>You haven't seen Stalinism, and wouldn't recognize it.
>
>Whoa. I don't think anybody was calling you a Stalinist; and if people can't comment on a subject unless they've experienced it closely, how come you're so voluble about God and Churchmen. ;-)

One doesn't need to be a hen to know a good omelet from bad, that's true. My point was that persecution of clergy is among the lesser evils of Stalinism.

But my question still stands - what do various religions, which have so much to say about how their members (and non-members!) should behave, have to say about corporate misdeeds? The only half-answer was "nothing, because the corporations can buy better justice". Which shouldn't be true all over the world, right? The only two examples that popped up were from Philippines and, IIRC, Italy.

>FWIW, take a look at this: http://beautifulatrocities.com/archives/2005/04/stalins_vision.html
>
>The church has since been rebuilt, whereas much that Stalin enacted has since been overturned.

OTOH, the post-socialist regimes also have poor respect for whatever they inherited from the previous regimes. While preserving buildings, they are destroying institutions and culture, not necessarily replacing each component with a better one. Most of the time, it's replaced with nothing.

>My point, if I need one, is that poor governance models have a short half life. But religions always seem to survive. If you're correct that religions are getting it wrong, perhaps "getting it wrong" is the recipe for success in this crazy world. ;-)

That's what they're good at, surviving. IMO, outlived their usefulness ;).