Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Found at a Catholic site 39
The legal impossibility of a Christian polity in America is formally declared in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The so-called 'free speech' and 'free exercise' clauses of the First Amendment are purely secular mandates. They are a rejection of the Catholic notion of the common good, mandating that there be no restraint whatsoever on things that damage souls and ultimately destroy the State itself. They grant as lawful precisely what many popes have called unlawful: unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, and of worship -- as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. The language of the First Amendment reflects the Protestant-borne, Enlightenment-bred faith of the deistic Framers in the ability of unaided human reason to define and sustain liberty apart from Trinitarian Truth; that is, without a cooperative effort by the Church and the State. Thus, all manner of violations of natural and divine law, including the "right" to murder children in the womb, and the coming "right" to "marry" someone of the same sex, are found lurking in the secular mandates of the First Amendment. The true Church foresees these errors. Oddly enough, the Secular State itself will not be able to endure its own mandates.
cooperative effort by the Church and the State (Score:1)
Sorry, we don't want to suffer what our ancestors suffered all those years, never again. The church is a human institution with all the same corruption that permeates all coercive socioeconomic hierarchies. And what makes it even more untenable is the hypocrisy, making them worse than the heretics they fight.
what many popes have called unlawful...
Replace that with many perverts. The popes may write nice stuff, but seeing that it's so contradictory to their actual lifestyle should raise a few eyebrows. I wil
Re: (Score:2)
It's a comment deep down in a thread, but if you'd like to read the whole thread, it's at http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/christians-must-go-offensive-gay-mafia [crisismagazine.com]. I personally prefer the Benedict Option.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll try to get through it, but after seeing "gay mafia" in the headline, it will be very difficult to take seriously. Maybe I'm supposed to assume it was a 'black mafia' that gave them their rights too back in the 60s. Maybe we all need a mafia to enforce all our rights. Eh, why not? Fight fire with fire, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd certainly call the Nation of Islam and its militant wing the Black Panthers a black mafia. All revolutionaries have a tendency to adopt the worst of what they are fighting against, that's the reason the KGB exists, a copy of the Czar's secret police.
Re: (Score:1)
Not just revolutionaries. In the desire for power it is inevitable. All the large established institutions act in the same way. 'Becoming the enemy' is a very common theme in every hierarchy. In and out of the church people are the same.
I'd certainly call the Nation of Islam and its militant wing the Black Panthers a black mafia.
What do you call the police that regularly beat the hell out of them? Let me know when the gays start beheading people and planting bombs and putting dead hookers in the politician'
Re: (Score:2)
The Lavender Mafia wears purple.
They've also limited themselves to property crimes so far- they started with vandalism and arson, and have now progressed to the frivolous lawsuit scam.
Re: (Score:1)
...they started with vandalism and arson...
Wow! That's heavy! Where can I read more about this? Is there a Mario Puzo novel? Has Coppola or Scorsese made an announcement yet? It definitely would be a blockbuster. "The Purple Pistol Poofs".
I read the history of the church, which goes way beyond vandalism and arson and frivolous lawsuits, and I am left wondering what is defensible about them. Sounds like they have their own mafia also.
Re: (Score:2)
You read the history of the Church, but you missed the history of the gay civil rights struggle from 1966-2004?
We expect the leadership of the Church to be sinners, is the difference.
Re: (Score:1)
I was in the middle of it. I've seen what the cops can do, and do do. If you are against self defense, just say so.
Re: (Score:2)
When faced with an army, I am very much against the concept of self defense. Cooperation is far more prudent.
The difference between a honest upstanding citizen who happens to be black, and the victim of a cop up on charges for murder, is how they react when faced with a gun. Those who choose fight or flight over cooperation in a police state, end up dead.
Re: (Score:1)
Very true, cooperation is paramount, but we don't get very far through submission to coercion. It's a two way street. All our progress comes from the troublemakers. They die, we progress, standing on their corpse.
Re: (Score:2)
I will be impressed with the church when it lives up to its own standards.
That's as absurd as "Christian nation". Christianity is a religion full of sinful individuals making up a local church body. (Note that I'm at variance with our good Catholic host here.)
So to say that "the church lives up to standards" is as bizarre to me as your materialistic, anti-intellectual argument that individuals are no more than so many atoms.
Re: (Score:1)
So to say that "the church lives up to standards" is as bizarre to me..
Of course it would be. You need an out, so you create one. That's just the nature of the beast. I'm not talking about the church 'body', I'm talking about the church leadership, you know, the people who set the example for the 'body' to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the church leadership, you know,
Why, no, I do not know the words you choose not to type.
I guess I don't understand why the church leadership should be any less fallible than the church 'body'. If you've read the New Testament (Galatians 1-2 for something I've studied recently) you know that:
1. There's just the one ultimate leader
2. The dudes in His wake were relatively jacked up
3. All Christians are to follow Him and can't go pointing fingers at any middle-men if we expect any credibility.
[troll]
But I guess it's about par for your co
Re: (Score:1)
:-) you jus bein all funny n' shit...
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry: this second reply stuff happens a lot...
The words I choose not to type have no relevance to anything being discussed here. They are merely your typical distractions to avoid the subject at hand, and really are totally nonsensical and... bizarre. I guess you're just being your old circular self, keeping up the denials of your real nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
None of your responses are 'non-response'. They are all very revealing, sometimes more so than any direct response I might expect.. Watching you deny deny deny has been most enlightening in many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
"Smitty's replies are not an acceptable response" is so beautifully, magically irrefutable, that if I didn't have a means of recognizing your crap for an infinite loop, I could perhaps get stuck in it.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) You're doing it again... natural as breathing, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Laughing at you?
That too....
Re: (Score:2)
The last shall be first, and the first last, ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2)
Not on that you aren't. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a four star resort amusement park for Saints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A hospital, eh? Well the staff is practicing some pretty weird 'medicine'. They should try taking some of what they are giving.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they should. Completely agree with you there. Especially the Jesuits.
Re: (Score:1)
Ouch! I was 'raised' by Jesuits. They're kinda like the Hells Angels of the church. Oy! but so much free wine, how could I resist?
Re: (Score:2)
That explains a lot about your philosophy. Charitable Interpretation + Academic Freedom = Chaotic Heresy, every time.
Re: (Score:1)
You got a problem with chaos? The universal can't exist without it. And heresy? Please! The hypocrites are far worse and more dangerous than the heretics.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the heretics are hypocrites. Especially entertaining are the ones who claim "Nobody will be harmed by innovation x" who the proceed to harm people with innovation x.
Re: (Score:1)
Most of the heretics are hypocrites.
That is the nature of power.
I will be honest, *do as I say, not as I do* is a valid sentiment. Whether the leaders can live by their word is irrelevant. What matters is if I can live by their words. Following the example is natural, but it is 'wrong'. It is the same as falling to temptation, or when mom says, *If your friends jump off a cliff, are you going with them?*
Re: (Score:2)
Is the only form of progress statist?
I have a tendency to think of libertarianism and "freedom from" to be extremely progressive. As in, progressing in the wrong direction on bad data and individual whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Catholicism is specifically an anti-state-like organization. Power is limited to the least competent authority in the hierarchy, the higher you go, the less power you have.
Kind of like on Babylon 5- when Londo had no power, he had the freedom to do whatever he wished, when he became emperor of Alpha Centauri, he had zero freedom at all.
That's why I am against Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. It reserves far too much power for the central government, and does not leave enough power with local ci
Re: (Score:1)
The higher you go, the less 'power' you need, but you know it's always there. If I live close the the beach, I can go anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidiarity is written into Canon Law. The higher you go, the less power you HAVE. The lay person has more power over the domain of his house (or even her house) than the parish priest has over his parish, the parish priest has more power over his congregation than the Bishop has over all the priests combined, Archbishops have even less power over their subject Bishops, and are practically autonomous from the Vatican itself. The Least Competent Authority is a real concept in the Roman Catholic Church-
Re: (Score:1)
All power depends on the lower levels playing their role. It is a pyramid. The generals have to hope that the privates don't point their rifles at them. The king has to hope for the same thing from his executioners. This is why I always say the real power is with us, the schlubs who normally comply. We are the enablers of all authority. We are the power, and we are to blame when it is abused. Without us there is none. So, I do end up agreeing with you, but for a different reason.