In which Catholics makes me ill

[ribozyme]

I found this when I performed an internet search:

amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/cardinal_launches_immigration.php

Why I left the catholic church years ago.

Irish, Italian and Eastern European Americans made the American Catholic church the most powerful Catholic church in the world. During most of the 20th century, the American Catholic church was as powerful as the Vatican.

Beginning by endorsing affirmative action, the American Catholic Church has spent the last 40 years slapping in the face and kicking in the ***** those Catholics who made it such a powerful
organization both in the religious and secular arenas.

But now they are bringing in Latin American Indians and so- called “Christians” from Africa to take jobs, housing and entire cities and states from white Americans.

Well the Church will get what it deserves, a congregation of the passive primitives that have created the disfunctional societies of Latin America and Africa.

And how many of those African “Christians” will continue going to Church or bother to baptize their children once the Church has set them up with their welfare entitlements?

This should surprise nobody. Catholic Social Services has been bringing third world malcontents into the United States for years, only to dump them on the taxpayers’ dole.

For that matter, why in the name of the god ‘Diversity’ is the Catholic leader of southern California named ‘Mahony’. Tsk, tsk …… ol’ Rog need to step down immediately and allow for the appointment of a third-world immigrant. Surely there’s no shortage of candidates.

I remember arguing in support of Peter Singer’s position that it is morally acceptable to abort an infant with Down sydrome because of its genotype. I must thank you all for showing the flaws in Peter Singer’s position. Instead of considering equal consideration of one’s interests (the key tenet in Singer’s philosophy), we should do what we can to faciliate one’s intellectual, moral, emotional, and spirtual (if we have a spiritual facet to our nature). Abortion does not fulfill this, and one can invoke this tenet as an argument against abortion that does not involve resource to a theistic system of morality. However, I am disillusioned that some those Catholics have no regard for social justice. They use thw word “egalitarian” as a pejorative. Oh well, it doesn’t matter, as these “primitives” do not deserve the basic rights such as the right to a living wage. I’ll go the library and avidly read the groundbreaking scholarly work concerning the nature of these “primitives” written by magnanimous scientists like Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton.

At least some atheists respect human rights and human equality. You should read this blog entry by PZ Myers, a fervent atheist, as a example:
pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/in_which_steve_sailer_makes_me_ill/

It seems that Catholicism does not require one to accept the equality of all humans because some people are “primitive”. I now discern the futility of using God as a basis for morality. PZ has a heart, those religious people don’t.

 

[Jennifer123]

Why do you think this fringe element speaks for the Catholic Church in its entirety? This website is hardly authoritative, and as a Catholic and as a conservative, I can explicitly say it doesn’t speak for me.

It is appaling for anyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or belief to speak of any persons in such a way, and in fact is explicitly condemned by the Church universal as being sinful.

Just because some Catholics choose to behave in such a way doesn’t mean the Catholic Church isn’t who she claims.

 

[dafalax]

I also think it unwise to condemn the Church as a whole based on the writing of one person who left the Church years ago. That doesn’t seem the most reliable source. There are bad people and hypocrites in the Catholic Church, some of them in positions of power. Don’t paint us all with the same brush, please. The Church does not have missionaries go to Africa and Latin America to convert subhumans. Many of our greatest saints are from these so-called “primitive” peoples, like Juan Diego. The Church does not teach us to discriminate even if some people in the Church do.

 

[Rosalinda]

Maybe you would like to share with us exactly what did enter into the Internet search engine? Catholics number over one billion. It proves nothing that you found a weed growing among the wheat. Jesus told us not to bother pulling out the weeds. The separation will come at the Final Judgment. Until then there is every reason to hope a few of these weeds will repent and convert. Our long history has plenty of examples of great sinners who became great saints. Didn’t Peter deny his Lord three times during his greatest hour of need when all about Him were mocking, beating and spitting on Him? It was a profound betrayal of trust from one of Our Lord’s closest friends. Anyone with experience can tell you, one of the cruelest wounds of life is the betrayal of someone very close. As for social justice issues, Ribozyme, you would find it more edifying and worth your time to read from the catechism of the Catholic Church which devotes an entire chapter to this or the many writings of Pope John Paul II. Here are just two paragraphs from the CCC.

…Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2art3.htm

 

[ribozyme]

Maybe you would like to share with us exactly what did enter into the Internet search engine? Catholics number over one billion.

You are indeed entitled an answer to that inquiry. I entered “Catholic Marxism egalitarianism” on google to fine some websites that explore the Church’s view on Marxism and egalitarianism. Regarding Marxism, I disagree with Marxist economics and I do not advocate a revolution or rapid social upheaval. However, it seems that Marxists have an abnormal propinquity for issues that relate to social justice. I personally admire Marxists such as Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould because they actively oppose using science as political weapon.

“If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin”

I choose that quote because “Great is our sin” was the tentative title of Stephen Jay Gould’s book, The Mismeasure of Man. Kamin, Lewontin, and Gould have written scholarly work protesting this perversion of science (for example * Not in Our Genes* and the aformentioned The Mismeasure of Man), usually critics retort by “exposing” their political motives.

Since Marxism emphasizes egalitarianism, I incorporated several tenets of Marxism in my own personal philosophy. For example, I believe that the exploitation of the lower class (usually by extracting the maximum amount of “surplus value” from the working class) by the economically endowed leads to the alienation of the lower classes from humanity and themselves. By embracing egalitarianism, we can eradicate this alienation.

However, if we accept the magnanamious concept of human equality, it does not follow that we will appreciate human dignity. I also found this during that same search:

I talk or write a lot about Imperialism and this might sound, as if I was a communist, but I´m not, and most definitely I´m not a Marxist, never was.
Marxism is a philosophy built on atheism, aphilosophy explaining the world as purely materialistic. It denies the spiritual world and the Divine, even to the point of being hostile to religion.** Out of these reasons Marxism became a failed ideology. While it stresses an egalitarian society, it was unable to show respect for every single individual.** By denying God and love for Him, it could not inspire people to the higher ethics of “love of neighbour”. In all ex-communist countries, including China,( which is now a state-capitalist country with some of the worst wages and working-conditions on earth and a tiny upper-class with obscene wealth,) many of the ex-communist leaders in politics and economy became the worst capitalist predators.

I did make generalizations in my opening post, and I will admit that usingAmerican Renaissance to sample the opinions of Christians is akin to using Stormfront for this purpose. Intuitively, this small sample size does not reflect the opinions of mainstream Catholics as they ARE extremists.

The name “Peter Singer” in this message board elicits many unpleasant sentiments. Of course, I do not seek to defend his philosophical positions in this thread. However, I believe one can argue that the ideas of race fanatics such as J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn are a greater threat to ethics than the utilitarian philosophy of Peter Singer. These people attempt to utilize scientific arguments to revive concepts such as “untermensch” and “herrenrasse”. Whenever, we think that one group of people is inherently better than others, this will inevitably lead to human suffering.

 

[Jennifer123]

Christianity, and the Catholic Church acting as the true shepherd of Christian mores, and Marxism are incompatible not because we are small-minded bigots intent on oppressing the masses.

It is incompatible with Marxism and Socialism in general because it is the exact opposite of Jesus’s commands, to live and give freely of one’s self.

The Christian worldview is to live freely and to work out through our lives the perfection of lessening our material greed and increasing our spiritual lives. The Socialist worldview is to demand material charity by placing the state in charge of wealth distribution, as they don’t trust the people to make good choices for themselves. The problem is that this creates a shortage of goods that actually increases one’s perceived need of materials, since there is a forced shortage. You only need to look at the old Soviet Union to see how dire these people’s lives were when it was hard to get simple things like toilet paper and religion was surpressed.

I know this isn’t a discussion on Marxist ideology. This thread is about you being more careful about the sources you trust. Before you declare yourself enamored with socialist ideology, maybe you should just relax and be sure to take time to study the matter further. Take PoliSci 101 in college and progress from there, although I highly doubt you’ll find much information that doesn’t lean to a socialist POV. Just keep that in mind.

Here’s a good site for accurate Catholic information:
newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm

 

[ribozyme]

I know this isn’t a discussion on Marxist ideology. This thread is about you being more careful about the sources you trust. Before you declare yourself enamored with socialist ideology, maybe you should just relax and be sure to take time to study the matter further. Take PoliSci 101 in college and progress from there, although I highly doubt you’ll find much information that doesn’t lean to a socialist POV. Just keep that in mind.

Here’s a good site for accurate Catholic information:
newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm

I never said I accepted Marxism in its totality. But, if you want, call me a Marxist.

No, this thread concerns the issue that some Catholics apathetic towards social justice while some other atheists are concerned about the well being of the disadvantaged such as PZ Myers.

 

[SusanL]

No, this thread concerns the issue that some Catholics apathetic towards social justice while some other atheists are concerned about the well being of the disadvantaged such as PZ Myers.

So?

Some Catholics vs. some other atheists?

Yet the title of this thread is “In which Catholics makes me ill.”

Not **some Catholics **but Catholics.

Want to try again?

If you are so interested in social justice, then check out what Jesus said. “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Check out some well-known and lesser known Catholics like Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Or Sister Johnice of Buffalo. (Don’t know her? She runs a soup kitchen for the poor and other programs in one of the worst sections of Buffalo).

Don’t be so quick, my friend.

 

[mlchance]

How amusing that someone who praises Marxism, the bloodiest ideology ever conceived, for its alleged concern with social justice can in the same breath condemn the Church, the oldest and most active charitable organization in the world.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

How amusing that someone who praises Marxism, the bloodiest ideology ever conceived, for its alleged concern with social justice can in the same breath condemn the Church, the oldest and most active charitable organization in the world.



– Mark L. Chance.

Could you show me how Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Leon Kamin promotes egregious crimes against humanity? These people have very good intention. If one uses the epithet “Marxist” to describe me, I would be honored as I would be associated with Lewontin, Gould, and Kamin, as they actively seek just treatment for all people.

While your at it, tell me how Gould, Lewtonin, and Kamin’s ideas are more dangerous than the message of racial inequality promulgated by Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton?

 

[RyanL]

Could you show me how Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Leon Kamin promotes egregious crimes against humanity? These people have very good intention. If one uses the epithet “Marxist” to describe me, I would be honored as I would be associated with Lewontin, Gould, and Kamin, as they actively seek just treatment for all people.

While your at it, tell me how Gould, Lewtonin, and Kamin’s ideas are more dangerous than the message of racial inequality promulgated by Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton?

Ribozyme,

With due respect, your relentless name-dropping is getting tedious. Pick an idea and then explore it. No one is going to run off to the library every time you feel the need to appeal to authority.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Jennifer123]

Could you show me how Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Leon Kamin promotes egregious crimes against humanity? These people have very good intention. If one uses the epithet “Marxist” to describe me, I would be honored as I would be associated with Lewontin, Gould, and Kamin, as they actively seek just treatment for all people.

While your at it, tell me how Gould, Lewtonin, and Kamin’s ideas are more dangerous than the message of racial inequality promulgated by Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton?

I suggest you start a new thread on Marxist ideology.

 

[mlchance]

With due respect, your relentless name-dropping is getting tedious. Pick an idea and then explore it. No one is going to run off to the library every time you feel the need to appeal to authority.

Marxism is to social justice what crayons are to wind chimes. The centerpiece of Marxism is the necessary, historically predestined destruction of class and property via mass murder and terrorism. The centerpiece of Christianity is voluntary love of God and love of neighbor. It is telling to note that if one is a bad Marxist (meaning one rejects Marxism’s centerpiece), then one is likely a better person for it. The same cannot be said of the bad Christian.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme,

With due respect, your relentless name-dropping is getting tedious. Pick an idea and then explore it. No one is going to run off to the library every time you feel the need to appeal to authority.

God Bless,
RyanL

Use wikipedia then…

And do yourself a favor, go here and look at the chart on page 9. Could you explain how that is not dangerous. Rushton is reviving concepts such as untermensch, herrenrasse, and racial hierarchy.

I am gravitated towards Marxism as it stresses an egalitarian society. Could you tell me what is wrong with an egalitarian society? I am not advocating Marx’s economic policies though, but could you elaborate how Marx’s notion of an egalitarian society is detrimental?

 

[hasikelee]

Ribozyme, why would you use a person who says they rejected the Church as a source to see what the Church is?

Is it that you have other interactions or reasons to believe this person, so you also want to believe this person’s statements on Catholicism?

Is it because you agree with this person?

Those who dislike Catholicism actually dislike what they THINK Catholicism is. Few try to honestly find out what Catholicism is before they attack it.

Why not explore for yourself instead of taking someone elses word for it? Have you volunteered at a Catholic prolife pregnancy center, or offered your services at a Catholic food pantry?

Have you researched and followed Catholics who are fighting for justice and equality? Have you traveled over to Africa to see the priests and nuns starving alongside the people of Africa?

Have you visited China and spoke to the religious in jail? Have you attended the funeral of a Catholic who was brutally torn apart in the Muslim world? Given well wishes to the family he left behind? Or were you unable to find them because they are in hiding?

 

[Jennifer123]

I am gravitated towards Marxism as it stresses an egalitarian society. Could you tell me what is wrong with an egalitarian society?

It is a dream - it doesn’t and can’t exist without extreme and radical revolution in which people are slaughtered, indoctrinated and enslaved. Not everyone is equal, we are human beings made unique in every sense by the Creator that Marxists deny. Would you propose that all authority should cease to exist? Who would rule over the children, as parental authority would be eliminated? Who would rule over the populace? I’ve always said I would happily become a communist if any one person could show me that Lenin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, lived LIKE THE PEOPLE. They didn’t, and don’t, of course.

Don’t get me started as to how this would destroy the family. A small portion of these results can be seen in the disasterous Radical Feminist agenda and our contraceptive society.

 

[ribozyme]

It is a dream - it doesn’t and can’t exist without extreme and radical revolution in which people are slaughtered, indoctrinated and enslaved. Not everyone is equal, we are human beings made unique in every sense by the Creator that Marxists deny. Would you propose that all authority should cease to exist? Who would rule over the children, as parental authority would be eliminated? Who would rule over the populace? I’ve always said I would happily become a communist if any one person could show me that Lenin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, lived LIKE THE PEOPLE. They didn’t, and don’t, of course.

Don’t get me started as to how this would destroy the family. A small portion of these results can be seen in the disasterous Radical Feminist agenda and our contraceptive society.

Human equality is an essential tenet of my personal philosophy. I need it!!! If humans are not equal, I might harbor inveterate feelings of contempt for other races such as Africans. Those feelings pollute the mind and poison the soul. An empirical justification of those thoughts are a cancer to the human spirit.

Surely, I will not vocally promlugate those sentiments; however, those concealed sentiments will torture me. I rather have myself to blame for human equality. I do not want to acknowledge that socioeconomical inequality arises from genetic disadvantages that we cannot do anything about.

If humans are not equal… there is only one way that we can resolve this problem: germline genetic engineering of all human fetuses in a socialist state. Such a program has to be universally available to all parents. If humans are not equal, I do not see any other way to rectify this inequality. Genetic engineering might fulfill the egalitarian dream.

From reprogenetics on wikipedia:

Eugenics would have required a continual selection for breeding of the “fit”, and a culling of the “unfit” while, according to bioethicist James Hughes, universal access to reprogenetics provided by a welfare state would permit the conversion of all the unfit to the highest genetic level. However, he shares Silver’s concern that unequal access to reprogenetics could create a two-tiered society of “GenRich” and “GenPoor”, genetically-engineered “haves” and “have nots” (see the film Gattaca for a fictional depiction of the latter scenario).

The conversion of the “unfit” to the highest genetic level is a fulfillment of egalitarianism as everyone will have equal abilities.

 

[manualman]

As others have noted, the “ends” of marxism are not necessarily its problem. The “means” are the issue. Marxism cannot be acheived without the interference of an outside force, namely the state. Problem with that is that to make it work, approximately 10% of the society has to be sinless and free of greed and power-lust. We have rather less than that available, if you haven’t noticed.

Marxism inevitably goes off the rails because greedy men inevitably usurp the power “meant” to provide equality for all and use it to enrich and pamper themselves instead. And everybody joins in the game and tries to get to the top. It doesn’t matter how noble the theorists’ intentions may be. The theory breaks down when the structure goes up and the cunning see where the power is at!

Since you enjoy reading on eglitarian subjects, try out the catholic inspired version. Google “Distributism and Chesterton” and enjoy yourself. Unlike Marxism, Distributism proposes that free enterprise and property rights remain in order to motivate work and avoid excessive concentrations of power, but that taxation and inheritance policies work against large corporations and intergenerational wealth transfer.

 

[Jennifer123]

I do not want to acknowledge that socioeconomical inequality arises from genetic disadvantages that we cannot do anything about.

We are not in control - there indeed are some people who will always be on either end of the spectrum and it is unjust to limit those whose abilities carry them to great accomplishment as much as it is unjust to not care for those at a disadvantage. The ultimate injustice is to promote a eugenic society in which all classes of defect are eliminated, in an effort of subjective and misguided “compassion”.

Sorry - communism is the ultimate cancer to the human spirit.

 

[marci]

Human equality is an essential tenet of my personal philosophy. I need it!!! If humans are not equal, I might harbor inveterate feelings of contempt for other races such as Africans. Those feelings pollute the mind and poison the soul. An empirical justification of those thoughts are a cancer to the human spirit.

Why would recognizing differences in ourselves lead to feelings of contempt?

I do not want to acknowledge that socioeconomical inequality arises from genetic disadvantages that we cannot do anything about.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, there it is. No matter how musically talented one is, there is always someone with greater talent. No matter how intelligent, there will always be someone with greater intellect. Great intellect and artistic talent, to give two examples, are gifts which one can use to further their success in life. However, even with these strengths, success is not a given. The headlines are full of people such as these, but we may not always say with certainty that these people have led a “successful” life.

If humans are not equal… there is only one way that we can resolve this problem: germline genetic engineering of all human fetuses in a socialist state. Such a program has to be universally available to all parents. If humans are not equal, I do not see any other way to rectify this inequality. Genetic engineering might fulfill the egalitarian dream.

This may be a utopian dream for you, but to me it is a late night “B” movie nightmare. Not to mention, as I stated earlier, just because one may be genetically engineered to perfection, doesn’t mean that we can predict behavior for certain. It’s the old argument once again. Also, your solution doesn’t take into account the accidents that we face in life that can alter our state of being, either phsyically or mentally.

Suffering will always be with us, until Jesus comes again. We will never have Heaven on this Earth. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to help the needy, but those of us who seek the eternal know that this life and all of it’s joys and sufferings are temporary and not the end game.

I think that this dream of a utopian society where everyone is geneticaly engineered to be equal, would face the same end as the marxist movement as it became evident that the idealists couldn’t socially engineer society for the same end.

Why will it fail? Because MAN DOES NOT CONTROL THE UNIVERSE.

P.S. Ronald Reagan once said, "Communism only works in Heaven where they don’t need it and in Hell where they’ve already got it.