Castros a big teddy bear?

Originally posted by dgtempe


DonWhite,

...Is Fidel Castro.

'nuff said.

Wow...theres a shortcut to intelligent debate. Come now, DG. Don't ever let someones opinion rattle you that much. He simply doesn't agree with you. Is this your first encounter with an opposing opinion on ATS?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Yes, that is true. If you like to eat, feed your children, not be shot, and continue living generally, you can be sure that lots support him. If you speak against him you wont get your food ration and you risk death. I'd support him too.

If the government doesn't have the support of many -- I'd even say most -- of the people for the positive things that it does, it will not have the power to threaten these negative things and so get "support" that way.

Except when it is being propped up from outside, of course. As were the governments of the Soviet Union's East European satellites (which by and large did not have popular support), but not Cuba.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Well .. not that it means much to you .. but it is the honest truth. My friend and
his family escaped Cuba and according to him that is exactly what happened.

What it means to me is that either your friend is exaggerating or you misunderstood him. Castro isn't God or the Devil. He can't do the impossible. He doesn't ban Catholicism. I don't say one way or the other whether he might want to do that. I just say that it's impossible, and therefore he doesn't do it.

Catholicism isn't the prevailing religion in China, however the communist
government definately has banned real Roman Catholicism.

As you note, Catholicism isn't the prevailing religion in China. It is the religion of a small minority. Banning the religion of a small minority is possible. If you want to assert that Castro bans, say, Zoroastrianism in Cuba, I'll probably believe that. But not Roman Catholicism. He doesn't, because it can't be done.

The state sponsored above ground 'Catholic' churches are not really Roman Catholic.

In China, by context. Ah -- so even though Catholicism isn't China's majority religion, China actually doesn't ban it, the government just regulates it in ways that the Church doesn't approve. (And neither do I, by the way. Not that I have much use for either the Chinese government OR the R.C. Church, but I still believe in separation of church and state.)

Perhaps that's what your friend meant about Cuba, that the Cuban Church isn't a "true" Roman Catholic Church? Maybe you should get him to clarify this.

You might be aware that plenty of Catholics around the world have a similar opinion about the Catholic Church in the U.S. But the U.S. government doesn't ban the Church here (nor is it allowed to).

Originally posted by dgtempe
I can only assume that those who think Castro is just swell, are not as well educated as they think they are.

Has anyone gotten on here and said that they think Castro is "just swell"? I don't remember.

When someone is convinced that a particular human being is the Devil incarnate, to doubt this assertion is not to voice much in the way of praise. I could go a long way from some of the opinions voiced by Cuban exiles, before I get to ground that makes Castro out to be a good person.

Thx, DaFunk13, for the encouragement.

posted by Two Steps Forward

If the government doesn't have support of many it will not have power to threaten negative things . . it means either your friend is exaggerating or you misunderstood him . . Castro isn't God or the Devil . . He can't do the impossible . . He doesn't ban Catholicism . . “ [Edited by Don W]

OK 2SF, let’s cut to the chase. To be a “Catholic Country” means that nation has entered into a treaty with the Vatican and Holy See to allow the RCC to set the rules for marriages, divorces, adoptions, the brain dead, abortions, stem cells and all family laws, plus the education of children and the privilege of burial in sacred ground. In the good old days it often meant the country would pay over tax money to support the Church, seminaries, seminarians, convents, novitiates, priests and nuns.

Usually included were such provisions as to grant immunity from prosecution for higher members of the Catholic hierarchy. And it often included provisions that the Catholic Religious could come and go into and out of the country regardless of visa or immigration laws. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church was its own law maker, above the power of the state to regulate or control.

When you take away the privileges the Catholic Church enjoyed in Cuba since 1492, you are going to get resistance. Secular countries do not agree to those rules creating a special and privileged class. This is what complainers mean when they say China and Cuba are not permitting REAL Catholicism.

I think another problem here, 2SF, is many of the anecdotes are old. What might have happened early on in the Revolution is not any longer needed or practiced. Keep in mind, we are not talking about summer camp here, but a dramatic change in the status quo. A revolution. People almost always get hurt in that process. We hurt 1000s in our own War of Independence. The Castro “bad mouthers” want the status quo anti. Most Cubans do not. IMO.



[edit on 8/7/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
When you take away the privileges the Catholic Church enjoyed in Cuba since 1492, you are going to get resistance. Secular countries do not agree to those rules creating a special and privileged class. This is what complainers mean when they say China and Cuba are not permitting REAL Catholicism.

I suspect that you are right here. I know without any doubt at all that what we are meant to infer -- namely brutal punishments inflicted on people for attending a Catholic Church -- is not believable because it would not be a practical possibility. And it would not surprise me if denial of privileges and special status were exactly what is being complained about, and misrepresented as true persecution.

At the same time, though, I also know that no Communist country has ever come up to American or British standards in regard to respecting freedom of worship. They don't do something absurd like try to ban the majority religion, but they do place restrictions on religion that, to my way of thinking, are not appropriate nor justified. In societies organized around Leninist/Stalinist lines, you usually see a dominant Communist Party that confers both political and economic privileges on its members, and while one will not go to jail for being a religious believer (contrary to a fairly-common belief), one will be denied Communist Party membership, and hence any effective political voice, as well as the economic perks that go with Party membership.

Keep in mind, we are not talking about summer camp here, but a dramatic change in the status quo. A revolution. People almost always get hurt in that process. We hurt 1000s in our own War of Independence. The Castro “bad mouthers” want the status quo anti. Most Cubans do not. IMO.

I'm sure that's true as well. If it were not true, Castro would not still be in power. However, I'm not convinced that there doesn't remain some ugly stuff going on there. Fidel Castro gets hyped both directions. If Cuba under his rule were really the Gehenna that some people make it out to be, he would have been overthrown by now. But if it were the paradise some others make it out to be, then Cubans wouldn't be trying to leave.

2SF: "I'm sure that's true as well. If it were not true, Castro would not still be in power. However, I'm not convinced that there doesn't remain some ugly stuff going on there. Fidel Castro gets hyped both directions. If Cuba under his rule were really the Gehenna that some people make it out to be, he would have been overthrown by now. But if it were the paradise some others make it out to be, then Cubans wouldn't be trying to leave."

The CIA Factbook gives Cuba's population at 11,382,000. The Cuban coast line is 2,315 miles long, our Mexican border is 1,947 miles long. I do not know how many Cubans left the country altogether. I do not know how many are leaving now. I do not know how many will attempt to leave should Fidel die.
I think it would be irresponsible for any country to knowingly let its citizens take to the oceans in a truck inner tube or other means unlikely to be seaworthy. I imagine (without knowing) that Cuba has already offered to the US to grant as many exit visas as the US will honor. I suspect the US does not want any more Cubans in the country, but by “playing” as if it is the Cubans who are prompting the desperate acts, we can look like the “good guys.” Our own indigenous personnel suck it up - unquestionedly! Uh, is that a real word?



[edit on 8/7/2006 by donwhite]

DaFunk, dont think i'm sitting here mad because i'm laughing!!!

Yes, my posts have nothing meaningful, and i know nothing.

Don White wont address me because i'm not worthy of speaking to

Oh yes, Mr. White knows it all. He is an expert on Cuba and Cuban history, an authority on all things Cuban.
Listen to him. I loved it when he said those who left the island were hypocrites

What an uneducated statement that was!!! Also, Castro, a devout Catholic, there's the biggest piece of dissinformation you will ever run across on ATS.

DENY IGNORANCE-DONT SPREAD IT.

Those with a life are so much better off.....

posted by dgtempe

User Name
dgtempe

Lover of Fun
ATSs Paranoid Resident

You said it DG, not me.




[edit on 8/7/2006 by donwhite]

Oh yes i did. Didnt i?

No wonder, Don. You got me.

Like i said, i'm not worthy- Just NUTS.

Enjoy your evening.

Just to add to the discussion, I thought I'd post this article. I know it will cause debates on both sides, especially because of the fact that these young adults have certainly been influenced by their parents a great deal.

However, it was this that caught my attention regarding whether or not Castro's regime held down the practice of people's faith or not. I think it speaks for itself.

Fired from Job for a Catholic Wedding

Pedreira's parents left Cuba in 1980. He always knew they opposed Castro's regime, and that his mother was fired from her job as a teacher because she openly married in a Catholic church..

Granted, this occured in 1980. the question is, how can one debate that Catholicism was not persecuted under Catro's regime, but also, is it still that bad?

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Relentless]

posted by Relentless

I thought I'd post this article. I know it will cause debates However, it was this that caught my attention regarding whether or not Castro's regime held down the practice of people's faith or not. I think it speaks for itself. Granted, this occurred in 1980. the question is, how can one debate that Catholicism was not persecuted under Castro's regime, but also, is it still that bad? [Edited by Don W]

I’m not anti-Catholic, religion wise. It is none of my business how Catholics act inside their churches. OTOH, I oppose the historic involvement of the Catholic Church into politics of almost every nation on earth. I don’t want Unitarians making the laws of my country, nor the Catholic Church. But I have never heard of a Unitarian attempting that. I have heard of the Catholic Church actually doing that.

Because there is such a thing as a “Christian culture” in the United States, most of the laws we make have some flavor of Christian values in them. It would be ridiculous for me to say we should use the values of Tibet or Botswana when we make our laws.

But there is a line I do not want to cross. I support the right of a woman to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full term. To me, it is such a personal choice that I cannot understand how or why another person would believe of think he or she had some right to interfere.

I agree I should not force an abortion on a woman who did not want one, for whatever reason. Which seems to charactize the liberal’s dilemma. We don’t want to impose our values on others, but conservatives have no reluctance wanting to impose their values on everyone. It is a divide it seems we cannot cross. It’s the conundrum, can a woman be half pregnant?

I don’t doubt the woman’s 1980 story is true, as far as it goes, but I do suspect there is more to it than we are being told.



[edit on 8/8/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Relentless

Pedreira's parents left Cuba in 1980. He always knew they opposed Castro's regime, and that his mother was fired from her job as a teacher because she openly married in a Catholic church..

Granted, this occured in 1980. the question is, how can one debate that Catholicism was not persecuted under Catro's regime, but also, is it still that bad?

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Relentless]

The original assertion was that people underwent "torture" for openly worshiping. Being fired from a job as a teacher is not "torture." I would say it is more like what often happened in the 1950s in the U.S., when people could be fired from many jobs (including teaching) for their political affiliations. In some American states and localities today, a teacher can be fired for being homosexual. Pretty much the same.

As I said, Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist societies do restrict religion in ways I don't approve of. I'm not disputing that. All I had a problem with was the hype. We hype Castro's Cuba way, way too much, blow its problems and difficulties far out of proportion to reality. The ban on travel to Cuba, the embargo on trade with Cuba, these make no sense whatever. Castro is no Teddy bear. But he's not the boogie-man either. Can we have some rationality, FINALLY, about that little island, now that he's in the hospital and the Soviet Union has been defunkt for 15 years?

Originally posted by dgtempe
DaFunk, dont think i'm sitting here mad because i'm laughing!!!

Why? Did I miss a joke? I see nothing of jest anywhere in this thread.

Yes, my posts have nothing meaningful, and i know nothing.

And I am sorry you feel this way. I asked you to post where any one of us made you feel "belittled" or "insulted." You failed to do so, so I suppose we are left to believe that this is a feeling created in your own head. None of us insulted you. None of us said your input held any less value than anyone else on this board.

Don White wont address me because i'm not worthy of speaking to

Not with that attitude. You aren't being much fun.

Oh yes, Mr. White knows it all. He is an expert on Cuba and Cuban history, an authority on all things Cuban.
Listen to him. I loved it when he said those who left the island were hypocrites

While Mr. White is a little brutal in his opinion, it is still just that...an opinion. His words hold no more weight than yours or mine. He just happens to be a pretty good writer. Like I said earlier, you cannot get this discouraged because a poster words his opinion better than yours, or flat-out refutes your point. Thats the point of the thread.

What an uneducated statement that was!!!

Also, Castro, a devout Catholic, there's the biggest piece of dissinformation you will ever run across on ATS.

I guess I missed that one...

DENY IGNORANCE-DONT SPREAD IT.

Those with a life are so much better off.....

And for someone who touts the forum motto so often you sure do have a tough time actually adhering to the whole point of this mess: Debate. I started this thread so we could discuss (read: debate) the truths, half-truths, and lies surrounding the situations of communist Cuba. You are in a very unique position as a Cuban American to tell your side; To argue your points. You have forfeited this stance for one of whining and sarcasm.

I am sorry to have dragged you in here so Big Bad Donwhite and Two Steps Forward could have you so upset. Maybe you should stick to arguing about Bush and all his evil...you were at least decent at that. If all we can expect from you in this thread is boohoos and foul calls please post elsewhere. You are only serving to sidetrack what has become a learning experience for me. And I hoped you would be a big part of the education.

Originally posted by donwhite


I’m not anti-Catholic, religion wise. It is none of my business how Catholics act inside their churches. OTOH, I oppose the historic involvement of the Catholic Church into politics of almost every nation on earth. I don’t want Unitarians making the laws of my country, nor the Catholic Church. But I have never heard of a Unitarian attempting that. I have heard of the Catholic Church actually doing that.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by donwhite]

None of that has anything to do with the first hand reports that Catholics could not freely practice their religion without repercussions under Castro.

That is what I added to, but you continually drag up all the perceived ills of the Church to argue that it was not the case? Or what? It seems to me you are basically turning the issue from one of inability to practice a faith under a communist dictator to what is wrong with the Catholic church.

We are talking about Castro in this thread, there are plenty of places you can take the areas of your religious debate that have nothing to do with Cuba.

I don't even know why this one aspect of the discussion is getting so out of hand. People reported what they knew and you seem stuck on this one point, when as far as I know, there is no communist government that allows freedom of religion.

I am still sitting here trying to figure out why the few who are debating the first hand stories of Cubans and Castro are going at it so diligently without first hand knowledge or anything but speculation and a lot of added rhetoric that has nothing to do with Castro.

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I started this thread so we could discuss (read: debate) the truths, half-truths, and lies surrounding the situations of communist Cuba.

No actually you said this:

This thread is an opportunity for anyone with any special incite into the situations surrounding Cuba, both before and after Castro's takeover to provide them....please.

Anyone with any real experience/knowledge about Cuba?

Special incite? LOL - how freudian of you. You got "special insight" from people who had been there. Then, when they have to defend themselves for reporting what you asked for, the tune seems to change, and you seem to be defending if not promoting the posters that are giving you exactly what you didn't want in your original post.

You have forfeited this stance for one of whining and sarcasm.

DG forfeits nothing in my opinion, and I'm not seeing whining and sarcasm, I am seeing a person taking a very personal issue and exercising great control with a bit of mirth thrown in for good measure. I think she's being baited beyond belief and is handling it pretty well.

I think you got what you originally asked for on this thread and now are actually encouraging exactly what you asked to get beyond.

I find this whole thread very curious at this point.

posted by Relentless

None of that has to do with first hand reports that Catholics could not freely practice their religion without repercussions under Castro . . you continually drag up the perceived ills of the Church to argue that it was not the case? Or what? It seems to me you are basically turning the issue from one of inability to practice a faith under a communist dictator to what is wrong with the Catholic church. [Edited by Don W]

While I think the 2 issues are inextricably intertwined, this will be my last remark on that point. The Cubans who came to America were not friends of Castro. I think it is fair to say they are his enemies. They have the same grievances the Palestinians have. They want their property back.

Then there were what I regard as exaggerated claims about events that in the case of one poster happened in 1980. In her case, I do not believe it rose to the level of "perscuton." Accusations of current religious persecution - I think one poster used the word "torture" - were made against the Cuban government. I have grave doubts about that.

I feel my position is bolstered by John Paul II’s 5 day visit in 1998. No one has offered a good explanation why the Pope who is a busy person, would come to Cuba - thereby by implication endorsing Castro’s regime - if he, the Pope, felt the Cuban government was unduly interfering with his church.

“ . . as far as I know, there is no communist government that allows freedom of religion . . I am still sitting here trying to figure out why the few who are debating the first hand stories of Cubans and Castro are going at it so diligently without first hand knowledge or anything but speculation.
[Edited by Don W]

There are no current “first hand stories.” I am not defending anything done in the past. I cannot base my feelings towards Cuba in 2006 by what someone says happened in 1980. I do not pay much attention to a heavily biased person’s statements. Even if they are not falsifying, they have a perspective that I do not share.

I’m sure there are some human rights and religious freedom web sites run by capable and independent persons. I’d really like to know what that say is the situation in Cuba in 2006. I am not going to run off over the hill based on what an angry person says happened a generation ago. Then is then, now is now.



[edit on 8/8/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I started this thread so we could discuss (read: debate) the truths, half-truths, and lies surrounding the situations of communist Cuba.

No actually you said this:

This thread is an opportunity for anyone with any special incite into the situations surrounding Cuba, both before and after Castro's takeover to provide them....please.

Anyone with any real experience/knowledge about Cuba?

And you didn't think this would turn into a debate? That usually happens when people of opposing viewpoints get together, wouldn't you say?

Special incite? LOL - how freudian of you. You got "special insight" from people who had been there. Then, when they have to defend themselves for reporting what you asked for, the tune seems to change, and you seem to be defending if not promoting the posters that are giving you exactly what you didn't want in your original post.

I defend nothing but open debate and information sharing. I tried to stay out of it, but every post from DG was sarcasm and tripe. I could practically see her eyes rolling through the monitor. If she doesn't agree with a post she can either refute the information given like a grown up or, if its too touchy for her, leave.

DG forfeits nothing in my opinion, and I'm not seeing whining and sarcasm, I am seeing a person taking a very personal issue and exercising great control with a bit of mirth thrown in for good measure. I think she's being baited beyond belief and is handling it pretty well.

I never disputed a single thing she said. Reread the thread. I only wanted more. I continuously apologized for upsetting her. Many, many times. Psyopswatcher, Mauddib, Two Steps Forward, Seagul, FF, Donwhite and DG all posted some good info. I never disputed a bit of it even though I disagree with lots and lots of it. Dg even jumped you because she misinterpreted what you said.

I think you got what you originally asked for on this thread and now are actually encouraging exactly what you asked to get beyond.

And I urge you to spend a few moments and reread this thread in its entirety and you will get a slightly different picture. We may have gotten off on a couple tangents with the Catholic Church and various bickers, but overall there is lots of info on here, Mauddib and Psyopswatcher especially.

I find this whole thread very curious at this point.

And I find your purpose on this thread pretty curious. You seem to be playing wannabe-moderator here. I appreciate it, but a referee isn't really needed. We're big kids here.

Originally posted by DaFunk13
And I find your purpose on this thread pretty curious. You seem to be playing wannabe-moderator here. I appreciate it, but a referee isn't really needed. We're big kids here.

Oh hello, allow me to introduce myself. I am the FSME for this particular forum thank you. The moderators do their job, mine is to participate and encourage posting. I ask that you keep the personal stuff out of it, you are only encouraging derailing of your own thread.

I found your lecture to DG the final straw in this ridiculous back and forth and also contradictory to some extent. Honestly, telling someone they have forfeited anything sounds more wannabe-moderator than anything I said.

Any further discussion regarding this off topic stuff, or questions you have would be better served via U2U. (In the interest of your thread.)

Thanks -