| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2003 11:24:15 AM |
| Object: |
Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
In article <81676ec2.0308300101.6b61a9e2@posting.google.com>,
kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru says...
Why the Left Hates the Church
By John Zmirak
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 29, 2003
One of the most surprising aspects of the contemporary Left is its
inveterate hostility to the Catholic Church around the world.
Ever heard of liberation theology? Apparently not. Ever heard of Oscar
Romero? Apparently not.
You'd
think that a political tendency whose ostensible purpose is the
betterment of the poor would look with favor on the single largest
provider on earth of private charity, health care, free education and
housing for the needy.
It's not free, you stupid *****. They take up collections from people
including the poor people themselves and then give back a percentage of
the take.
Looking back into history, it was the early
Christian Church—driven by the Old Testament's reverence for human
life
<wheeze><cough><choke> About the only way human life was revered was in
terms of how many heathens could be stacked like fire wood and burned as
a barbecue to gawd.
—which eventually moved Romans to stop abandoning unwanted infants
to die,
Yep. They wanted dumb parishoners and cannon fodder for their armies of
gawd.
sexually exploiting slaves,
But treating women like ***** was still okay, as long as you didn't slide
them the salami too.
and forcing young girls to marry
against their will.
Is that why modern theists favor getting unwed mothers hooked up with a
husband ASAP?
(If you read the stories of the Church's earliest
martyrs,
That's the dubious story of saint valentine anyway.
a surprising number
Really? What number exactly? I'd like to see the statistics.
were young women killed at their fathers'
behest for refusing to marry the man he'd chosen for them—a liberty
unheard of in Roman society until the advent of the Church).
You mean like in Genesis 24 where rebekah is given to Isaac site unseen?
One could understand how in the 18th and 19th centuries classical
liberals might be suspicious of a Church that at the time allied
itself to autocratic monarchies; but those monarchies are gone,
Yep, they've been replace with corporate and wealthy based monarchies
that are almost as powerful. Furthermore, the pope still considers
himself a monarch. You forgot about that.
even
as the Church has reclaimed at Vatican II her own ancient insights
into religious liberty and the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the
State—renouncing all the illiberal practices that darkened the
Church's name in the Middle Ages and thereafter.
Give me a fucking break. They barely apologized for the persecution of
Galileo until many hundreds of years after the event and assholic popes
like Pius IX were still paragons of reactionary opposition to anything
modern.
(It's important to
note that Leftists long overlooked, lied about, or minimized far more
oppressive practices in their own favored Marxist utopias
Actually, many marxists found out about the abuses of stalinism and it's
perversion of Marxism much sooner than even those on the right and
exposed it for what it was. Trotsky was way ahead of the curve.
—as they
still do whitewash horrendous abuses in Cuba and even the Islamic
world.)
More horseshit. Liberals certainly don't whitewash islamic theocracy,
nor do they ignore the abuses of Castro. They do, however, note that
Castro has done some good things for his people in terms of education,
medical care and career training.
So why do leftists hate the Church?
There are potentially lots of reasons, historically, socially,
economically. The church still hoards great wealth which it has stolen
and expropriated via it's once unquestionable authority. This wealth
could be put to far better use for the betterment of the poor in the
third world. Then there's the fact that the church is still a highly
corrupt, sexist, institutionally pedophilic organization. Then there is
also the fact that in some countries like Spain the church still rules
with an iron hand through it's private university system and fascist
organization like Opus Dei. Oh, yeah, there was the somewhat cozy
relationship that the catholic church had with fascism before and during
WWII, but that's mainly water under the bridge.
In part, because they don't really
care about the poor.
You better be talking about the catholic church and not "The Left".
If they did, they'd support school choice
No they wouldn't. They recognize that for the do-nothing scam that it
is.
, the
Second Amendment,
Right. I can tell this guy's never lived in the hood. People in the
hood carry illegal guns in high quantities. It does *not* make things
safer.
strict law enforcement in urban neighborhoods,
Right, there's no police presence in urban neighborhoods. Get real.
and a
restriction of mass immigration that savagely undercuts the wages of
the native working class
Until recently many liberals supported union efforts to control
unfettered globalization and the unfettered/exploitative importation of
cheap labor, etc. Liberals still do oppose the types of sweat shops
which many corporations try to set up in this country and abroad.
—to mention just a few policies the Left
opposes with all the demagoguery it can muster.
These are just more unevidenced and discredited rantings from the reich
wing.
No, the contemporary Left knows that fighting poverty isn't a sexy
issue anymore
Oh so now were supposed to believe that the right wing cares about
poverty. Don't make me laugh.
—that the suburban bourgeoisie
The what? Socialists and marxists opposed the pettiness of the
bourgeoisie.
which stuffs its coffers
Again, John has completely mangled his terminology and demonstratest that
he doesn't know what he is talking about either historically or in the
present. He's nothing but a cut-and-paste hack and a paranoid cathoholic.
<rest of drivel snipped>.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "GimmeFuel" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 03:06:53 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
, the
Second Amendment,
Right. I can tell this guy's never lived in the hood. People in the
hood carry illegal guns in high quantities. It does *not* make things
safer.
There are two types of people who would like to be armed: criminals and
law-abiding citizens.
When guns are illegal, criminals will still be armed. They have no problem
getting them illegally, because they already are criminals.
However, illegal guns means law-abiding citizens cannot be armed. So the
power is entirely one-sided.
If guns were completely legal, though, law-abiding citizens could be armed
just as heavily as the criminals.
If you have an illegal handgun and want to rob a convenience store, you
would feel secure knowing that no one else in the store will likely be armed.
However, if guns were legal, the clerk would almost definitely be armed, as
might some of the customers. You would be much more reluctant to rob the
store, wouldn't you?
The freedoms granted by the 2nd Amendment are just as sacred as those
granted by the 1st, and just as unjust to take away.
--
while(sizeof(government) > necessary) {vote(libertarian);}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 03:31:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:06:53 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, GimmeFuel (GimmeFuel
<rabidfurby319@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
quibbler wrote:
, the
Second Amendment,
Right. I can tell this guy's never lived in the hood. People in the
hood carry illegal guns in high quantities. It does *not* make things
safer.
There are two types of people who would like to be armed: criminals and
law-abiding citizens.
When guns are illegal, criminals will still be armed. They have no problem
getting them illegally, because they already are criminals.
However, illegal guns means law-abiding citizens cannot be armed. So the
power is entirely one-sided.
If guns were completely legal, though, law-abiding citizens could be armed
just as heavily as the criminals.
If you have an illegal handgun and want to rob a convenience store, you
would feel secure knowing that no one else in the store will likely be armed.
However, if guns were legal, the clerk would almost definitely be armed, as
might some of the customers. You would be much more reluctant to rob the
store, wouldn't you?
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
The freedoms granted by the 2nd Amendment are just as sacred as those
granted by the 1st, and just as unjust to take away.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles P" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 05:18:28 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK, where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals. The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 05:52:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:18:28 GMT in alt.atheism, Charles P ("Charles
P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK,
I wouldn't have thought that a rise of 4% from 1999/2000 - 2000/2001
is "way up".
where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals. The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
Never-the-less, by your reasoning gun crime should be far worse in the
UK than in the US, and should *always* have been far worse (given that
firearms laws here have been very restrictive by US standards for at
least 50 years), and it isn't, and hasn't been.
How do you account for this?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 07:52:10 PM |
|
|
In article <3k92lvoqa5758dvnslpu94v4vkhj4hui8a@4ax.com>, autodelete@city-
of-dis.com says...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:18:28 GMT in alt.atheism, Charles P ("Charles
P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK,
I wouldn't have thought that a rise of 4% from 1999/2000 - 2000/2001
is "way up".
where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals. The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
Never-the-less, by your reasoning gun crime should be far worse in the
UK than in the US, and should *always* have been far worse (given that
firearms laws here have been very restrictive by US standards for at
least 50 years), and it isn't, and hasn't been.
How do you account for this?
Basically, all they do is lie. They claim that there situation is bad
there when in fact they have no evidence to support it. Charleton Heston
tried a similar tactic in _Bowling for Columbine_ when Michael Moore
confronted him with the same issue about Canada. His basic claim was
that it will get worse there at some vague time in the future.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Oblad" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
31 Aug 2003 02:17:07 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19baf4a9912040d498a0e6@news.cis.dfn.de>...
In article <3k92lvoqa5758dvnslpu94v4vkhj4hui8a@4ax.com>, autodelete@city-
of-dis.com says...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:18:28 GMT in alt.atheism, Charles P ("Charles
P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK,
I wouldn't have thought that a rise of 4% from 1999/2000 - 2000/2001
is "way up".
where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals. The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
Never-the-less, by your reasoning gun crime should be far worse in the
UK than in the US, and should *always* have been far worse (given that
firearms laws here have been very restrictive by US standards for at
least 50 years), and it isn't, and hasn't been.
How do you account for this?
Basically, all they do is lie. They claim that there situation is bad
there when in fact they have no evidence to support it. Charleton Heston
tried a similar tactic in _Bowling for Columbine_ when Michael Moore
confronted him with the same issue about Canada. His basic claim was
that it will get worse there at some vague time in the future.
Indeed. It's quite similar to the situaiton with gun control
advocates and relaxed concealed carry laws or rifles chambered in .50
BMG. Do you expect anything different from an advocacy organization?
- Jon Oblad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
31 Aug 2003 02:25:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:18:28 GMT, "Charles P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com>
wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK,
No it has not gone way up.
where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals.
Oh? Could you name a few pro-criminal practices?
The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
No it hasn't. Ownership of handguns has been illegal for a long time.
Britain has had and continues to have a very low homicide rate
compared to the US even with the recent increase.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
Who would have thought?
By the way my country also has laws against gun ownership. Our
homicide rate is even much lower than Britain's.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 05:53:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:18:28 GMT, "Charles P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com>
wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
If that's so, why aren't countries with incredibly strict gun control
laws (eg, the UK) overrun by gun wielding criminals and have
incredibly high rates of gun crime?
Gun crime has gone way up in the UK, where they've started
to discriminate in favor of criminals. The escalation of crime has
gone hand in hand with their disarming of law abiding citizens.
Police only get there after the crime has happened.
I keep hearing this statistic repeated by gun-toting Americans. Even
if gun crime has raised recently, it is still an insignificant blip
when compared to the gun-crime statistics in the USA.
Any recent rises in the gun-crime rates in the UK have nothing to do
with the UK gun laws being toughened after the Dunblane slaughter.
To some sections of UK society, of a certain age and of a certain
social-background, guns have become almost a fashion accessory; just
another macho penis-extension, a statement of power and control.
I can't say for certain how much of that is inspired by the gang-scene
in the likes of places like LA, nor the music which glamourises it...
but it's a lot more likely to be a factor than the UK government's
insistence that sporting guns must be kept locked up at official
shooting ranges.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: !Why The Left Hates The Church |
30 Aug 2003 07:49:37 PM |
|
|
In article <vl20v17vh4pj02@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
, the
Second Amendment,
Right. I can tell this guy's never lived in the hood. People in the
hood carry illegal guns in high quantities. It does *not* make things
safer.
There are two types of people who would like to be armed: criminals and
law-abiding citizens.
I see, so you've never lived in the hood either. I'm not just talking
about criminals in the hood carrying guns. Lots of normal people carry
guns in the hood. I knew a security guard at a courthouse in detroit who
said that they confiscated dozens of guns every day. People apparently
carry them around to often that they forget they even have them until
they go through the metal detectors. Even little old ladies are packing
heat. They don't even think about what the law says. They carry them
anyway. But the fact is that it doesn't reduce crime. It still often
makes crime worse. People who don't know how to use their gun are just
making things more dangerous for themselves.
When guns are illegal, criminals will still be armed.
Not necessarily. The cops may be efficient enough to keep criminals
reasonably disarmed. In any event, if there are not enough cops then
crimes will occur no matter what. You can't be at your house 24 hours a
day and when you're gone then someone can break in.
They have no problem
getting them illegally, because they already are criminals.
As I pointed out, contrary to your fantasises, in real life, otherwise
law-abiding citizens carry guns and many other weapons in the hood. I
never carried guns myself. But I carried things like tasers, pepper
spray and a big knife.
However, illegal guns means law-abiding citizens cannot be armed. So the
power is entirely one-sided.
Not only does your scenario ignore actual reality, but it implies that
all people should carry guns, so that someone else won't have an
advantage over you. Of course, when everyone carries a gun then only the
guy with the bigger gun, the faster draw, etc will have the advantage.
So if your idea of a better society is the wild west, where the fastest
draw is the only one who feels safe then make sure that everyone carries
a gun around at all times.
If guns were completely legal, though, law-abiding citizens could be armed
just as heavily as the criminals.
You can arm yourself as heavily as you want in your home. You can arm
yourself with various non-firearms when you venture out. In general, I
don't think that law abiding citizens are going to want to put themselves
in positions where they have to shoot it out.
Assuming your premise that criminals are always going to be armed then
you might be able to beat the criminal to the draw on the off-chance that
he tries to rob or otherwise harm you. I'm curious how many times you've
ever been robbed at gunpoint BTW. How many times would a gun have really
saved you from anything? Of these times which you will doubtless
exaggerate, how many of those times was a gun necessary as opposed to a
knife, a stun device, or some other non-lethal item. I can tell you that
I've only once had someone even suggest that he would "kick my ***** if I
didn't give him some money" and when I told him "all I have is this
knife" the fucking drunk backed down.
If you have an illegal handgun and want to rob a convenience store, you
would feel secure knowing that no one else in the store will likely be armed.
A clerk in the store can legally keep a gun on the premises right now and
many do. When the store closes he can put it in a gun safe. As far as
other customers in the store it will be very dangerous, not to mention
scary for them to try to intervene. The average person, who has barely
even shot their handgun, probably lacks the courage to pull the trigger.
In any event, they are likely to do collateral damage if they are not
careful.
However, if guns were legal, the clerk would almost definitely be armed, as
might some of the customers. You would be much more reluctant to rob the
store, wouldn't you?
What if you had a bullet proof vest. What if you had a buddy to help
control the crowd. What if you both had uzis and the people in the store
had pea-shooters at best. What if it's just a couple old women in the
store? Oh and one more thing. As before, how many times have you been
in a convenient store while it was being robbed at gunpoint?
The freedoms granted by the 2nd Amendment are just as sacred as those
granted by the 1st, and just as unjust to take away.
You know that there is a "well regulated" clause in the second amendment.
Your brain-dead, knee-jerk banter about the glories of gun ownership does
not make contact with reality at a great many points. Certain petty
crime may be more difficult if people intervened. But sociological
studies show that most people avoid getting involved. They do what's
easiest. It's easier to just walk away from a potential gun battle than
it is to stick your nose in it and risk getting it shot off for virtually
no reward. In addition, everyone carrying guns would still not prevent
people from murdering each other. All they have to do is beat you to the
trigger. Even if other people perform a citizen's arrest the other
person may not care. They still killed you. You can't assume that the
other person necessarily cares about whether he lives or dies, because
many criminals just don't act rationally. Everyone carrying guns is a
simple-minded, quick fix to a complex problem. In all kinds of
countries, from afghanistan to Iraq, lots of people carry guns. Why
doesn't it make it safer in those countries?
p.s. What the ***** does this have to do with the catholic church and why
are you cross posting to alt.atheism?
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
