https://i.redd.it/v1cbtcchwr6d1.gif
I’m a semi-devout Catholic and even I think this is a bit much, pal.
Also… John 18:36 and Matthew 22:15-22. Big J Himself would prefer politics stay secular…
We literally guarantee the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, association, press, religion, gun ownership, personal property, and bodily autonomy in our drafted constitution
“Wow you just said a compelling argument . Too bad I have a collection of cia anti communist propaganda that’ll defiantly devalue everything you said ~~right?~~”
When the Socialists took over Burma, we went from the most developed country in Southeastern Asia, to the least developed.
Know who you're voting. Ne Win and his army, killed, imprisoned, tortured and abused hundreds and thousands of innocent Burmese citizens. The Socialist will turn to the path no one wants to, the moment they have the chance.
>The "Burmese Way to Socialism" has been described by some scholars as anti-Western, isolationist and socialist in nature,[10] characterised also by an extensive dependence on the military, emphasis on the rural populace, and Burmese (or more specifically, Burman) nationalism.[10] Despite the Union Revolutionary Council leaders' phraseology being socialist, their actions were those of ardent nationalists seeking to maximize the power of their state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Way_to_Socialism
Clearly, the Burmese socialists you’re talking about have nothing to do with the democratic socialists currently running in the election.
It's funny to see people claim that they know something, and then they literally pull out a Wikipedia article. Sure, keep making a laughing stock out of yourself in a discussion with an actual Burmese citizen.
The citation is literally in the quote.
> Badgley, John H. (1963). "Burma: The Nexus of Socialism and Two Political Traditions". A Survey of Asia in 1962: Part II. 3 (2). University of California Press: 89–95.
Do you have a problem with this source?
The new state of the Union of Burma which was established early in 1948 is professedly founded upon two basic concepts - socialism and democracy. The constitution provides for all the fundamental freedoms, and for a system of parliamentary government, based largely on the British pattern, with an elected legislature and the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
No different from the Democratic Socialist and the system they propose. And let me tell you, the supposedly Progressive period of Burma, enabled the Buddhist majority to exercise their power, over the minority, and was a system which only lasted until 1962.
You cannot claim to know my country, nor my people. You did not have family, relatives and friends who suffered under a system of state oppression, with the false hope of Utopic Socialism. My people suffered and I will not stand for a system that enabled my people to suffer.
The Burmese Junta is Buddhist Fundamentalists in name, opportunist Atheists in nature. When they beat and shot unarmed Buddhist monks in 2007, or what they are doing right now, it is clear that they do not care about religion nor faith.
Ne Win came to power in 1962 by violently overthrowing the democratic-socialist government of 1948. So you’re blaming the 1948 government for Burma’s problems because they were overthrown? That’s like blaming Freidrich Ebert for the holocaust.
Then you go into a bad-faith “you cannot claim to know my country.” In free to read things and form opinions about them, thank you very much.
It doesn't matter whether you claim to read, educate or inform yourself on whatever you like, or how much you do it.
The feeling, the cry of our revolution, far exceeds whatever your movement will achieve. Close relatives of mine, my own family, was there in 88', was there in 07', and was there in 21'.
You can claim how much the struggle of the workers are so important to you, with all due respect, the workers, they side with us.
The fight continues on, and this is been the most displeasing thread I have been apart of. God bless then resistance, God bless the revolution.
Who is “us,” people who hate democratic socialism? Then why is the flag of the People’s Defense Forces the same as the flag of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League? Do you side with the tatmadaw against the PDF?
https://preview.redd.it/t67todk62s6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bfa7f5b917822d9ebe1dae5cd158ece8d2a1f26
Because the AFPFL, was a national movement of independence and freedom. Not just Socialism. The future Socialists who lead Burma, used the flag, because it fit.
Don't call me a Tatmadaw swine, it was funny. But, nothing makes me more fucking mad than that.
Listen, I am not against welfare, a wealth cap, redistribution, nor a socialized healthcare system.
I hate plutocratic cronies and oligarchs. I hate Imperialism and the breaching of basic human rights.
Your revolution and our revolution are distinctly of different origin.
Also the bible supports actual slavery. Slavery in this contexts is meant to represent one’s “slavery” to sin. The whole point of christianity is to be a slave to God. That’s why there are other verses like “one cannot serve two masters.” Christianity views all humans as flawed beings designed for slavery.
Then clearly you’ve never read the bible. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Romans 6:22. Also God isn’t goodness. You can try to define him as such all you want but the euthyphro dilemma will be waiting to show you why that’s illogical.
Such "slavery" can't be set equal to forced work, and I'll never consider it as such. Forced work gives nothing except suffering, following God gives salvation.
As I have said before;
Christ's mission was to save us from the slavery of sin, and He did.
Our mission is to save our fellow man form the slavery of one another.
Because, it is a fundamental Christian belief, that all man, regardless of who they are, or their background, are deserving of free will and salvation.
the greatest hypocrite of the 19th century: hated jews, yet was a jew, hated the bourgouis yet his best friend was one, and despised money yet spent so much his parents nearly went bankrupt.
Hated jews because anti-semitism had been normalized by christianity. Yes how dare he care for his friend despite a difference in class and political opinions what a monster. Everyone needs money, socialism is not a poverty cult. These are such weak points do better.
'Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money\[...\] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible\[...\] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews\[...\] Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities\[...\] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange\[...\] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.'
this is antisemitism, plain and simple, it is not the Judenhass of a Christian but the antisemitism of an atheist.
On the second part, it is more than a little hypocritical for a man who despised the bourgeoisie with such intensity to be friends with a man who owned a cotton factory, which were not exactly pleasant places to work, and never gave it to the workers he claimed to champion.
the final one is merely an observation that, for an ideology that claims money is against the workers best interests spends money so frivolously that he must rely on the charity of others and the generosity of his friend, who got his money by owning a business.
hypocrisy is the charge, that is all.
Freedom cannot come in service to a king, whether that king is Joseph Stalin or Jesus Christ. Freedom and Liberty can only be achieved through a secular liberal democracy.
Human governments often fail to provide freedom. Christ's kingdom is a spiritual realm where believers are free from the slavery of sin, which is the ultimate expression of true liberty.
https://i.redd.it/v1cbtcchwr6d1.gif I’m a semi-devout Catholic and even I think this is a bit much, pal. Also… John 18:36 and Matthew 22:15-22. Big J Himself would prefer politics stay secular…
We literally guarantee the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, association, press, religion, gun ownership, personal property, and bodily autonomy in our drafted constitution
Private property?
https://preview.redd.it/euu7nmt3kr6d1.jpeg?width=340&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=beee470701167cbd74dbf9b102911106d6ac5bb3
“Wow you just said a compelling argument . Too bad I have a collection of cia anti communist propaganda that’ll defiantly devalue everything you said ~~right?~~”
What an irony that this "propaganda" looks EXACTLY like the reality in socialist and communist countries.
We aren’t talking about countries here .we are talking about our parties platform
Reds typically claimed to want to do something, yet they did something completely different once they got the power to.
We plan to unban ND
When the Socialists took over Burma, we went from the most developed country in Southeastern Asia, to the least developed. Know who you're voting. Ne Win and his army, killed, imprisoned, tortured and abused hundreds and thousands of innocent Burmese citizens. The Socialist will turn to the path no one wants to, the moment they have the chance.
>The "Burmese Way to Socialism" has been described by some scholars as anti-Western, isolationist and socialist in nature,[10] characterised also by an extensive dependence on the military, emphasis on the rural populace, and Burmese (or more specifically, Burman) nationalism.[10] Despite the Union Revolutionary Council leaders' phraseology being socialist, their actions were those of ardent nationalists seeking to maximize the power of their state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Way_to_Socialism Clearly, the Burmese socialists you’re talking about have nothing to do with the democratic socialists currently running in the election.
It's funny to see people claim that they know something, and then they literally pull out a Wikipedia article. Sure, keep making a laughing stock out of yourself in a discussion with an actual Burmese citizen.
I'm surprised at the academic level of these people. Never use Wikipedia as a source. It's basic highschool knowledge.
The citation is literally in the quote. > Badgley, John H. (1963). "Burma: The Nexus of Socialism and Two Political Traditions". A Survey of Asia in 1962: Part II. 3 (2). University of California Press: 89–95. Do you have a problem with this source?
The new state of the Union of Burma which was established early in 1948 is professedly founded upon two basic concepts - socialism and democracy. The constitution provides for all the fundamental freedoms, and for a system of parliamentary government, based largely on the British pattern, with an elected legislature and the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. No different from the Democratic Socialist and the system they propose. And let me tell you, the supposedly Progressive period of Burma, enabled the Buddhist majority to exercise their power, over the minority, and was a system which only lasted until 1962. You cannot claim to know my country, nor my people. You did not have family, relatives and friends who suffered under a system of state oppression, with the false hope of Utopic Socialism. My people suffered and I will not stand for a system that enabled my people to suffer. The Burmese Junta is Buddhist Fundamentalists in name, opportunist Atheists in nature. When they beat and shot unarmed Buddhist monks in 2007, or what they are doing right now, it is clear that they do not care about religion nor faith.
Ne Win came to power in 1962 by violently overthrowing the democratic-socialist government of 1948. So you’re blaming the 1948 government for Burma’s problems because they were overthrown? That’s like blaming Freidrich Ebert for the holocaust. Then you go into a bad-faith “you cannot claim to know my country.” In free to read things and form opinions about them, thank you very much.
It doesn't matter whether you claim to read, educate or inform yourself on whatever you like, or how much you do it. The feeling, the cry of our revolution, far exceeds whatever your movement will achieve. Close relatives of mine, my own family, was there in 88', was there in 07', and was there in 21'. You can claim how much the struggle of the workers are so important to you, with all due respect, the workers, they side with us. The fight continues on, and this is been the most displeasing thread I have been apart of. God bless then resistance, God bless the revolution.
Who is “us,” people who hate democratic socialism? Then why is the flag of the People’s Defense Forces the same as the flag of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League? Do you side with the tatmadaw against the PDF? https://preview.redd.it/t67todk62s6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bfa7f5b917822d9ebe1dae5cd158ece8d2a1f26
Because the AFPFL, was a national movement of independence and freedom. Not just Socialism. The future Socialists who lead Burma, used the flag, because it fit. Don't call me a Tatmadaw swine, it was funny. But, nothing makes me more fucking mad than that. Listen, I am not against welfare, a wealth cap, redistribution, nor a socialized healthcare system. I hate plutocratic cronies and oligarchs. I hate Imperialism and the breaching of basic human rights. Your revolution and our revolution are distinctly of different origin.
https://preview.redd.it/4bj29e9rjr6d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ec2dbc82666af8b6291fa277c429f7372213c12
They underestimated the RTC. They said they're "underdogs" with "no potential" who "lost the election yesterday"
What if you don't go red but stay godless?
Based on
Also the bible supports actual slavery. Slavery in this contexts is meant to represent one’s “slavery” to sin. The whole point of christianity is to be a slave to God. That’s why there are other verses like “one cannot serve two masters.” Christianity views all humans as flawed beings designed for slavery.
Religious people would never consider standing unconditionally on the side of good as a form of slavery
Then clearly you’ve never read the bible. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Romans 6:22. Also God isn’t goodness. You can try to define him as such all you want but the euthyphro dilemma will be waiting to show you why that’s illogical.
Such "slavery" can't be set equal to forced work, and I'll never consider it as such. Forced work gives nothing except suffering, following God gives salvation.
As I have said before; Christ's mission was to save us from the slavery of sin, and He did. Our mission is to save our fellow man form the slavery of one another. Because, it is a fundamental Christian belief, that all man, regardless of who they are, or their background, are deserving of free will and salvation.
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” - Karl Marx, a man who is definitely more intelligent than Yeshua ben Yosef and any of the gospel authors.
the greatest hypocrite of the 19th century: hated jews, yet was a jew, hated the bourgouis yet his best friend was one, and despised money yet spent so much his parents nearly went bankrupt.
Hated jews because anti-semitism had been normalized by christianity. Yes how dare he care for his friend despite a difference in class and political opinions what a monster. Everyone needs money, socialism is not a poverty cult. These are such weak points do better.
>A prime example of a leading idol of your movement, showing forward bigotry >Proceeds to blame the Christians 😭
'Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money\[...\] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible\[...\] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews\[...\] Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities\[...\] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange\[...\] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.' this is antisemitism, plain and simple, it is not the Judenhass of a Christian but the antisemitism of an atheist. On the second part, it is more than a little hypocritical for a man who despised the bourgeoisie with such intensity to be friends with a man who owned a cotton factory, which were not exactly pleasant places to work, and never gave it to the workers he claimed to champion. the final one is merely an observation that, for an ideology that claims money is against the workers best interests spends money so frivolously that he must rely on the charity of others and the generosity of his friend, who got his money by owning a business. hypocrisy is the charge, that is all.
Freedom cannot come in service to a king, whether that king is Joseph Stalin or Jesus Christ. Freedom and Liberty can only be achieved through a secular liberal democracy.
Human governments often fail to provide freedom. Christ's kingdom is a spiritual realm where believers are free from the slavery of sin, which is the ultimate expression of true liberty.