- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
VATICAN CITY, April 21 (Reuters) - Pope Francis, the first Latin American leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has died, the Vatican said in a video statement on Monday, ending an often turbulent reign marked by division and tension as he sought to overhaul the hidebound institution. He was 88, and had recently survived a serious bout of double pneumonia.
“Dear brothers and sisters, it is with profound sadness I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell announced on the Vatican’s TV channel.
“At 7:35 this morning the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope on March 13, 2013, surprising many Church watchers who had seen the Argentine cleric, known for his concern for the poor, as an outsider.
He sought to project simplicity into the grand role and never took possession of the ornate papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace used by his predecessors, saying he preferred to live in a community setting for his “psychological health”.
He inherited a Church that was under attack over a child sex abuse scandal and torn by infighting in the Vatican bureaucracy, and was elected with a clear mandate to restore order.
But as his papacy progressed, he faced fierce criticism from conservatives, who accused him of trashing cherished traditions. He also drew the ire of progressives, who felt he should have done much more to reshape the 2,000-year-old Church.
While he struggled with internal dissent, Francis became a global superstar, drawing huge crowds on his many foreign travels as he tirelessly promoted interfaith dialogue and peace, taking the side of the marginalised, such as migrants.
Unique in modern times, there were two men wearing white in the Vatican for much of Francis’ rule, with his predecessor Benedict opting to continue to live in the Holy See after his shock resignation in 2013 had opened the way for a new pontiff.
Benedict, a hero of the conservative cause, died in December 2022, finally leaving Francis alone on the papal stage.
Francis appointed nearly 80% of the cardinal electors who will choose the next pope correct as of February 2025, increasing the possibility that his successor will continue his progressive policies, despite the strong pushback from traditionalists.
Comrades, I am new to Marxism-Leninism and disappointed with the unproductive disrespect in this thread. Just as Russia could not be fixed in a few years, so the Catholic Church could not be fixed in twelve years. Just as anticommunist lunatics grossly exaggerate, decontextualize and lie about the errors of Stalin while downplaying the (awesome) achievements of the USSR, people here exaggerate and obsess about the limits of Pope Francis and the problems that still exist in the Church.
This is bad for class consciousness. Most of the working class is religious, and in the West that religion is Christianity. Here in Brazil, about 90% of the population is Christian and most are Catholic. One of the strongest right-wing disinformation is the narrative that “atheist elites want to take power and repress the Church” and you are handing over that debate on a silver platter.
Historical context! The Bolshevik disliked, even repressed, the Russian Orthodox Church because it was hard to discern where did the czarist State end and where did the Church begin. The Bolshevik may even have exaggerated, acting out of hatred – just as the victims of Nazism sometimes acted out of (understandable) anti-German hatred, instead of focusing their indignation on Nazis (not all Germans).
But while Christianity is still gravely theocratic today, it is considerably less so than czarist Orthodox Church. Please focus your attacks on theocracy, not Christianity [or religion]. While anti-Christian sentiment was somewhat understandable during the Bolshevik revolution and the early years of the USSR, it is anachronic today.
This thread looks more like “new atheist” juvenile contrarianism than responsible communists who actually raise class consciousness to overthrow capitalism. You should know that New Atheism is terribly right wing, decidedly anticommunist, and cheerleads for mass murdering wars of aggression in the Middle East.
Edit (please read)
Comrades, I misunderstood Hexbear, wrote a confusing comment, unintentionally offended you, then reacted badly to your angry replies, many of which misrepresented what I wanted to say. Now with hindsight, I ask you to read this:
I did not mean to accuse hexbearites of being bad like New Atheists. I wanted to use the antisocial behavior of New Atheists (fruitless anti-religious intolerance) as an anti-example. In my experience, leftists discern between “theocrat” and “religious comrade". I felt this thread was an outlier. But then I worded my comment in an confusing way, appearing to conflate you with New Atheists.
The accusation of loving war crimes in the Middle East is for foaming lunatic New Atheists like Sam Harris, not Hexbearites.
I meant that anti-religious bashing is easily misrepresented by right wing propaganda. I explicitly said that the “atheist elites” narrative is disinformation. Cubans practice their religions in peace, just not theocracy.
I did not mean all “true” Christians are Catholics or whatever.
I am a newbie and autistic (actual diagnosis). I care a lot for detail and took offense with misrepresentations. And I am still getting up to speed with the LGBT movement.
Today I realized this analogy. When Rede Globo (massive right-wing media corporation) sheds tears for “democracy”, I wish them go pound sand. They supported the military dictatorship for decades, and still distort reality in favor of capitalism, NATO, and Israel. Becoming softer is not enough. I would forgive them if they actually switched sides.
So I can relate to trans people who look at the historical crimes of organized religion, and who personally suffer religious hate even today, saying they will only respect the Church if she actually switches sides. Malcom X said: stop sweet talking!
You’re not going to get this website to love this guy. Also new atheism may do that but nobody here is
Literally, like okay cool but a lot of this website is trans and many (like me) have religious trauma. Sorry if we’re not fans of the Catholic Church lmao
I saw somebody calling celebrating this as “cynical” like no, you just don’t have the same sensitivity to his transphobia. The best leader of the pedophile queerphobes is still a leader of the pedophile queerphobes
yes! exactly this! Seeing people here say that shit is a good reminder that the only people that really reliably support trans people are other trans people
And I know some cis person is probably going to try to respond to this but like no just shut it, for once lol
To begin with, would you please read my edit at the end of the original comment? I admit I messed up.
Regarding shutting up, is it an exaggeration for effect? Like when some ML say on the Internet “Mao did nothing wrong”, when actually he was probably 70% good, 30% bad? Honest question.
I get LGBT people have historically suffered horribly, and, while things have improved, they still suffer unacceptably, and theocrats are possibly the biggest obstacles for them. It is not about loving the Catholic Church, it is about being productive. Has not Pope Francis made an effort to move the Church in a better direction? Have not most of his actions support the LGBT community? Yet this thread obsesses about a speech, lashes out against religious people, and antagonizes half of the working class.
Does the Communist Party of China or Cuba behave like this?
You misunderstand the nature of this forum. It is not a party, there is no discipline, it is people venting to their comrades. They “obsess” over a speech because it said they specifically were a greater danger to society than nuclear weapons. They will not mourn the man who targeted them till his dying days and requesting that seems unreasonable. You can say this would be alienating in organizing the working class, which is true, but nobody here is doing that, they’re commiserating with likeminded people in an insular forum
literally lmao
I come here to get news updates from comrades and shitpost, we’re not organizing here and if somebody is… well I think that you better take that offline this is essentially a public forum
the pope, a literal theocrat, the (former) leader of one of the world’s most powerful religious institutions, literally described trans people as akin to nuclear weapons that would annihilate civilization. he literally compared the existence of a group of people, not their actions, but their existence alone, to humanity’s most destructive, horrifying, and world ending weapons. the same group of people is heavily represented on this site. on seeing that some members of the group that the theocrat wanted to erase from existence are not exactly sad about this news, your immediate reaction was to compare the users of this site to the bloodthirsty architects and boosters of the iraq war. and now you’re complaining about being dogpiled. if you are actually confused by the reaction you’re getting, I encourage you to read what I wrote again.
like your other antitrans-apologist comrade @Terrarium@hexbear.net, I’m giving you the sit down and stop talking challenge. post one more thing in the thread that isn’t “you’re right transcomrades, maybe I shouldn’t be sticking up for the theocrat who described 80% of the hexbear userbase as a nuclear weapons just waiting to destroy civilization” and I will ban you also.
I made a further big change to the “Edit” section. Would you give it a read? I apologize for taking so much of your time, but I want to clarify things. I don’t want to burn all bridges with Hexbear.
Thank you for making the effort.
You are welcome. It seems Lemmy lacks a reaction feature, so I upvoted your reply, and wrote this.
Only now have I seen this reply. I have edited my comment to clarify the war crimes thing. It was directed at New Atheists, not hexbearites. Don’t bite newbies.
Anyway, Internet posting is easily misunderstood. I also simply did not see your “sit down” challenge soon enough.
Trump is currently destroying the empire, and I’ll still laugh when he gets got
Francis wasnt even destroying the catholic empire
Sorry not sorry, but I’m not going to have any respect for some old corpse who compared being trans with the dangers of fucking nuclear weapons. And comparing criticism of him to the worst aspects of New Atheism is very silly. I’m not a right wing anticommunist apologist for war crimes in West Asia just because I don’t care for the guy.
for fucking real, seeing people whine about how people shouldn’t celebrate the Pope kicking the can is wiiiild
Also to say nothing of the fact that my experience of Christianity in my country is that it’s relentlessly trying to kill me and people like me. If that wasn’t the case, maybe I wouldn’t have such a negative view of it. I’m sure people in other parts of the world have a different relationship to Christianity, but here it is used overwhelmingly as a vehicle for fascism.
Please see my edit in the original comment. I did not equate you with a drooling lunatic New Atheist like Sam Harris. Sam Harris is Ann Coulter with a different rhetoric. I do not equate you with that.
I contrasted the puerile antisocial behavior of new atheism (anti-religious intolerance) with the responsible attitude of communists who want to raise class consciousness and overthrow capitalism [and therefore theocracy]. Many years ago, when I still hang out in religious Internet forums, it was new atheists who came attack us day and night. When I converted to the left, I saw far more respect for religion. Leftists can actually discern between “theocrat” and “religious comrade". Until I saw this thread. This thread is an outlier. This is why I contrasted actual leftist critique of theocracy with New Atheism. New Atheists clearly don’t care about the working class, so they are not being counterproductive, just intolerant. This thread is counterproductive.
I’ll accept that it may not have been your intention, but that’s certainly how it came off to me and apparently a lot of other people with the way you worded it. I think what you’re getting hung up on is people’s criticism of the pope as a person and the Catholic Church as an institution, and conflating it with criticism of Christianity as a religion. You claim to stand against theocracy, yet you keep calling criticism of one of, if not the most, notorious theocratic institution, the Catholic Church, “counterproductive.” Also, let me reiterate what a number of people have already said: this is not a party, this a niche internet forum. This is the internet equivalent of a communist dive bar. What is said here isn’t affecting the struggle in the real world, it’s just a place for people to chat and vent, the vast majority of which are queer and almost half are trans, many of whom have not had great interactions with Christianity to say the least. A lot of people here actually do that work in the real world, and I can assure you they aren’t running around yelling at Christians simply for being Christians while trying to convert them to the cause, which is what would actually be counterproductive.
I did not mean that attacking the Catholic Church is equal to attacking the entire Christian Faith. I meant that those who attack the whole Catholic Church (instead of just Catholic theocrats) have the same attitude of those who say “evangelicals are fanatical hypocrites” instead of attacking only evangelical theocrats. Anticatholicism is not equal, but often analogous, to general antichristianity.
And many Catholics say the Church is not supposed to make a “culture war”. The Church should do spiritual work, moral education, charity, and aid social movements such as landless workers. All that is compatible with secular values. The problem is when the Church indoctrinate the Faithful into enforcing anti-trans (or homophobic) politics, claiming that unisex bathrooms are a catastrophic threat to “Christian civilization”.
The thing is: arguing against theocracy has some chance of convincing moderate Catholics to disavow theocracy. But attacking the entire Catholic Church is much more likely to cause them to hate the left and associate Marxism with New Atheism hate.
Hexbear can throw a little shade at the institution that has had 2000 years to “fix it’s problems” instead of being the supporting ideology for much of the west’s exploiters during that time. I’m sure class consciousness won’t be impacted by what 100 hexbearites say about this.
I literally can’t think of a single issue the catholic church (as an institution) hasn’t been wrong on in the last 1000 years. Francis himself supported Palestine and was generally at least willing to cite scripture about refugees. And for that I will concede that he is the least bad pope.
Yeah I’m not disagreeing thay Francis is the least bad pope. I’m okay if others want to pay respect to the man in their own way.
I was irked a little bit that someone tried to tone police us on how mean we, as a niche internet forum, are being to the Catholic Church. And then comparing it to New Atheists!? It was probably better for me to say nothing, but I did get irked that we should be respectful to that institution. I’m not going to go on some anti Catholic rant when talking to people irl when trying to convince people of the cause of communism. But on an online space like Hexbear where the main goal is shitposting, I think a little is okay
Overall, though, it was probably best I said nothing. My original comment was a little bit of a knee jerk
You wouldn’t be getting any crap for me if you had posted ding dong the witch is dead. I think you are entirely right to shitpost.
Edit oh you said hasN’T been wrong. Nevermind
My God comrade, they supported the nazis.
I actually will concede that I believe the church did take a stance against eugenics before opposition to eugenics became mainstream. So they were right on ONE issue.
I’m a Communist and Catholic, and while I appreciate the comment. It means absolutely nothing whether a niche communist forum celebrates or mourns the pope.
By that same logic it means absolutely nothing whether a niche communist forum celebrates or mocks trans people.
This thread is full of complete inconsistency and a lack of basic care and respect for comrades.
I would say that one should model good and productive behavior as best they can, even in a “venting” or “shitposting” forum, because in my experience a person’s online behavior is not really compartmentalized. We’ve all had to deal with the annoying Redditor who just joined the org, for example.
So let’s do our best to understand and share, including examining our own posts for inconsistencies before writing each other off. Writing each other off early is, actually, a toxic tendency of this forum.
How about you have sufficient basic care and respect for the trans comrades here who don’t respect someone who compared their existence to nuclear weapons. You’re on real thin ice here.
I haven’t been uncaring or disrespectful towards my trans comrades whatsoever.
Then just stop now. This is it, this is your warning to stop doing tone policing and concern trolling that amounts to antitrans apologia. Personally I already think you’re over the line, but since you seem like the type that really values big words and you purport to respect trans people, I’m giving you the sit down and listen challenge instead of immediately banning you.
That said, one more single post from you on this topic that isn’t “sorry my bad, trans comrades” and you’re outta here.
edit: challenge failed
I want to take a step back from this conversation, because you are reading something deeply upsetting at my criticism of the original posts’ framing of this place as anything but a niche communist forum. Hexbear is not a vanguard party, the off-shoot to a socialist union or organization, the haven for all thought leaders in American or World Communism. So being concerned on whether we stay on message, or we provide respect for anything, is a fine thought, but worth jack.
If it was Bernie, or a Union member, getting themselves on the news, saying “good riddance” fuck that pedophile. I’d have serious criticism. But what do internet randoms have to do with it?
I have seen nothing in this thread that is an outright lie. Criticisms about its framing of the Catholic Church Child Abuse Scandal. The ways he had antiquated and advanced, or maintained, harmful misunderstanding of gender and trans issues. The way the Church and its Pope have a really low bar to clear for it to be deemed “progressive”.
I think people are allowed to vent. I think refusing to acknowledge the anger and harmful effects that religion forces upon people. Our comrades. And telling them to shut it down, because…what? Some non-existent audience? Some needed solidarity, at the backs of us?
I’m not queer and even I can understand the absolute horror and rage that they feel when you are bombarded the message that God hates you. That you are made wrong, or even worse, “chose to be and act wrong”. You understands what does to people?
I am not sure that I understand what you mean by, “take a step back”. You have written a five paragraph response. Do you want to continue having a conversation or by, “step back” do you mean you want to take a different angle?
I also don’t understand what you found deeply upsetting because so far as I can tell, you didn’t tell me. But I do think what I said holds, that you were justifying flippant anti-catholic sentiment by the obscurity and unseriousness of this forum. That is a logic that works for any sentiment no matter how reactionary. This is what I mean when I say this forum only selectively takes itself seriously. It’s well-aware that, for example, supporting trans people is actually a serious topic with deadly consequences and a need for a movement to forward trans rights and protection. But it is also full of Anericans that do not understand the violent legacy, and even modern-day violences, of anti-catholic sentiment, and so it does not get anything but insulting dismissal even when people are simply noting the necessity of cultural sensitivity.
Hexbear is an offshoot of a subreddit for a podcast by not-particularly-funny white guys in New York. It doesn’t really know what it is, it inconsistently wavers between a shitpost site for lefty jokes and a principled organization rooting out reactionary sentiment that is against a proper socialist line. And it’s a small forum. It is a marginal place.
But the logic you presented is still invalid and is an easy vehicle by which to justify anything, including wrong or detrimental things. And it was not couched in language that prioritizes comeraderie or understanding, it was dismissive, which is the other tendency of this forum: to pick fights, to escalate, to invest very little in trying to understand one another and reach synthesis. This is also a consequence of this site’s origins and context. Its members dunk on reactionaries so much that they use the same social approach for all disagreements.
Fewer than half of the replies to my comments in this thread don’t mischaracterize my basic statements and one of them implied that an immigrant community that I help organize is just pedophiles.
Right, this is a catch-all justification. It can justify right or wrong or mediocre things.
As a reminder, I am suggesting that responses to the OP are too dismissive and non-comradely and that calling the pope a pedophile is agitational for catholics. See the responses.
I mean, I don’t call these things lies because I don’t know what base understanding we all share. They don’t even need to be lies per se, just culturally insensitive or uncomradely. I could point out at least 1 fairly inaccurate thing but responses are already highly agitational and emotional so I am decreasingly interested in trying to explain.
I read this as you processing your own logic out loud. That’s 100% okay and valid but it really doesn’t get at what I’m saying.
If you don’t know someone with dead or abused family members citing anti-catholicism then you don’t work with Irish communists. I don’t expect many people to have done that. I understand the highly US-centric nature of this forum. Even those not in the US end up being US-centric due to all the other Americans in the space. But I do think comrades should try to listen to one another before the knives come out and dismissals start flying.
I know people who are very scared that their family finds out they were sexually active before marriage. One of them us currently being blackmailed using this and their blackmailer uses left and psychologizing language to do it. They come from a muslim community. Do I or they tolerate, “Mohammed was a pedophile” statements? No, we don’t, because we share the understanding that this is culturally insensitive and counterproductive and amounts to a “we don’t accept muslims” sign. There are people from that same community that process their experience differently, they embrace islamophobic statements and logic. I think my and my comerade’s approach is better. And every person in this story is negatively affected by reactionary islamic beliefs.
I want to emphasize as well that “venting” is often a license for toxicity in left spaces, including irl. And you can see the vitriol in this thread. I strongly disagree with, “people are allowed to vent”. Many times it’s a very good thing, often it’s a destructive thing. It really depends on what is said and where and to whom.
Yes.
Yes, but they should shut up about the bigotry of the church because it’s bigotry towards Christians
Religion is generally not compatible with Marxism, given that it exists primarily to comfort people about their material conditions and encourages them that their next life is more important than the current one. The Catholic Church certainly isn’t, they have been more cooperative with fascists than communists historically and only hinder class consciousness (not to mention being probably the world’s largest institution of child abuse). It cannot be “fixed” anymore than capitalism can be fixed.
Frankly, this website shouldn’t have a Christianity comm at all, but a majority of people here are Americans that don’t read theory so
Lmao
I agree with you in spirit but empirical evidence is that religion isn’t not yet obsolete in global south countries and enforcing state atheism a la afghan peoples republic would end in failure.
For global south comrades, anti-religion is a very unproductive stance to have. Unlike the west and especially protestant countries like the united states.
Religion will abolish itself when the material conditions are sufficient enough for its non-existence.
Religion is “compatible” with Marxism in the sense that a Marxist state need have no problem with citizens who practice their religions in peace without theocracy, like (I believe) happens in Cuba. Any religion, when mixed with politics or money, results in disaster. The Catholic Church has a problematic history precisely because it mixed with the State since Roman times. A communist society would provide a more healthy environment for legitimate, non theocratic religion to develop. Religion would not mess with the State, which is great. And maybe less people would have Faith, but those who do would be more reasonable and authentic. In fact, a Liberation Theology priest once told me that real Christianity is never the majority. In societies such as Medieval Europe (and even the USA and Brazil today) that discriminate against non-Christians, people have an incentive to be fake Christians. But we don’t have to litigate that here, I just wanted to clarify what I meant.
Regarding Hexbear sometimes talking about religion: religion still affects politics, so it cannot be ignored.
I don’t think this is true. The influence of religion in Cuba (and China for that matter) is small enough that trying to convert everyone to atheism is understandably very low on their government’s list of priorities.
The whole point of religion is to assure you that your suffering in this life is okay because you’ll be rewarded in some future life. It’s antithetical to a materialist worldview, to establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Like, there’s a reason all the great Marxist authors were atheists.
Please read a book.
Am I wrong? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, all preach that doing certain things in this life will reward you, either by going to heaven or escaping the cycle or whatever. Christianity explicitly teaches that being persecuted is to be expected and good. Any good deeds done by organized religion are incidental and easily outweighed by their harm.
I’m always surprised by how many people are willing to go to bat for religion on a supposedly leftist website.
Lmao is this a bit
Not a politician, but still relevant.
Yes, let us all abandon our principals and prostrate ourselves toward the most backwards elements of society. You say you are new to Marxism Leninism, perhaps it is time to learn what opportunism is.
Please read carefully my original comment. I said almost the opposite of “prostrate”. I want to overthrow capitalism, which will then provide a more healthy environment for religion, like in Cuba. But we can’t overthrow capitalism when we (already fighting an uphill battle) antagonize half of the working class from the start.
I am saying: attack theocracy, yes. But don’t just lash out at all religion like New Atheists do.
Respectfully, from an ML perspective, religion and the occurrence of religion is simply the replacement for tribal solidarity as class society develops from primitive communism towards settled agriculture, which produces enough surplus to create an ownership class that does not produce anything, but rules through violence and justifies that violence through superstition. Religion is not ‘natural’ but a creation created to ease the contradictions of class society without challenging the ruling class. Due to this very nature, religion no matter how benign, cannot be the vehicle of class abolition as it is born out of class society itself.
I have no personal animosity towards the Pope (outside of his comments on gender) nor even most individual catholics, but I absolutely hold an animosity towards religion and religious based thinking. And I would argue, one has to hold this animosity if one wants to call themselves an ML.
This response is exxagerating and not actually engaging with what the comrade said. Please apologize to the comrade.
Is this a joke post. “I’m new to the ideology but let me tell you why you all need to conform to my ideas. Also mocking a dead pope is the same as cheerleading genocide in the middle east if you think about it”
Did you even read what I wrote? The genocide cheerleading is about drooling lunatics like Sam Harris, not leftists. I explicitly said that New Atheists are right-wingers, not leftists.
I explicitly said that the “atheist elites” narrative is right-wing disinformation.
I am talking about how anti-religious lashing out is easy fodder for right wing propaganda.
I am severely disappointed with the obscurantism of these replies.
No you are saying that mocking the dead pope is like being a new atheist who cheerlead wars in the middle east. It is not obscurantism to call you out on what you said and what is meant by it. You are comparing people saying “Good riddance pedophile” about a guy who knowingly sanctioned the cover up of sex crimes against minors and who called queers a greats moral evil to the cheering on of genocide. And that IS your point, that IS the point of comparing this to new atheism. That there is any kind of equivalence between these forms of rhetoric.
Oh please. I explicitly said:
I started the sentence with “One of the strongest right-wing disinformation” (my emphasis).
As for new atheism, I said:
I was contrasting the puerile antisocial behavior of new atheism (lashing out at religion for fun) with the responsible attitude of communists who want to raise class consciousness and overthrow capitalism [and therefore theocracy].
Can you at least admit you didn’t read before replying?
I did read the part where you compared the mocking of a dead pope to the ideology and actions of new atheists, and that is what I am taking a shot at.
I meant to contrast the rhetoric of two different camps (leftists vs New Atheists), to highlight counterproductive rhetoric. I mentioned chearleading for war crimes to emphasize that New Atheists are right wing fanatics who lash out at religion possibly as a cover, so they do not appear to be right wing fanatics in their liberal social circle. And that when we do anything remotely similar to New Atheism, we should at least suspect it is wrong. You read it as conflating the gravity of lashing out at religion (part of what New Atheists do) and the gravity of cheerleading for massive war crimes, which is another part of New Atheism. I repeatedly clarified this.
It is because many years ago, when I still hang out in religious Internet forums, it was new atheists who came to attack us day and night. When I converted to the left, I saw far more respect for religion. Leftists can actually discern between “theocrat” and “religious person”. Until I saw this thread. This thread is an outlier. This is why I mentioned New Atheism, as an analogy, because puerile lashing out at religion (antagonizing half of our potential comrades) is typical behavior of New Atheists. Except that New Atheists don’t care about the working class, so they are not being counterproductive, just antisocial. This thread is being counterproductive.
You will get no sympathy from anyone here for the “attacks” you received on christian forums 20 years ago. As far as I can tell no ine here is mocking the average catholic, they are electing not to respect the pope. The arch theocrat. The literal type specimen of the term.
I never asked for sympathy for New Atheist attacks on me. I asked people to reply to what I actually said.
Pretty sure the pope is a really clear example of a theocrat
My guy, the bear site gestalt is not gonna respect Christianity until Jesus is wearing a technicolor dreamcoat in full drag.
I get that Hexbear has a lot of LGBT people and this community has suffered horribly from theocracy. And the crimes continue. But is this a serious communist community or are people just aimlessly lashing out? Do you honestly think you can overthrow capitalism by antagonizing religious people? The ruling class has immensely more money, weapons and media control. We fight an uphill battle. And yet you throw away half of the working class, our potential comrades, because you want to lash out?
Things hexbear is:
Things hexbear is not:
What do you mean by serious communists? We had this discussion when the site began and it’s never been a place to do real world organizing. Plenty of people say things here they wouldn’t say in the outside world because it’s specifically a community of communists. One can engage with religious people in the street while critiquing the institution online
The USSR was atheist, most of china isnt christian, most of india isnt christian
Half the working class my ass
Will you be so kind as to delete your comment? I said nothing similar to what you think you refuted. Someone who skims through my comment and sees your reply would be misinformed. Misinformation is the tool of the Right.
I quote what I actually wrote:
You do not refute the claim that most of the working class is religious by saying that China and India workers aren’t Christians and that USSR Party members were atheists. Both of the latter facts are true, but do not refute what I actually said.
Commenting without reading the article is bad enough. But replying without reading what you are replying to?
Most of the global working class aren’t christian
Most of the empire’s labor aristocrats are though…
Ok I deleted my comment like you ordered me to. It said:
Edit: you can’t tell me what to do liberal, I undeleted it
deleted by creator
Counterpoint:
While I appreciate your critique, I have to object to one thing: the Catholic Church is not Christianity as a whole. It is a political organization that represents the religion, but it is not omnipotent of the religion.
And as political organization, it has done a LOT of bad shit in its very, very long history.
Just as people point out that ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or even Saudi Arabia is not representative of all of Islam, neither is the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or any Christian organization at that.
It has also historically been used by the bourgeoisie, and the aristocracy before them, to legitimize and maintain their class dictatorship (as you already pointed out, Tsarist Russia is a very example of that but for the Orthodox Church), so it is not out of line to include religious organizations in critiques of Capitalism.
I believe most folks here are (rightfully) trashing the Church, not every single person who holds Christian beliefs.
Hi. I did not mean that all “true” Christians are Catholics or whatever someone might have interpreted. I do think that attacking the entire Catholic Church instead of attacking just Catholic theocrats is analogous to attacking Christianity instead of just Christian theocrats.
But I still believe it can continue to exist as the Catholic Church but be prevented from messing with secular politics. I am not sure that was your point, but you seem to think that the Catholic Church is inherently a “political” (secular politics) arm of Christianity. That is not my view. Let’s not litigate this specific claim (not the focus of this forum), I just want to clarify that is not my view.
This is what I was objecting to. I fail to see how attacking the Catholic Church is an affront to every Christian, especially when some comrades on this forum are Christian and share these critiques too.
When I said “the Catholic Church is not Christianity as a whole” I mean that bashing the Church for the reactionary stuff it does or says is not analogous to bashing Christianity in general. When the Pope gets called out by us for saying something like “gender ideology is the most dangerous thing in society”, that doesn’t mean EVERY Christian holds that view or should be associated with what the Pope says (unless they are in the Church themselves, then they should be held accountable).
Also, can you define “Christian theocrat” for me? I’m having a hard time seeing how that isn’t any different to the Catholic Church (which is LITERALLY a theocratic institution).
No, I do not see the Catholic Church as “secular”, it is by its nature a theocratic organization. The “political” part comes from the fact that it wields power in the state (through the Vatican, but also historically through governments that pledge allegiance to the Church) to enact its theocratic ideas and policies on the masses. To give modern comparisons, it is comparable to the clerics who hold power in the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the British Monarch being the figurehead of the Church of England.
Do I believe that religious organizations can be prevented from interfering in secular politics? Yes, as long as they don’t gain power. China is a good example of a ML state that has prevented this while still allowing people to congregate in religious orgs by making sure they are all approved and regulated by the Communist Party.
On the contrary, there is plenty of anti-Christian sentiment in this thread and it has even spilled over into an anti-c/christisnity post on the front page.
Give me an example then (and no, I won’t accept trans people sharing their traumatic experiences with Christians denying their human rights).
How do you think calling the recently deceased pope a pedophile would go over with the vast majority of Catholics? This is like the edgy “how old was Aisha when Mohammed married her?” digs, just reformulated for a context where anti-Christian sentiment is acceptable.
Only a few of those comments say, “I’m trans and this is my trauma” but I think a forum of communists should be wary of accepting bigotry so long as it is done by people of a given identity. For example, have you ever met a liberal justifying war crimes by shared identity? Hell, I’ve met self-described communists in communist parties that did that. Thankfully with the latter it blew back on them.
While this is a confused forum that selectively takes itself seriously, I do think it is a good idea to consistently consider the approach you’d want to take when doing irl organizing. If you had an irl audience, would you include the “the Pope is a pedophilr” dig? Would it actually be funny? Would you be self-conscious about alienating members or prospective members? You don’t have to be a Very Serious Communist all of the time, but I do think flippant dismissals and disrespect blesd into offline socialization. And the replies here are far from kind to the parent, who is sharing a concern about irl organizing because they had the impression this was a communist space by people trying to build communism and this thread is discordant with that.
It is not bigoted to call Francis out for his sanctioning of the pedophile cover ups, and his refusal to even allow the punishment of known child abusers (Nevermind punishing them himself, he sanctioned the intervention on their behalf to get them out of punishment). If a Christian is offended by someone pointing out that Francis didn’t do anything to end the church’s official doctrine of covering up sex crimes on behalf of its members, then quite frankly fuck that Christian, but fuck that Christian in particular. Most people, I suspect most catholics too, don’t think the pope should cover up pedophilia, and it is something over which the papacy and Francis himself has been criticised BY CATHOLICS, and pretending that isn’t the case is indicirectly accusing every Catholic of a crime of which they are not guilty.
The widespread sex crimes were horrible, and I think a major reason it took decades to solve was that, instead of debating actual solutions, each side just weaponized it for its pet cause. Traditionalists blamed the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Conservatives blamed tolerance of homosexuality and lack of discipline. Progressives blamed celibacy, male-only priesthood, and opposition to abortion. With all these people foaming at the mouth while yelling at the others, the problem could not be solved.
It that context, I strongly suspect the claim “Francis didn’t do anything to end the church’s official doctrine of covering up sex crimes on behalf of its members” is propaganda. What I know is that there was a decades-old rule that the Church would not share evidence with the State, arguing that was necessary to protect the privacy of the victim and the accused, so the victim had to give a second testimony before the State. But Francis abolished that rule, did he not? And don’t most people who are not conservatives (conservatives believe in Vigano’s conspiracy theories) credit Pope Francis for alleviating the problem? Wikipedia, citing The Guardian and CNN, says “Pope Francis made sweeping changes that allow for greater transparency”. Yes, Guardian and CNN are capitalist, but that only makes them suspect for certain subjects (such as actually existing socialist states). I have never seen anyone say accuse The Guardian and CNN of pro-Catholic bias.
So you can plausibly argue that Pope Francis was too slow, but please check your sources and do not grossly inflate his actual errors.
What I actually referenced: calling the recently deceased pope a pedophile.
Did this deceased pope do the things I accuse him of, or did he not? Are the victims of systemic child abuse by the Catholic Church liars?
If you think the victims aren’t liars, then your objection here is irrelevant. Francis oversaw the systemic cover up of pedophilia, calling him a “pedopope” is just a statement of fact.
If you are calling the victims liars, then you can go fuck yourself.
By what logic does covering up for pedophiles make that person a pedophile? This logic is actually more strained than that of islamophobes that call Mohammed a pedophile, as Hadith is fairly clear on this among all tendencies. This is not consistent or culturally sensitive logic, and it is easy to see why parent saw echoes of New Atheist logic in this thread, as it’s really just about which religions are deserving of flippant dismissal and disrespect and which are not. New Atheists differ in that their logic was amplified by imperialism as islamophobia served a purpose to dehumanize the victims of imperial war. Bits and pieces merged with overt Western reactionaries who rolled it into their race hate.
But let me tell you, this is a bubble for Americans of a certain age, as sweeping anti-catholic sentiments and violence are with us today, they just don’t have obvious material impact in some cities. My Belfast comrades could tell you about it if you were interested, or you could get some of your own.
How is calling the Pope a pedophile anti-Christian? He willingly helped cover up known child sex abusers in the Church so he should be rightfully called out for it.
This is like saying calling Netanyahu a genocidal fascist is anti-Semitic and wouldn’t go down well with the majority of Jews. And you can be sure as hell that we will call him that when he kicks the bucket. Pure tone policing that achieves nothing.
How is calling Mohammad a pedophile islamophobic? His marriage to Aisha is indisputable and far more direct than being (an unstated) part if an institutional cover-up. But we can understand that this is culturally insensitive, counter-productive in many contexts, and is used to feed imperialist/fascist violence.
Re: Netanyahu, I’m not sure if that statistic would even be true, but he is not a religious figure at the top of the chain. There is no route to equating an attack on Netanyahu with an attack on Judaism and an insult to all Jews outside of either or both the accuser and reacting parties being actually antisemitic. Which does actually happen, of course - many Zionists, including Jewish ones, make (usually implicitly) antisemitic remarks.
It is true that just because many people are offended, it doesn’t mean the claim is false or non-strategic. But what I’m trying to draw attention to is basic cultural sensitivity and treating each other like comrades, which is not how parent is - or now I am - being treated.
What level of insensitivity to catholics is the appropriate line for Hexbear? Perhaps we should add it to the sidebar.
I am hopeful that at least one person will try to be less edgy and escalatory as a result of this thread.
You talk of mentioning Mohammad’s child marriage being counter-productive in many contexts, but that is exactly what you are doing. No one brought this comparison up except you, a comparison that makes no sense as it occurred two millennium ago in a vastly different society with vastly different social norms to what is accepted by the vast majority of modern society today. Is Mohammad alive today actively running cover for pedophilia while being the head of a massive theocratic institution with the power to sway hundreds of millions? No. But the Pope is (or was, until yesterday).
He is, however, a world leader with massive sway in Western politics, and you’d have to be living under a rock to not see how he constantly equivalates his actions and the actions of the Zionist entity with Judaism.
Just as I’m sure you agree that Netanyahu’s actions should not be associated with Judaism, the Pope’s actions on institutional cover-up of pedophilia should not be associated with Christianity. So why do you think it is anti-Christian to call this out?
So, your idea of treating each other like comrades is ignoring the reactionary ideas and institutional corruption of a present-day theocratic leader and acting like he’s a man of the people? How incredibly un-Marxist of you.
How about showing some sensitivity for the Catholic children who were abused by the Church that the Pope was running cover for?
How about showing some sensitivity for all the LGBT+ people (some of which are on this forum) who were discriminated against by the Church?
It is absolutely childish to say that the material harm that the Church does to people is the same as your feelings being hurt because people are criticizing your geriatric pedo religious leader after he just passed away. It’s the same bullshit conservative Britbong Protestants pulled when Queen Elizabeth II died because it was too “culturally insensitive” to call her out for being a racist imperialist that impoverishes her people.
When is the best time to say this then? I already know the answer of course, but I hope you get the point I’m trying to make.
Calling the Catholic Church an organization actively protecting pedophiles in the modern day is the same as Aisha baiting? Ok lmao
Hi. I believe you misrepresented the comrade said. Please see my other reply:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7632787/6256137
Even people who make terrible errors or crimes should only be accused of what they actually did. We should know this better than anyone. Stalin purges, in a terribly difficult context where the whole world attacked the USSR, including real saboteurs and traitors, did kill some 800 thousand (according to Ben Norton in The Grayzone), which is indeed horrible, yet we take great exception with right-wing fanatics who say that Stalin was equivalent to Hitler and killed 12 million “victims of communism” because (they say) he was a power-hungry totalitarian paranoid maniac. Then the right wing fanatics reply that we are splitting hairs, covering up for Georgian Hitler, and that the “details” don’t matter.
Actually it was calling the recently deceased Pope a pedophile.
Sorry if anyone conflated he who covers for pedophiles with pedophiles and that hurt your feelings, I still don’t see the comparison.
You don’t see the comparison between flippantly calling major religious figures pedophiles? What position does the pope hold in Catholicism, religiously?
And please do your best to be kind and respectful to comrades. The “hurt your feelings” sarcasm is dishonest and uncalled for.
Have you read the things their god has (supposedly) done? Has supported?
If it wasn’t obvious, I recognize Catholics committed/commit terrible homophobia and other crimes. Things have improved a lot, but are still very bad. I don’t think the LGBT community and other victims of theocracy should be thrown under the bus. So how in the Earth is my argument equivalent to saying Palestinians can be genocided because they do not support Democrat causes enough?
My main motivation for converting from anticommunist to communist was the obscurantism of anticommunism. One who says atrociously idiotic things about science (such as global heating denial, ozone layer hole denial, tobacco harm denial etc.) lacks the mental clarity even for clear and objetive subjects, so I absolutely do not trust him for controversial subjects. Also, one who replies to arguments with puerile sarcasm, shouts and memes has no credibility.
Now I make a good-faith and informed argument and am greeted with idiotic childish memes saying “everyone who disagrees with me is a fed”. First, this is horribly fallacious, no different from anticommunist imbeciles who think anyone who doesn’t love Trump is a “cultural Marxist” who wants to destroy “Judeo-Christian civilization”. Second, would a fed defend Stalin and praise the awesome accomplishments of the USSR? Did you even think before posting?
As a cis Jew with minimal skin in the game I’ll say I see where you’re coming from. Francis did a lot better then most of his predecessors and regardless of the evil perpetrated by the Church™️ as a whole, to ignore such a globally pervasive religious organization as a “lost cause” is not productive.
However, after reading this thread, your insinuation that you’re coming with nothing but “good-faith” is laughable. To have the “cool” pope francis say “yeah trans people are like the worst danger ever” is divisive and condemning as hell. And, on a more personal note the idea that dead people must be respected is some absolute horse shit. “Good-faith” means attempting to understand the opposition (see first paragraph), it doesn’t mean being nice and holding hands.
Hi. I said my post was good faith. I just wanted to encourage comrades to focus their attack on theocracy instead of religion, and while I can understand trans people replying “no, I don’t respect this guy”, the guy who posted memes of me being a fed crosses the line into obscurantism. No different from far-right lunatics who say “everyone who disagrees with me is a cultural Marxist”.
https://x.com/noirangxl/status/1855693825475240213
I was referencing a meme. But I was implying you were fedposting.
The idea that we’d have to be respectful and like Christianity to be supportive of a worker’s movement that was primarily Christian is more childish than the meme. It is not terrible for class consciousness; to imply that we need a literal coming to Jesus moment about @Civility@hexbear.net sounds like we’re trying to earn good boy points so that some Evangelical will change their mind about whether workers deserve poverty or Palestenians deserve genocide.
Didn’t work for Kamala Harris; I don’t intend to try the same strategy to appeal to Christians in the wake of Ol’ Franky kickin’ the bucket.
Edit: if someone else wants to
me about how an honest-to-God Marxist movement that was… honest to God I’d be glad to learn more.
C/Christianity exist.
I did not start the subject.
Ok, just wanted to let you know that we have that comm here.
I haven’t read your whole post, but you’re probably right. Please note though, that folk are emotional creatures rather than strictly logical. Some people have been hurt by Christianity and they’re going to be rightfully distrustful or outright hostile.
But if we focus on what we have in common rather than our differences, we’re still comrades. People dunk on the new atheism movement as much as they do the Catholic church around here. We’re here for some same reason with different journeys and stories.
Love thy fellow posters.