Religion and Socialism

[Father Heathen]

Good gravy. Yes there is the odd nut job, but the overwhelming majority are not racist, they just reject absurd give control and the left likes to insult.
Big difference.

I didn't say all of them are racist, but it's not uncommon, especially in the south.
Be honest. If you had to wager, would you say those who display the confederate flag tend to be conservative or liberal?

 

[wellwisher]

In the US, many of the Hospitals throughout the country have names associated with the various religions; St John's, Beth Israel, Houston Methodist, etc. These Hospitals are a blend of capitalism and religious charity. They serve the community's health needs without taxes.

In a religious affiliated hospital, the clergy are part of a holistic approach; spiritual wellness for the dying and sick. They will also have fund raisers, among the well off in the community; extra push for charity. Those who benefit by free market capitalism and are part of the religious community feel blessed and can afford to be generous. This is the community model of religion.

Charity requires giving. Giving to charity occurs more often when people have, or feel they have, extra to give. If everyone was feeling deprived or needy, they would be reluctant to give, and charity would end. The religious push toward making charity possible is based on leading the flock to the greenest pastures; capitalism, so more people can have more than they need, and they can then contribute more to the needy via charity. America is the most charitable nation in the world as well as the leader in capitalism; feel full enough to give and you will give more.

Giving to charity is different from working for a charity for a salary; Capitalist and Big Government approach. People who give to charities do not draw an income from this giving. People who work for a charity get paid to use other people's money for their salary and their generosity. The math is different.

In bible there is a 10% tithe or tax. The bulk of the social needs is done through charity and the good will of each other. This 10% would not be enough for big government. Socialism is huge overbearing government that inefficiently micromanages, while serving itself. The religious 10%, which was a low tax rate, put more money in the pocket of the citizens, so they feel full enough to give extra to charity.

There are many charities in the USA, where most of the money goes into overhead; charity for salaries. The generous people who give may not even know most of their money is going to those who are not in need. The sales pitch are the poor animals but goes to the rich wolves.

Social programs are good in theory, but they are often there as much for the needs of big government, as for genuine social needs. In the USA, we do not have a social safety net, per se, but something more like a social safety hammock. In these programs, the needy are helped but are not taught to become self sufficient, so they can leave the net. Instead many generation stay in the hammock, since such programs need bodies to exist and grow for the benefits and the salary of the workers. Pensions cost a lot of money.

In the USA, you can collect social security by being a drunk or drug addict, without any movement to set you free from your demons; safety hammock. This creates dependence, so big government will not shrunk. Socialism is big government on steroids and places all the power in hands of those at the top of government, who serve themselves. Castro who heads Cuba is a billionaire.

There is a saying you can give a man a fish and he will not be hungry, or you can teach him to fish and he can feed himself, forever. The social programs do not teach one how to fish, since this approach could work itself out of a job. Religious charities are there to help the whole person so they can walk again. This is also to the benefit of the giver who can now give to someone else and have another neighbor to help the cause.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't think Christianity is a socialist type organization, because it has a king, Jesus.

In Hinduism many of the kings were socialists. King Harischandra gave all what he owned in charity and had to work for a cremation ground chief for his living (that is a legend).
Emperor Harshavardhan of Kannauj (590–647 CE) also gave his money in charity. The third and the last Buddhist council was held during his regime, though he himself is supposed to be a worshiper of Shiva.

In India, treatment in government hospitals is completely free. Surgery, tests, medicines are provided. Poor people can go to private hospitals for treatment. Government will take care of the expenses up to Rs.500,000 per family/per year (USD 6250). That is a nice amount in India. The only problem is our huge numbers and a long wait in time (but patients will be attended on that very day). World-o-meter says we are now 1,408,495,337 people closing on China's 1,439,323,776 people very fast.

 

[Sand Dancer]

So like bans on free speech in Europe and Canada.

massive lock downs in Australia.

A few months back some states decided to have abortion restrictions almost as restrictive as Europe and people lost their minds.

Do you want tax rates in the 50-70% range?
maybe start the ever popular if you have gray hair we cannot offer CPR to you because we think you would rather be dead?
Euthanasia for the old and disabled?

Some good, some bad. No country is perfect, but overall, the others are mostly better. I think if we listen to the centrists, we will make sound decisions. These decisions from the extremist right and left do not do us much good, IMO.

 

[Truth in love]

I didn't say all of them are racist, but it's not uncommon, especially in the south.
Be honest. If you had to wager, would you say those who display the confederate flag tend to be conservative or liberal?

They would be conservative as the liberal club banned it years ago.

However the notion that the confederate flag is all about racism is as wrong as assumptions that all men are sexist.

 

[Truth in love]

Some good, some bad. No country is perfect, but overall, the others are mostly better. I think if we listen to the centrists, we will make sound decisions. These decisions from the extremist right and left do not do us much good, IMO.

I like to avoid extremes. However the contrary as moved far to the left from its founding. If we draw a line between two groups and move a few steps left no buggy. But we relate that process every few years. We are way outside the clear lines in the constitution. This means our own government is breaking the law on a regular basis.


On the other hand if you really think everyone else has it figured out you can move there and leave those of us who want our rights intact to live as we see fit.

 

[Father Heathen]

They would be conservative as the liberal club banned it years ago.

Ban?

However the notion that the confederate flag is all about racism is as wrong as assumptions that all men are sexist.

Odd non sequitur.

 

[Truth in love]

Ban?


Odd non sequitur.

1. Cancel culture 101. Something is labeled bard and the rank and file with abhore it at least publicly.


2. You toss out baseless accusations if you have serious evidence that the stars and bars flag is all about racism (vs history, culture etc, go for it).

 

[F1fan]

I reject those conclusions.
I worked for years in my Churches charity systems. As a social worker I’ve also been a part of the government systems.
The government has deep pockets, but it’s systems are very inefficient and tend to promote long term dependence.

The church system helps people quickly. Is not bogged down in complex paper work and tries to help people rise above their situation.
Help with rent, food, medical care, transportation, job skills, mental health etc etc etc

Sounds awesome. So why is there still poverty, and even with a lot of government aid? Both charity and government aid isn't enough.

I would add that I have observed a lot more love and acceptance between giver and receiver in the church system vs government.

Well that isn't controversial. Our preditory Caitalist economic system makes poverty inevitable, and there is not enough charity to go around, so naturally government works to balance the needy from the highly advantaged.

But who cares? When a single mom has kids to feed do you think she's concerned about the social experience? No, her priority is getting support for her family. Liberal societies recognize that poverty is morally unacceptable and have policies that aim to resolve the inequity and imbalance, especially in a very wealthy society like the USA.

 

[F1fan]

Your are ascribing problems to capitalism that can be there, but that are not required. Capitalism had done a far better job of putting food and medicine on the table than socialism.

Tell that to Americans who can't afford health insurance and fear massive hospital bills. Obviously the capitalist nations that have socialized medicaine are vastly better off. And look at the last bill that Biden signed that put a maximum on charging for insulin. There have been cases of people unable to pay for insulin and have suffered health consequences and even died. That is Capitalism at work for itself.

In capitalism I work to better my situation and I choose to help others. In Socialism the choice is removed. No matter how much work or don’t I remain poor. This discourages work at best.

So you are confessing that your work ethic is tied to your paycheck, not your duty as an employee, nor your integrity and self-respect.

 

[SomeRandom]

I’m saying what they were. Efforts to link them to the political right in the US is the straw man.

Nazis killed all the actual socialists in the Party. That’s not US political propaganda, that’s called the Night of the Long Knives and is taught in any decent history class everywhere in the modern world.
And speaking as an outsider, the more extreme elements of the US right wing right now look a lot like actual Nazis. Not saying they all are, of course. Just the extreme ones.
It’s honestly unnerving to witness

 

[Father Heathen]

1. Cancel culture 101. Something is labeled bard and the rank and file with abhore it at least publicly.

People should have the right to purchase and display it on their property, but it certainly speaks ill of their character.

2. You toss out baseless accusations if you have serious evidence that the stars and bars flag is all about racism (vs history, culture etc, go for it).

Regardless of what else it might've represented, pretending that it has no association with racism or slavery is disingenuous.

 

[Truth in love]

People should have the right to purchase and display it on their property, but it certainly speaks ill of their character.



Regardless of what else it might've represented, pretending that it has no association with racism or slavery is disingenuous.

It was not about slavery. It was about a culture. It is most unjust to reduce the entire culture of the South as slavery and racism.

Do some use it for that end yes. Some have used Islam for murder, but do you label the entire culture and religion of Islam as suicide bombers?

 

[Truth in love]

Nazis killed all the actual socialists in the Party. That’s not US political propaganda, that’s called the Night of the Long Knives and is taught in any decent history class everywhere in the modern world.
And speaking as an outsider, the more extreme elements of the US right wing right now look a lot like actual Nazis. Not saying they all are, of course. Just the extreme ones.
It’s honestly unnerving to witness

True to its Marxist foundation they killed those they disliked no surprises there.

 

[Father Heathen]

True to its Marxist foundation they killed those they disliked no surprises there.

Hitler hated marxism and communism; considered it the work of the jews.

 

[Truth in love]

Hitler hated marxism and communism; considered it the work of the jews.

Yet he followed much of it…

 

[Father Heathen]

Yet he followed much of it…

You keep grasping for straws in futile desperation.

 

[SomeRandom]

True to its Marxist foundation they killed those they disliked no surprises there.

Hitler was an extreme right wing fascist dictator who blamed the Jews essentially. And fun fact in many of his speeches he quite literally blamed the communist influences on the Weimar Republic for making them “weak.” Look it up.
He did feign sympathy towards socialist ideals in the lead up to his “election” because that’s what people wanted at the time. But in reality his policies essentially were throwbacks and he literally undid a lot of social progress that Germany had in place. Not to mention the repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles. A treaty that Hitler and his thugs saw as a national embarrassment and insulting.
Germany was largely feeing humiliated following the First World War and wanted a “saviour” in many ways. Arguably. The rest of the world didn’t care until they were forced to act.

I’m no Marxist by any stretch so I have no issue saying that so called Marxist regimes killed a lot of folks so the leaders could keep their power. Fine.
But saying Hitler was a Marxist is like saying water is dry. Like what?

 

[Truth in love]

Hitler was an extreme right wing fascist dictator who blamed the Jews, essentially.
He feigned sympathy towards socialist ideals in the lead up to his “election” because that’s what people wanted at the time. But in reality his policies essentially were throwbacks and he literally undid a lot of social progress that Germany had in place. Not to mention the repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles that Hitler and his thugs saw as a national embarrassment.

I’m no Marxist by any stretch so I have no issue saying that so called Marxist regimes killed a lot of folks so the leaders could keep their power. Fine.
But saying Hitler was a Marxist is like saying water is dry. Like what?

Not at all. Hitler had some values very differs from Marxism most notably it nationalism. However he had and used many socialist concepts also.
Centralized government control over the economy, nationalized pension plans etc are all very much socialist.

Liz Cheney hates trump, but to argue that she never was a republican would be quite inaccurate. Yea we can easily see where she and the bulk of the party split off, but there is still much the same.

Luther had some serious issues with Catholics, but he was clearly very Christian.

 

[SomeRandom]

Not at all. Hitler had some values very differs from Marxism most notably it nationalism. However he had and used many socialist concepts also.
Centralized government control over the economy, nationalized pension plans etc are all very much socialist.

Liz Cheney hates trump, but to argue that she never was a republican would be quite inaccurate. Yea we can easily see where she and the bulk of the party split off, but there is still much the same.

Luther had some serious issues with Catholics, but he was clearly very Christian.

Hitler demolished democracy and literally sent women back into the home. Neither of which are socialist ideals.
He also placed himself atop a complex and unquestionable hierarchy, in direct opposition to actual socialist ideals.

Now I’ll grant that he used government to control the citizenry and economy and all the rest. But that’s because he was a literal dictator. Right or left, all dictators do that. It’s basically in the job description. It’s not a socialist thing it’s a dictator thing.

Socialists want a centralised government to control the economy and what have you, sure. The idea is that the government is supposed to represent the people’s best interests and the state should divide profit evenly among the citizenry, and provide care and ensure everyone has equal rights.
You can call that naive if you like and despite being a filthy lefty myself, I would be inclined to agree with such a statement. To be honest. But Hitler still used the government in direct opposition to actual socialist ideals all the same. Using it to give himself power and keep it, subjugating the citizenry and “helping” his buddies (whilst hyper aware of their penchant for backstabbing.)
He wasn’t a socialist is my point.

Similarities are easy to find but they’re not necessarily an indicator of folks being the same thing.
Dictators such as Hitler use such government control for their own self interest and to keep their power. Occasionally giving crumbs to the people to appease them. (Although it’s debatable if he even did that much.)
As do most if not all politicians to some extent
But that doesn’t mean all politicians are necessarily dictators. I mean some might be inclined if given half a chance. But not all
(At least one would hope!)
Okay that might be a bit pessimistic of me. But still. That there might be a little bit of overlap doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
I’m sure Pauline Hanson and Anastacia Palazczuk could find things they both agree on. To say they belong to the same political party because of that is at best overly simplistic.
And truth be told would result in supporters of either of those ladies to laugh uproariously at such a notion. I’m just saying