I must have missed the discussion and as usual NeoMatrix lied about what I said or didn't understand or he wasn't talking to me but:
I fully endorse charity, I don't endorse socialism which I don't regard as charity but simply forcibly taking wealth from one group of people to give to another group (it doesn't even need to be from rich to poor, there's also corporate welfare which is taking money from the people to subsidize corporations - also socialism, also perverse as fuck)
The only exception I would make is for a transition period since a society might find it difficult to adjust over night, for practical purposes you'd need to gradually reduce welfare and the size of government. After that the constitution should be amended so property rights are fully respected. Private charities, families and churches should take care of the poor. I see no reason why they couldn't exist, there is NOTHING at all stopping you from saving 10% or 20% or more of your income to give to the poor. Why are you only willing to part with that money if the government takes it? Makes no sense to me unless you really don't care about the poor and your support for left-wing causes is simply about giving the government more power in the economic sphere.
"And that's why Christianity needs to be controlled and broken down for the good of humanity."
I got no problem with controlling any aspect of any religious or secular ideology that poses a credible threat to the survival of a republic as a free country. Sharia law and communism are two examples.
Christianity however does not (generally speaking) fall into that category. The modern west is built on a combination of Judeo-Christian and humanist values, how then can Christianity as a general rule be a major or existential threat to the civilization it helped create?
"I would rather have "the left" in control than an entire religion full of greedy pedophiles."
The left in its purest form doesn't respect property rights or the nuclear family, doesn't believe rights are natural but that they are decided by central authority, is weak on immigration, national defense and terrorism either for malevolent or gullibility-related reasons due to its naive view of human nature as completely malleable, is not interested in preserving the culture of the country it is applied in (not even the positive aspects of the culture) favoring instead multiculturalism which never really works in practice.
"an entire religion full of greedy pedophiles."
You apparently missed the fact that the further left you go the more likely it is that you will encounter social justice warriors who DEFEND pedophiles. Salon is one such example, it's gotten so far left there's even an author there arguing for tolerance of pedophiles. It doesn't outright defend pedophilic acts but basically says that if you don't want your kid's teacher to be a pedophile, you're a "bigot".
Don't pretend that any religion has a special problem with pedophiles unless you can prove it.
This is a widespread problem in Catholicism apparently, but it's not a direct result of Catholic teachings, it's an indirect result of not allowing priests to marry. This is not an issue under Orthodox or Protestant denominations.
"Greedy" that's rich, leftists are also greedy and covet the property of others. Instead of working for it though they just wanna steal it by the force of the government.
"No, and that's rather unfortunate."
There is certainly a disproportionate number of atheists on the left. That kinda leads me to believe that some people are probably just better off believing in a religion. I don't endorse militant/new (whatever you want to call Dawkins or Sam Harris') atheism unless it's to target a genuinely dangerous religion like Islam. Christians and atheists should be allied in this. The west is at stake.
