You must log in or register to comment.
I understand now!
As a cardinal, he was fine.
But when a cardinal becomes Pope, he dies and also goes woke.
Now, we can remember his name.
His name… Is Robert Prevost.
His name is Robert Prevost!
His name is Robert Prevost!
His name is Robert Prevost!
Hilarious to call the pope Marxist. Wasn’t it Marx who called religion the opiate of the masses? Few communist countries tolerate religion much at all.
As with the “abolition of private property” people quotes what’s convenient. The whole quote goes:
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
To be fair a lot of the quotes attributed to Marx were just common phrases he rephrased, or a giant wall of text reduced by someone else to a memorable quote stripped of all context:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Full_quotation_and_history
And it came from an unpublished response to someone else’s work. After he was dead his follower pared all of that down to:
Religion is the opium of the masses
And let everyone who heard it, believe it meant whatever they think it means.
Always be wary of authoritarians that are given credit for “speaking plainly” but aren’t actually saying anything. Being vague and letting the person interpret it however they want us basic grifting. All that matters is you’re gaining their confidence.
Yeah, there’s a BUNCH of Latin American Catholics that would read “Marxism = anti-religion” as news to them. (See: Liberation Theology)
He didn’t say that as a bad thing.
The Communist Manifesto spends time talking about how compatible early Christian teachings are with Marx’s goals.
The Communist Manifesto spends time talking about how compatible early Christian teachings are with Marx’s goals.
I mean:
From each according to his ability, to each depending on his need
Is literally just taken from the Bible:
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
But the Romans already had it:
If x = a disadvantage, and y = action to redress that disadvantage, the principle of solidarity is: if any member of a group acquires x, each member has a duty to perform y (if they can assist). All we then need to add, to get to the fundamental principle of developed communism, is to assume that non-satisfaction of a need is a disadvantage. The corresponding principle of solidarity in respect of need says: if any member of society has an unsatisfied need, each member has a duty to produce its object (if they can). But that is precisely what the principle ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!’ dictates. In Marx’s vision, the basic principle of developed communism is a principle of solidarity in respect of need.
Capitalism in any form is an incredibly recent development, and the reason European colonialism was so successful is they made “deals” with people who had no idea what scale things were working on.
It’s like if a friend’s older brother ever “taught” you how to throw dice, by the time you get a grip on the rules, you’ve lost all your money and dude’s dipped out of the house.
That bitch is scary as hell
Have you seen her face? She did that on purpose.
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Ugh us Americans from the USA don’t seem to understand how arrogant it is to say he’s the first American pope. Argentina is in South America. This guy is the first North American pope, or better yet the first pope from the United States. This is going to bug the shit out of me.
I fully get the criticism, but US Americans are the only ones that identify, and are broadly known as “Americans,” so it just feels pedantic to me.
It’s definitely pedantic, but I’ve had more than one friend from countries in Central and South America comment on it, so it’s not just me noticing.
Interesting that you chose to identify your friends as “from countries in central in South America “instead of just calling them, Americans.
Not really since their continent of origin is directly relevant to the discussion of the scope of the term ‘American’.
Pedants have pedant friends? Not trying to be an ass, but it just seems like such a meaningless distinction to make… Why is it worth it?
Because American cultural imperialism sucks for lots of reasons, and it’s worth pushing back against it
It’s literally part of the name and the most sensible shorthand, by which virtually no one is confused.
But fight your fight, I guess.
Yeah, he’s the first Pope from the States, is closer to the phrase that should be used.
What states? There are lots of states in the world.
‘The States’ is a common nickname for the USA, but you’re right, it isn’t ideal for the same reasons as American.
CHICAGOAN POPE! FUCK YEAH!
And I was going to add that caveat that even what I was saying could be wrong. But usually “the states” can only mean one place.
I mean… No other nation put “America” in their name. And “United” and “States” are even more generic. Heck, “United States” isn’t even distinctive.
- “Uni” is already “university”,
- “Statist” is already something else
- Statian / station
- Stater / stator
- Unitian / munition
- “Unitarian” is already something
- Unit 👎
- Unish 👎
- Ustan / Houston
- UnStan, UnStian, UniStan, UniStAm👎
- “Yank(ee)” is almost exclusively derogatory, and a fair chunk of the nation uses it to denigrate a different chunk.
- “Yu-ess-ian” is just unbelievably aweful
- Usonian didn’t take off, but we could give it another go.
And he’s the first US-ian Pope because of his birth.
But his career was in Peru.
Edit: Because I’m genuinely loving the downvotes
First off, you had 5 down votes, which makes it obvious you’re trolling.
But for those five it’s likely:
It’s because you’re trying to use semantics to “dunk” on an entire country, and it’s not even original, and still not even right.
It would be correct to phrase it:
The first pope from the United States of America
But pretty much every country has a long name that’s shortened down to one identifiable word.
Its very hard to believe anyone would hear:
The first American pope
And genuinely believe that includes anyone born anywhere on the continents of North or South America.
99.99% of the time, it’s someone trying to troll Americans, it’s not as clever as you think. And immediately complaining about a handful of downvotes makes it incredibly transparent.
Careful there, hombre. You might find yourself deported for being anti-semantic.
As an open practitioner of pedantical semanticism, my people are no stranger to persecution.
She lists a bunch of Christian values, then calls them in catholic. Common sense or logic means nothing to these people.
Why do US neonazis hate Catholics tho? There is also this line in American History X, where Danny says: “I hate anyone that isn’t white Protestant.” I’ve always wondered.
Protestants and Catholics, historically, have had a lot of conflict. In the US, Catholicism has been associated strongly with immigrant groups (Irish, Italians, and Latin Americans, primarily), which adds another layer of prejudice.
Lol, if that’s true, maybe I should convert to Catholicism. Sounds good to me.
It’s funny how much the right hates Christianity, while wearing its clothes and speaking its language.
Reminds me of this line in the beginning of Kendrick’s song For Sale? (Interlude):
They say if you scared, go to church
But remember, he knows the Bible too
Based and pope pilled
Ha, hardly. He’s also anti-LGBTetc and standard issue cover for kiddie diddlers.
While that certainly doesn’t speak well for him, wouldn’t it be more of a surprise at this point if they chose a pope that couldn’t be described that way? This is the catholic church we’re talking about.
That is precisely why I chose the phrase “standard issue.” Anyone who thinks the Catholic Church is going to change in any dramatic way is being foolish.
I like how she says “Catholics” as if unaware of the pope’s role in defining and guiding Catholicism.
Like, I’m an idiot, but doesn’t he kinda have a hand in saying what and who Catholics are?
Loomer can go eat a bag of small Trump dicks.
I think she had several servings already.
*Bloargh!*
Slightly NSFW
Well well well, no need to sell him even more, I already like him
Except for his covering up of child molestings and his stance on LGBT and female priesthood he seems alright.
But that means he’s still a step down from Francis and it still means he won’t bring the church into the 21st century.
But I guess it could have been way worse.
Thats very much true as well :(
Hey, Marxists, congrats on getting promoted to puppetmasters of the Vatican, it wasn’t that long ago yall were their puppets
why is this breathing plasticine loves to spout some nonsense
im not religious but somewhat aware how politics in catholic church works
before francis died, he managed to assign 80% of new cardinals that could align with him. so eh…?
