Dear Z,

This is a very complex question. I quite do not know how to answer it
without getting extremely detailed. But I will tell you what has been
on my mind lately that is related to this issue of religion.

Some people think it has something to do with existentialism. Some
think it is about metaphysics. Some people think it is about social
structures. Some people think it is about neuroscience and the "God
module," where it is discovered the seat of religious experience.

On any other day, I could randomly talk about religion based on any of
these issues. But as of late, my reading has gone over to the question
of justice and poverty, in particular of the writings of Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

It was his answer and rebuttal against Liberation Theology and its
position on the nature of poverty within the Church and the nature of
Christ who is head and embodies the church.

I must admit, I only read one paper. Doubtless, there are countless
papers. But I was disturbed at the cardinals' rebuttal. (I sent him
an e-mail, but I doubt it will get to him.)

Liberation Theology's mission is to eradicate poverty through various
means. But the cardinal's paper made a statement that poverty is a
virtue of Christ who also is poor.

Given this, one can not look down upon poverty or the poor who lives in
Christ's image and who can bear the suffering that their savior has
borne.

***That is why they are interpreting themselves as religious.*** They
wish to imitate their savior or founder. ***

But I find this troubling, particularly on the grammatical style of
writing and understanding it.

***There is a difference between "poverty" and "humility."

One involves ***no choice of one's disposition*** and the other **a
choice of virtue made possible by way of their doctrine of "good
work."***

It is my view in order to initiate humility as a virtue one must be
free of poverty to make the choice to become poor and live this life of
Christ. The vow that each religious should be taking is not the vow of
poverty, but of humility readily borne of one's free will to imitate
their belief of their savior.

Indeed, the only way to truly imitate it is through choice. Christ
chose to be poor and with the poor, therefore he is humble. He was not
conditioned solely by the nature of his birth into a economic
existence.

The Buddha advocated for the same way of living, but with moderation.

I sympathize with his position that Roman Catholicism cannot mix with
Marxism. If this is the case it why not Roman Catholicism with Nazism?

But this does not take away my unease about his position and the
grammatical style he wrote upon it.

Buddhism and Christianity started the beliefs in communal living and
shared property. But this is done in terms of people who voluntarily do
it out of a meaningful life of existence as they interpreted it.

You cannot force an entire nation into it as we have seen under Stalin
and Pol Pot. It takes away their dignity, and this is the difference
between Communism in its radical sense, and a proper religious life
within a community.

Just need to get this disturbing issue off my chest. BT