For being false, first of all. "Atheistic Marxism" has been in decline for decades
Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia. And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography students read.
it is an unworkable social construct which failed in competition with moderate Socialism
Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.
Furthermore, defending against authoritarian dictatorship by embracing authoritarian dictatorship is stupid
The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO. It is completely irrelevant to today's world.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does".
As it most certainly was.
Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".
The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism. Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.
So Christians aren't calling gays demonically possessed?
Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist. You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
They aren't involved in the cover up of horrific crimes against children?
The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968. On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.
They aren't involved in killing children for witchcraft?
I won't read anything by Huffington Post. Huffington Post has a conspiratorial, crackpot Michael Moore mentality; it even promotes crackpot medicine such as the idiotic "vaccine causes autism" idea. See "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283
They aren't fighting against laws like the Violence against Women Act?
Even the freaking ACLU has opposed that bill.
The attacks you have against Christianity are simply examples of evil caused by fallen human nature. You only mention situations in which Christians have caused evil, while conveniently ignoring all the goods brought by Christians. And you conveniently omit the 100,000,000 people killed by atheistic Marxism; you forget about the brutal dictatorships in China, North Korea and Vietnam, including thousands of forced abortions every year; the oppressive dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela; etc. And the societal decay caused by cultural Marxism (which is alive and kicking in the West).
If I point out to a child that truly, there is no monster under the bed, that's not intolerance.
You are free to criticize Christianity by _expressing_ your anti-Christian ideas.
The problem with anti-theism is that they actively campaing against the human rights of Christians - such as the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and the right to political participation, which are both recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Disallowing public nudity or same sex marriage because it's against your religion, on the other hand, is intolerance.
The same would hold for other belief systems. Disallowing oil drilling in Alaska because it's against your beliefs is intolerance.
Are you blind to the fact that atheists condemn Catholicism and the Southern Baptists on a regular basis?
That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does". They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
So according to your logic we can disprove the theory of gravity (or any other scientific theory) just by finding someone obnoxious to claim it is true.
Marxism defined a communist society as being stateless (lack of the State). Clearly this doesn't fit neither the USSR or the Mao Zedong's China.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Unlike religion, Marxism is all but dead in Western countries. It doesn't make sense to condemn it any more than it makes sense to vigorously condemn the Vikings.
Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
The Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old who had been raped (and whose pregnancy meant her life was extremely endangered)
This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.
, along with her mother, but not her rapist.
You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do). Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
what else do I hate about the whole religion thing? the fact that we used to (still do, in some places) fear for our lives just by speaking how we feel. do YOU get threatened by staying you believe in sky fairies? no, you don't. you can't understand what its like to be persecuted and threatened with violence simply because you won't buy into the groupthink that everyone else was forced to go along with.
Christianity is violently persecuted in the East, and ideologically persecuted in the West. Richard Dawkins et caterva actively camapign against the human rights of religious people, such as the right to religious freedom and the right to political participation - both are written in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And if you simply watch American TV and Hollywood, you will see that the cultural elites prefer atheism to authentic Christianity.
What is the evidence that this was caused by Christianity?
'believers' are really the only ones who seem to hate gays.
Baseless lie. The Catholic Church condemns unjust discrimination. Violence against homosexuals is often caused by neo-nazis, who hate authentic Christianity as much as they hate Jews, blacks and homosexuals.
I'm not aware of any athiests that threaten bodily harm to non-athiests, though..
Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci don't hate Christianity just for fun; they hate it because it is their greatest enemy.
If you promote intolerance against religious people, you increase the chance of your country being taken over by atheist Marxism - which killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
If anti-theists were really defending reason and liberty, they would condemn Marxism with far more vigour than they condemn religion.
The fact that they don't give a damn about Marxism but hate religion strongly suggests that this isn't about reason or liberty - it is about arrongance. They find religion to be "supersticious" and "ridiculous" and do not tolerate that anyone believes in it.
And you, giving examples of people who don't like doctors just prove your case to be wrong. Your examples are intellectually dishonest. If you were honest, you would criticize one prominent religion, such as Catholicism or Southern Baptist Protestantism.
Anti-theists* are among the most anti-social, impolite and negative people I have seen. This, for me, indicates that their position does not hold.
When a theory is true, it tends to gain acceptance as people think about it and realizes the truth. But when you want people to believe in your false theory, the best strategy is to institute hatred in them; make them hate the non-believers, make them reject alternative theories without the smallest consideration.
The more anti-social and impolite the anti-theists are, the more their cause proves to be wrong.
*There is a difference betwenn "I don't believe in God", and "I hate the belief in God", which became more common after people started idolizing Ruchard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is not just an atheist, he is an anti-theist.
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1] Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away. And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
I have seen people argue that George W. Bush was naive in believing that he could bring democracy to Iraq. The separation of Church and state (the kind proposed by the American Founding Fathers, not the bigoted anti-theist kind proposed by Richard Dawkins) comes from a Christian concept: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Even though many Catholics used to defend theocratic absolutist monarchy, the seed of political freedom existed in the religious/cultural ethos of Europe, and the Enlightenment intellectuals (who brought us great evils, but also great goods) were able to rescue it and bring down theocratic absolutist monarchy.
Islam, however, lacks this seed. Bringing down secularist dictatorships (such as that of Saddam Hussein) only results in Islamist repressive regimes taking their place, including religious cleansing (specially against Jews and Christians).
I am _not_ saying that we should invade Muslim countries and plant secularist dictators there; I am merely saying that, when a secularist dictator is _already_ in power, removing him by violence only makes things worse.
Pope Benedict has written on the subject. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html (Don't worry, the link above is a verbatim excerpt from the Pope's writing; the Lew Rockwell site seems to be the only place to have published it online, but it is free of anarcho-capitalist rhetoric).
And thank you very much for pointing the antagonism Thomas Woods x Caritas In Veritate. I put it on Google and found excellent reading material. I'll read it when I have time.
All 4 sites above are pro-life, pro-family, orthodox Catholic. Excellent. But be warned that Crisis Magazine sometimes gets involved in political matters and they usually lean Libertarian.
And a strong disrecomendation: National "Catholic" Reporter - ncronline.org These people claim to be Catholics, but they vilify the Pope, condemn Eucharistic adoration, advocate for homosexualism, make-believe priestesses, and other heresies. They have written that the Catholic laity should rebel against the Holy See. The only useful content on that site are the articles by John Allen.
And a mild disrecomendation: www.americamagazine.org - they are absolutely not as bad as the National "Catholic" Reporter, but sometimes they oppose legitimate actions by the Holy See such as the reform of the LCWR.
I failed to be convinced by your explanation above, but maybe this is due to my very limited knowledge of Catholic Social Teaching. I need to study it further.
Regards
PS: replying to what you wrote in another post: no, unfortunately I do not know of any Catholic review of blogs.
PS2: There is a Catholic Historian from Harvard named Thomas Woods, who wrote the excellent book "The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization" which is evaluated P-A2 by Almudi. He also wrote "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy", which argues that minimal-state Libertarianism is compatible with Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, I could not find a Catholic evaluation of this last book. Nor have I read it. But maybe you will find it interesting as another perspective.
I have realized that the links I posted in the grand-parent post are uninteligible without explaining what "P-C3" is. It is explained here: http://www.almudi.org/Libro.aspx
And in what way are the Austrian Libertarians equal to the Soviets?
And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.
Have you studied the recent developments of Marxism? Under Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, Marxism has morphed into the New Left - a kind of Left that works within the framework of democracy (they no longer focus on violent revolutions and the dictatorship of the proletariat), and which adds to their cause of collectivisation of the means of production, the causes of feminism, homosexual militancy, "affirmative action", immigration, etc. You can see it for yourself - check the Antonio Gramsci writings on cultural hegemony, the Herbert Marcuse book "Eros and Civilization" and the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance" - which gave birth to Political Correctness. The Church itself was severely affected by this kind of Marxism, through the advent of "Liberation Theology" - which, thank God, has started to be controlled since the pontificate of blessed John Paul the Great.
It is this New Left that advocates abortion - it is no coincidence that, all over the world, leftist parties are the staunchest defenders of "reproductive rights". Nor is it a coincidence that the first modern country to legalize abortion was the Soviet Union (although, admitedly, that wasn't the New Left but the old Marxist-Leninist Left).
In short, those 56 million deaths, plus the _hundreds of millions_ of abortions that ocurred outside the USA, were caused by Marxism.
Regards
PS: I don't want to offend you. I think this can be a productive debate, and we both can learn.I would thank you very much if you dignified me with answers to my objections.
PS2: If my grammar or vocabulary is weird, remember that English is my second language.
PS3: I have taken the liberty of adding you to my circles in Google Plus. I hope you don't mind.
Something I forgot to say: as I wrote above, forcefully instituting a "marriage" that most people do not recognize is not merely "allowing" something, it is _forcing_ people to act as if it exists. The forced institution of same-sex "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, means that health insurance plans will be forced to cover the male "spouse" of another man, that bread& breakfast owners will be forced to allow sodomy in their own homes, that adoption agencies will be forced to give children to same-sex couples, etc.
Such a loss of freedom would need to have a strong motive, a strong benefit for society, to be justifiable; but it doesn't. It has no positive benefits (such as the stable and healthy environment for children that real marriage creates), and it encourages a behavior that is associated with mental problems, drug abuse, 60 times higher rates of AIDS and other diseases, promiscuity, and reduced lifespan.
Marriage has been redefined often throughout history.
But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia. The Latin "matrimonium" is derived from mater (mother). The other part of matrimony comes from monium, an action, state or condition. The implication is clear: Matrimony is the action, state or condition within which motherhood rightly occurs
I have to admit, I have no idea what's wrong with polygamous marriage. It's prominently featured in the Bible (not negatively either--I hope you don't bring up Leah/Rachel, where the fault clearly wasn't polygamy but dishonesty) and has been legal or encouraged in many societies through the years. Forcing a young bride to marry an old man is certainly wrong, but why would I want to prevent eg. four loving adults from pooling resources? It's not for me, but that's irrelevant. Incestuous (straight) marriage has a good chance of producing genetically disabled children, which is a bad enough thing that society has an interest in preventing it, so I am provisionally alright with banning incestuous marriage on those grounds--though making incestuous child-making illegal is more direct and preferable.
So you have nothing against a man "marrying" his own father, because they have no chance to beget genetically defective children?
who am I to deny them when I have no real reason to do so? "Ick" doesn't count.
Your "denying" language is wrong. When the government recognizes a "marriage" that most people do not want to recognize, the government is not merely "allowing" something, it is actually forcing people to act against their will. For example, suppose that a Christian bread&breakfast only allows married people to sleep together. Most likely, such a bread&breakfast does not want a man to sodomize his own father in their room. By forcefully instituting homosexual incestuous "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, the government is forcing the bread&breakfast to do something against their will.
I want to reiterate how poor your arguments have been
I don't remember offering any positive arguments; I merely applied reductio ad absurdum to the pro-same-sex-marriage argument that "marriage is a civil right", and then I complained that that side very rarely offers argumentation, and 98% of the time they simply shout down their opponents with "SHUT UP YOU ******* BIGOT!" screams.
I wouldn't associate myself with Karl Marx. Not even kidding. Marxism is an inhuman ideology that denies the dignity and complexity of human nature (Marx's "materialist conception of history" says that all history, including religion and philosophy developments, is determined by economic factors) and led to 90-100M deaths.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.
And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.
Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography
students read.
Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.
The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.
It is completely irrelevant to today's world.
Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".
The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism.
Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.
Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.
You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.
On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic
bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.
I won't read anything by Huffington Post. Huffington Post has a conspiratorial, crackpot Michael Moore mentality; it even promotes crackpot medicine such as the idiotic "vaccine causes autism" idea. See "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283
Even the freaking ACLU has opposed that bill.
The attacks you have against Christianity are simply examples of evil caused by fallen human nature. You only mention situations in which Christians have caused evil, while conveniently ignoring all the goods brought by Christians. And you conveniently omit the 100,000,000 people killed by atheistic Marxism; you forget about the brutal dictatorships in China, North Korea and Vietnam, including thousands of forced abortions every year; the oppressive dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela; etc. And the societal decay caused by cultural Marxism (which is alive and kicking in the West).
You are free to criticize Christianity by _expressing_ your anti-Christian ideas.
The problem with anti-theism is that they actively campaing against the human rights of Christians - such as the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and the right to political participation, which are both recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The same would hold for other belief systems.
Disallowing oil drilling in Alaska because it's against your beliefs is intolerance.
For what reason?
That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does". They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
Straw-man.
Which are implementations of Marxism.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.
You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do). Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
Christianity is violently persecuted in the East, and ideologically
persecuted in the West. Richard Dawkins et caterva actively camapign
against the human rights of religious people, such as the right to
religious freedom and the right to political participation - both are
written in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And if you simply watch American TV and Hollywood, you will see that
the cultural elites prefer atheism to authentic Christianity.
What is the evidence that this was caused by Christianity?
Baseless lie. The Catholic Church condemns unjust discrimination. Violence
against homosexuals is often caused by neo-nazis, who hate authentic Christianity
as much as they hate Jews, blacks and homosexuals.
Marxists.
Christianity is a defence against Marxism.
Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci don't hate Christianity just for fun; they hate it because it is their greatest enemy.
If you promote intolerance against religious people, you increase the chance of your country being taken over by atheist Marxism - which killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
If anti-theists were really defending reason and liberty, they would condemn Marxism with far more vigour than they condemn religion.
The fact that they don't give a damn about Marxism but hate religion strongly suggests that this isn't about reason or liberty - it is about arrongance. They find religion to be "supersticious" and "ridiculous" and do not tolerate that anyone believes in it.
And you, giving examples of people who don't like doctors just prove your case to be wrong. Your examples are intellectually dishonest. If you were honest, you would criticize one prominent religion, such as Catholicism or Southern Baptist Protestantism.
If you want to support intolerance of people who think differently of you, say so.
Don't rationalize with this bizarre redefinition of the word "tolerance".
Anti-theists* are among the most anti-social, impolite and negative people I have seen. This, for me, indicates that their position does not hold.
When a theory is true, it tends to gain acceptance as people think about it and realizes the truth.
But when you want people to believe in your false theory, the best strategy is to institute hatred in them; make them hate the non-believers, make them reject alternative theories without the smallest consideration.
The more anti-social and impolite the anti-theists are, the more their cause proves to be wrong.
*There is a difference betwenn "I don't believe in God", and "I hate the belief in God", which became more common after people started idolizing Ruchard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is not just an atheist, he is an anti-theist.
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
I have seen people argue that George W. Bush was naive in believing
that he could bring democracy to Iraq. The separation of Church and
state (the kind proposed by the American Founding Fathers, not the
bigoted anti-theist kind proposed by Richard Dawkins) comes from a
Christian concept: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's". Even though many Catholics
used to defend theocratic absolutist monarchy, the seed of political freedom
existed in the religious/cultural ethos of Europe, and the Enlightenment
intellectuals (who brought us great evils, but also great goods) were able
to rescue it and bring down theocratic absolutist monarchy.
Islam, however, lacks this seed. Bringing down secularist dictatorships
(such as that of Saddam Hussein) only results in Islamist repressive
regimes taking their place, including religious cleansing (specially
against Jews and Christians).
I am _not_ saying that we should invade Muslim countries and plant
secularist dictators there; I am merely saying that, when a secularist
dictator is _already_ in power, removing him by violence only makes
things worse.
Pope Benedict has written on the subject. See
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
(Don't worry, the link above is a verbatim excerpt from the Pope's
writing; the Lew Rockwell site seems to be the only place to have
published it online, but it is free of anarcho-capitalist rhetoric).
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/
is an excellent, deep, charitable resource. I heard it is read at the Holy See.
I realize I am spending too much of your time, but I forgot
to add more recommendations:
1. http://www.firstthings.com/ This is an ecumenical Christian magazine, written in a scholarly style. It is intellectually deep and otrhodox.
2. Articles by George Weigel. This man is a scholar, and an admirer of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He wrote a biography of John Paul II. His writing is excellent. See http://ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#weigel
Be warned, though, that AFAICT he supported Iraq's War. See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/03/just-war-and-iraq-wars-36 (I only read the first 12 paragraphs of it. It is huge)
And thank you very much for pointing the antagonism Thomas Woods x Caritas In Veritate. I put it on Google and found excellent reading material. I'll read it when I have time.
Regards
I forgot to add: despite not knowing of any magisterial evaluation of blogs,
I can give you my own opinion.
I know of
1. National Catholic Register - http://www.ncregister.com/
2. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/
3. Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say? - http://wdtprs.com/blog/
4. Crisis Magazine - http://www.crisismagazine.com/
All 4 sites above are pro-life, pro-family, orthodox Catholic. Excellent.
But be warned that Crisis Magazine sometimes gets involved in political matters
and they usually lean Libertarian.
And a strong disrecomendation:
National "Catholic" Reporter - ncronline.org
These people claim to be Catholics, but they vilify the Pope, condemn Eucharistic adoration,
advocate for homosexualism, make-believe priestesses, and other heresies. They have written that
the Catholic laity should rebel against the Holy See. The only useful content on that site are
the articles by John Allen.
And a mild disrecomendation:
www.americamagazine.org - they are absolutely not as bad as the National "Catholic" Reporter,
but sometimes they oppose legitimate actions by the Holy See such as the reform of the LCWR.
Regards
I failed to be convinced by your explanation above, but maybe this is due
to my very limited knowledge of Catholic Social Teaching. I need to study
it further.
Regards
PS: replying to what you wrote in another post: no, unfortunately I do not know
of any Catholic review of blogs.
PS2: There is a Catholic Historian from Harvard named Thomas Woods, who wrote
the excellent book "The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization" which is evaluated
P-A2 by Almudi. He also wrote "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of
the Free Economy", which argues that minimal-state Libertarianism is compatible
with Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, I could not find a Catholic evaluation of this
last book. Nor have I read it. But maybe you will find it interesting as another
perspective.
And, how to you reconcile an absolute right to private property
with forced taxation?
I am not a faithful libertarian, but I have read some of their arguments
and I don't know how to refute them.
I didn't mean to classify _you_ as part of the New Left, I merely accused
the New Left of being responsible for free abortion.
And, which encyclical of Pope Leo XIII are you referring to? It could be a good
read for me.
I have realized that the links I posted in the grand-parent post are uninteligible without
explaining what "P-C3" is. It is explained here: http://www.almudi.org/Libro.aspx
And in what way are the Austrian Libertarians equal to the Soviets?
Note: if you do want to read those books I mentioned, talk to your confessor first.
They are deeply against the Faith.
See http://www.almudi.org/Libros/tabid/501/A/ViewSearch/CustomFieldIDs/42/SearchValues/gramsci/sortBy/cf40/sortDir/Ascending/Default.aspx
and
http://www.almudi.org/Libros/tabid/501/A/ViewSearch/CustomFieldIDs/42/SearchValues/marcuse/sortBy/cf40/sortDir/Ascending/Default.aspx
And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.
Have you studied the recent developments of Marxism? Under Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse,
Marxism has morphed into the New Left - a kind of Left that works within the framework of democracy
(they no longer focus on violent revolutions and the dictatorship of the proletariat), and which adds to
their cause of collectivisation of the means of production, the causes of feminism,
homosexual militancy, "affirmative action", immigration, etc. You can see it for yourself - check
the Antonio Gramsci writings on cultural hegemony, the Herbert Marcuse book "Eros and Civilization"
and the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance" - which gave birth to Political Correctness.
The Church itself was severely affected by this kind of Marxism, through the advent of "Liberation Theology" -
which, thank God, has started to be controlled since the pontificate of blessed John Paul the Great.
It is this New Left that advocates abortion - it is no coincidence that, all over the world, leftist parties are the
staunchest defenders of "reproductive rights". Nor is it a coincidence that the first modern country to legalize
abortion was the Soviet Union (although, admitedly, that wasn't the New Left but the old Marxist-Leninist Left).
In short, those 56 million deaths, plus the _hundreds of millions_ of abortions that ocurred outside the USA,
were caused by Marxism.
Regards
PS: I don't want to offend you. I think this can be a productive debate, and we both can learn.I would thank you
very much if you dignified me with answers to my objections.
PS2: If my grammar or vocabulary is weird, remember that English is my second language.
PS3: I have taken the liberty of adding you to my circles in Google Plus. I hope you don't mind.
Something I forgot to say: as I wrote above, forcefully instituting a "marriage" that most people do not recognize is not merely "allowing" something, it is _forcing_ people to act as if it exists. The forced institution of same-sex "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, means that health insurance plans will be forced to cover the male "spouse" of another man, that bread& breakfast owners will be forced to allow sodomy in their own homes, that adoption agencies will be forced to give children to same-sex couples, etc.
Such a loss of freedom would need to have a strong motive, a strong benefit for society, to be justifiable; but it doesn't. It has no positive benefits (such as the stable and healthy environment for children that real marriage creates), and it encourages a behavior that is associated with mental problems, drug abuse, 60 times higher rates of AIDS and other diseases, promiscuity, and reduced lifespan.
But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia.
I meant
But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" aspect has remained for millennia.
Marriage has been redefined often throughout history.
But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia.
The Latin "matrimonium" is derived from mater (mother). The other part of matrimony comes from monium, an action, state or condition. The implication is clear: Matrimony is the action, state or condition within which motherhood rightly occurs
I have to admit, I have no idea what's wrong with polygamous marriage. It's prominently featured in the Bible (not negatively either--I hope you don't bring up Leah/Rachel, where the fault clearly wasn't polygamy but dishonesty) and has been legal or encouraged in many societies through the years. Forcing a young bride to marry an old man is certainly wrong, but why would I want to prevent eg. four loving adults from pooling resources? It's not for me, but that's irrelevant. Incestuous (straight) marriage has a good chance of producing genetically disabled children, which is a bad enough thing that society has an interest in preventing it, so I am provisionally alright with banning incestuous marriage on those grounds--though making incestuous child-making illegal is more direct and preferable.
So you have nothing against a man "marrying" his own father, because they have no chance to beget genetically defective children?
who am I to deny them when I have no real reason to do so? "Ick" doesn't count.
Your "denying" language is wrong. When the government recognizes a "marriage" that most people do not want to recognize, the government is not merely "allowing" something, it is actually forcing people to act against their will. For example, suppose that a Christian bread&breakfast only allows married people to sleep together. Most likely, such a bread&breakfast does not want a man to sodomize his own father in their room. By forcefully instituting homosexual incestuous "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, the government is forcing the bread&breakfast to do something against their will.
I want to reiterate how poor your arguments have been
I don't remember offering any positive arguments; I merely applied reductio ad absurdum to the pro-same-sex-marriage argument that "marriage is a civil right", and then I complained that that side very rarely offers argumentation, and 98% of the time they simply shout down their opponents with "SHUT UP YOU ******* BIGOT!" screams.
As for positive argumentation, see
http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/
and
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
I wouldn't associate myself with Karl Marx. Not even kidding.
Marxism is an inhuman ideology that denies the dignity and complexity of human nature (Marx's "materialist conception of history" says that all history, including religion and philosophy developments, is determined by economic factors) and led to 90-100M deaths.