I’ve put forward no moral view of Alinsky. I’ve simply been pointing out to those who decry his methods that they fail to realise that the people they support also use them. I think my first post referenced this irony.
You do realise that it was partly produced by EWTN and another Catholic film company that has made several programs for EWTN and others?
Well, here I am, Socialist and Catholic. Lightning hasn’t struck me down yet. Perhaps someone should tell Dorothy Day to stop being echoing Marxist sentiments, she can’t be a Catholic.
That’s an allusion, not a dedication, which is a very important distinction to make. The passage itself strikes me a rather tongue in cheek.
So as you’ve mentioned, I’m a recent convert, but I don’t believe that the Rerum Novarum is actually an infallible decree, yes? Otherwise I’d have to wonder why there’s so much outrage about Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment.
No, an allusion. People allude to religious stories all the time, and they’re not attacked for it.
That’s not true. Look at Dorothy Day. About the only disagreement she had with socialism was the fact that it requires a state (in most definitions of it anyway.)
So why does Rerum Novarum require assent but the Pope’s environmental encyclical does not? They’re both encyclicals, right?
Allusion=/= acknowledgement, and it’s an irrelevant point to bring up when discussing the man. I wasn’t referring to you so much as I was referring the the sentiment of a notable few in this thread.
Allusion, acknowledgement, call it whatever you want, he tipped his hat to Satan.
I guess you don’t understand what a literary allusion is then. Should all literature which contains allusions to Satan be disregarded as well? I hope not, I’m rather fond of works such as the Screwtape Letters.
I was offering it as a comparison.
Awesome. In reading the link you gave me, the Pope is giving an opinion on Socialism, one that I disagree with. Given that I’m Catholic, it’s obvious that I reject the totalitarian ideologies associated with Socialism, much like how it’s obvious I reject the totalitarian ideologies associated with Capitalism.
It’s not deflection, it’s distinction. People make literary allusions to Satan all the time.
That means that the original teaching should be used not an encyclical.
Ah ah ah, you’re changing things up. I just said he wasn’t dedicating the book to Satan. Whether he wants to call him the first radical or not is entirely his business.
So enlighten me then, because the link you gave me reads like an opinion the Pope had and some poking around I did shows that the encyclical rejects the totalitarian and atheistic ideals behind socialism, which hey, so do I. I’m not interested in China 2.0.
It’s an attempt to get a balanced view.
No, I’m really not, this is semantics at this point. He acknowledged him, with an air of reverence, in my opinion. He refers to his being the first radical. Alinsky is a proud radical. What, exactly are we arguing about here? Why do you desire to defend him?
No it’s not. I said the book wasn’t dedicated to Satan. You said it was. I explained that a literary allusion is not an act of dedication, it’s just that: a literary allusion. Salinsky isn’t the first author to allude this story, and he won’t be the last. That’s it. There’s nothing more to be gleaned from this. Satan is never brought up again in the book. Indeed, Christianity is referenced in the book several times, in an interesting contrast.
I won’t hold my breath.