs-right" thinking, although that still ignores the internal contradictions within both alliances. Many other countries, especially those with softer two party systems, multiparty systems, and/or greater cultural diversity, politics can be more multi-dimensional, and "left-vs-right" often appears less useful; and the difference between "left-wing" and "right-wing" authoritarian regimes appears to be more style than substance, rendering the distinction rather useless in large parts of the world. When you take this broader historical view of "left-vs-right", it seems unsurprising that the labels perform poorly when applied to a religious tradition which is approximately 8 times older than those labels themselves are.
Catholics are Christians. Perhaps you mean Catholic or Protestant?
That's a really nonsensical argument. Most non-Catholic churches have authorities – Bishops, Conventions, whatever – just because they don't accept the authority of the Pope doesn't mean they don't accept have other ecclesial authorities which they do accept.
Also, Eastern Orthodox theologians–and even some Protestant theologians–have said they accept the Pope's authority in principle, but they cannot accept it in practice because the Popes have abused their power and given themselves far more power than they were ever meant to have – but, in principle, if the Catholic Church turned over a new leaf, and adopted a much more limited view of papal power, and if their other theological disputes with Catholicism could be satisfactorily resolved – then they'd be able to go back to accepting the Pope's authority, not just in principle, but in practice too.
I believe the Catholic response to that would be that before Christ returned to heaven he created a church, and he gave that church the authority to preach, to teach, and the forgive sins. It exists the continue Christ's mission on earth.
Christ then selected Peter to be the leader of the church and granted him authority over all the faithful ("I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.")
At this moment Christ instituted the office of the Papacy.
Whoever holds this office has authority over the universal church. This authority does not come from the man who holds the office but comes directly from Christ himself.
The Pope is not above Christ, the Pope answers to the authority of Christ. The Pope is just a man like anyone else.
So to summarize, why do Catholics answer to the Pope? Because that's what Christ wanted.
The political and cultural juggernaut that is the American Christian right would disagree.
>I say this as an Atheist, that these ideas are pretty clever for a guy who lived 20 centuries ago.
Every religion teaches the same basic social principles in some way or another. Jesus didn't invent any of it.
This is often repeated, seldom examined up close. It's true only in the vaguest sense, that "be good" is a common theme and that there are some overlaps in what constitutes good.
You usually need to get into the esoteric theology to find modern notions of equality in traditional religions. Many religions actually teach the opposite: "know your place".
Not every religion. The Rigveda and Manu Smriti core Vedic texts clearly teaches a divided society which resulted in untouchables. [0]
I am ok with no credit for Jesus movement but please don’t say superficially all religions teach the same basics which is simply not true.
[0] https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/readin...
They calling themselves Christian has nothing to do with whether they follow the ideas Jesus taught.
Remember the guy who said you should sell all your stuff and give the money to the poor was Jesus, not Karl Marx.
Id argue that Christianity is inherently conservative. Christianity finds the root cause of the imperfection of our world (and the systems it contains) in original sin. One doesn’t endlessly seek an answer for why systems eventually fail or bad things happen, because one recognizes that ultimately everything in this world suffers imperfection. For progressivism, original sin is open-ended, thereby allowing for any particular powerful entity to control what is considered the source of evil.
The Christian, by embracing the absurd belief of original sin, recognizes that ultimately even formal thought becomes informal. His belief protects him from the hubris of thinking that he has the power to fix what cannot ever be fixed. The progressive, by definition, must always be seeking a way “forward”, and in doing so tends to believe in other, more harmful absurd beliefs.
Catholicism has, at various times in modern history, represented both the far left and far right, or places in between.
I would be careful here. You are operating under a very peculiar view of left/right (not a very accurate view in my estimation). Left/right are generally labels of little value apart from particular time and place.
> at the core of Christian faith lies the notion of equality
Equality only as persons or in dignity, yes, but Christianity/Catholicism is anything but egalitarian. The distribution of qualities, both inherent and cultivated, is unequal. As Chesterton wrote IIRC, this latter sort of egalitarianism is the equality of envy and cutting down. Whereas an envious elitist may try to outdo his opponent, the egalitarian will deny or cut him down. Those are pride and envy, both mortal sins and therefore surefire ways to temporal disorder and the eternal self-destruction known as Hell.
> forgiveness and understanding the other
The coupling of these two seems to suggest that what is forgiven is understandable or resolved by understanding. But that is not true forgiveness. If someone were to wrong me in some grievous way, out of ill will, I should feel the proportionate degree of anger. Just as wrath, inordinate anger, is a defect, so is an absence of proportional anger. Anger moves us toward justice and its absence at times when it is needed encourages the continuation of evil since the trespasser is never sent a clear signal that his actions are evil. We forgive not because "it's okay", but because what has been done isn't! We want the contrition of the trespasser. And forgiveness does not rule out the need for justice. We may show mercy, but that is left to prudential judgement. Charity is totally subject to the truth. To quote St. Pius X, the "primary duty of charity does not lie in toleration of false ideas".
> as well as loving everyone, even those who do not reciprocate.
Love here is the love of willing the objective good of the other, not the sentimental ersatz variety commonly espoused today that rests on feelings. What is an enemy? Someone who is ill willed. We do not love him in any human way. We love him for his sake as an act of charity, for his conversion and repentance. Man's ultimate fulfillment is to know and love God, the supreme and inexhaustible cause, cause of causes. Good brings us into better alignment with that infinite and highest of goods, evil takes us away (though we are incapable of reconciling ourselves to that highest good on our own, hence the sacraments and grace).
You might find this post more informative than what I have written[0]. But to sum things us: Christianity/Catholicism is anything but the Church of Being A Nice Fellow. The military language (spiritual warfare, spiritual combat, the Church Militant here on earth, talk of spiritual battle in St. Michael's Prayer) in the Tradition are not a mistake. You just have to understand what the battle is all about. Read the New Testament and you don't get a picture of a Nice Jesus, only a charitable one. Nice people don't tell others that if they keep heading where they're heading, living in the way they're living, they'll not only end up miserable, but they'll end up in Hell. Nice people don't throw money changers out of the temple. Nice people don't speak truth to power. No, only loving people do that.
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/11/against-candy-ass-c...
> You are operating under a very peculiar view of left/right
I am using the most current views - for instance, in the US, the "left" (there is no such thing as socialists in the US mainstream politics, or even a "proper" left) wants everyone to have healthcare, regardless of how much they can pay. The very far left of the US political spectrum are mild social democrats and Keynesians.
> Whereas an envious elitist may try to outdo his opponent, the egalitarian will deny or cut him down.
While neither of them is going to Heaven, that doesn't undo the notion that Jesus told people to get rid of all their worldly possessions, give the money to the poor, and join him.
> suggest that what is forgiven is understandable or resolved by understanding.
Not at all. One should understand and accept the other even when there are irreconcilable differences, for God made both and both deserve love.
> Christianity/Catholicism is anything but the Church of Being A Nice Fellow.
It has been used for purposes completely opposite to what Jesus taught, by fallible humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_Graf_von_Galen
However, Catholic church played an important role in supporting Hitler's fascist buddy Franco during the Spanish Civil war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_in_the_Second_Span....
I am sure there are many other examples on both sides. Similar to other religions. Some claim it is difficult to be Zionist or Shia Muslim and not lean left for example (counter to the common stereotype).
I think these guys might disagree: https://www.churchmilitant.com/
(Of course, following the laws, teachings and commandments is not the point of biblical Christianity (the idea being that it is impossible to in humanity’s current state), but Christians should want to, and strive towards being better at it, while being honest about their shortcomings!)
I'm assuming you're American, because otherwise I find it hard to believe that anyone could thing the philosophy that comes right out of the gospels as "flawed".
This is a serious question: Is there anything he's said that was not already taught in the gospels?
What is your justification for this?
Funny, your words above this speak contrary to this. Where is your Love for people who can't be treated because hospitals are overwhelmed? There is strong suspicion that due to this covid caused equal amount of deaths as a nasty side effect (undiagnosed heart attacks, strokes, cancers, hugely delayed surgeries etc.)
There ain't no Truth in your words, simple scientific fact.
And as for Freedom, its just about you and likeminded people. You clearly don't care about containing virus and thus giving freedom to everybody. Well the rest of us beg to differ.
All I'm asking for is FREEDOM FROM authority telling my people to inject or be LOCK OUT while everyone else comes out of LOCK DOWN into our new dystopia where TRUTH is hard to swallow so people don't look for it.
Even though you show a strong contrast to my position:
I LOVE YOU!
The vaccine absolutely, definitely, without a single doubt in the mind of any sane person, does stop the spread of contagion. To claim otherwise is a direct and clear lie. By repeating this, you are lying. As far as I can gather, christians are not allowed to do so.
A person with the sars-cov-2 contagion spreads the virus.
Unfortunately both vacinated and unvacinated people are at risk of contracting & spreading sars-cov-2, we have a staggering number of break through cases, even in highly vacinated areas.
I am not a mortal danger to myself or anyone becuase I dont have sars-cov-2. this is the 5th endemic Corona virus.
I AM healthy and strong.
not sick, not unclean, not unhygenic, not uncaring, not part of the untouchable caste, I will not obey.
people with the virus spread the virus, not any arbitrary list that the government keeps on injection status or religion.
A person with the sars-cov-2 contagion spreads the virus.
Unfortunately both vacinated and unvacinated people are at risk of contracting spreading sars-cov-2, we have a staggering number of break through cases, even in highly vacinated areas.
I am not a mortal danger to myself or anyone becuase I dont have the virus. this is the 5th endemic Corona virus.
I AM healthy and strong.
not sick, not unclean, not unhygenic, not uncaring, not part of the untouchable caste, I will not obey.
people with the virus spread the virus, not any arbitrary list that the government keeps on injection status or religion.
The virus doesn’t sent you an email to let you know you have it. Many people have it and spread it without even knowing. The best way to fight against that is through vaccination. The rest of your comment reads like you doing mental gymnastics to justify the stance you already dug in on months ago.
This is the crux and the part of the argument they will never engage with. The unvaccinated make up the vast majority of those hospitalized, and the resources those people are consuming don't come from nowhere.
Has anybody here tried to use medical services in America this year for non-COVID reasons? Medical staff are overworked. Clerical staff are tired and making mistakes. The quality of medical care has dropped, and it's the fault of the unvaccinated, full stop.
So... Science says that's "un-possible," hrm?
https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-non...
Note my "communist left-winger" source. Let's go a step further! Here I'm linking an article whose headline will really stroke your confirmation bias:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-54-of-hospital-...
But if you read the actual article:
> Some 72 per cent of all patients in ICU since late June had an underlying condition. Between April and August, there were 193 Covid-19 deaths. Of the 178 patients whose vaccination status was known, 30 were at least 14 days after receiving the final dose of vaccine.
...
> “The rise in vaccinated patients in hospital is not a surprise as more and more people have been vaccinated,” said HSE chief clinical officer Dr Colm Henry.
> Whereas in January up to 50 people ended up in hospital for every 1,000 Covid-19 cases, now fewer than 20 hospitalisations occur for the same number of cases.
> “But for the vaccination programme, hospitals would have been overwhelmed,” Dr Henry said.
I ask you again: where is the snake oil? And I'll tell you: your emotional attachment to being right and being proud of your bullshit-detection-kit is making you prone to a type ii error here. Reject the null hypothesis. The COVID vaccine obviously, patently, visibly, openly works. Take your tools of skepticism and apply them somewhere that isn't equivalent to parking in a fire lane during a fire.
There are too many political, economic, and social incentives involved in propagating this new vaccine to say anything about it with the least bit of certainty. The fact that so many are presenting such an uncertain topic with such certainty itself carries a signal.
The only thing that will solve this uncertainty is time.
Show your work. The argument, as you have made it, could apply to the CDC saying you shouldn't take lead supplements. You don't know who's pulling the strings of the CDC, therefore lead is good for you actually? You aren't pointing to anything contradicting the mountain of openly available evidence contradicting your position.
Is Joe Biden really a 'leftist'? He supports the private ownership of capital. I think most in the US would describe him as a liberal, and most self-identified leftists would describe him with unkindness.
In American political discourse, any member of the Democratic Party is considered a "leftist' regardless of their beliefs or policies. You're correct that actual self-identified leftists (at least the ones I'm aware of) hate him. But remember that 'leftist' is used more often than not as a pejorative and dog-whistle for "radical Marxist" in the US than a descriptive political label outside of leftist circles.
As an American living in America, this doesn't match my experience. My impression aligns with Urban Dictionary:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Leftist
'Leftist: A person belonging to the political left and usually identifying with the radical, anti capitalist, or revolutionary sectors of left politics. Includes anarchists, marxists, communists, socialists, and all other explicitly radical left ideologies.'
There are absolutely conservative commentators who describe all Democratic Party voters as 'leftists', just as there are left-leaning commentators who describe all Republicans as 'fascists', but these descriptions are commonly understood to be hyperbole. I think when using words like 'leftist' among non-American company, we can agree that the current Presidential adminstration doesn't fit that label. Compare the current White House policy agenda to that of Germany's political party Die Linke, translated as "The Left":
Absolutely. But the US doesn't really have a true Left in its political spectrum, it has a far right and center right, represented by the Republicans and Democrats respectively, so the scale is skewed. Also, hyperbole seems to be dominating the discourse at the moment, and not just from the commentariat. Everyone I know who would describe themselves as Conservative or Republican considers Biden a leftist.
As seen from anywhere else, the US right now has a center-right party, with a handful of timid socdem members (the Democrats) and a far-right (Republicans), along with some other marginal movements.
Right now some people in the US would call Keynes a communist, or "radical Marxist", to use the dog-whistle you mentioned.
Central to the CIA’s use of Catholicism was a man named Tom Dooley. Though the name is largely obscure today, in 1961 he placed third in Gallup’s “Most Esteemed” man in the world poll. Dooley was a Navy doctor who provided care for South Vietnamese refugees fleeing the chaos after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. His 1956 best seller Deliver Us from Evil, as well as countless articles and media appearances afterward, “justified American intervention in Vietnam and presented Vietnamese Catholics as sympathetic subjects.” He was a central-casting missionary, and the persecuted Vietnamese were precisely the kinds of people Christ charged Catholics to serve. But he was writing CIA-sponsored propaganda to build domestic support for Vietnam, and his stories weren’t “strictly speaking, true.”
-
And the Edward Snowden of the CIA of that era Philip Agee:
But the Tlatelolco student massacre in Mexico City in 1968, in which he felt the CIA was complicit, was his Damascene moment. Agee had begun to immerse himself in the leftist Catholic liberation theology movement sweeping Latin America: “I became the servant of the capitalism I rejected. I became one of its secret policemen. The CIA, after all, is nothing more than the secret police of American capitalism.”
Agee didn’t just quit. He moved to Cuba for a time to do “research,” and then, from his residence in the United Kingdom, wrote and published Inside the Company (1975), one of the first books by a former officer to air the CIA’s dirty laundry. But, controversially, he went further: in the book, Agee actually revealed the names of hundreds of active CIA officers and agents. “One way to neutralize the CIA’s support to repression,” he wrote at the time, “is to expose its officers so that their presence in foreign countries becomes untenable.”