The Pope takes back his Church

[Avatar4321]

The rest of the world is not like America. Perhaps if you knew a little bit about how healthcare works in the rest of the civilized nations you would understand that quality of life is preferable to amassing the most wealth and/or possessions.

Preferable? Define preferable. Last I checked this was an objective value, just like the morals that drive you kids to say shit like insurance people are evil because they profit off of the death of children.

I know enough about other nations with socialized health care to know that putting a government in charge doesn't guarantee treatment any more than the private sector does, and I know enough about history to know that putting the government in charge of wealth distribution doesn't guarantee that there won't be portions of the population suffering from poverty.

No matter how comprehensively you legislate and no matter how noble your stated purpose is, shit will continue to happen. Count on it.

Your lack of faith in We the People to govern ourselves is duly noted. Then again you support a gouging private sector and a corporate owned legislature.

Actually, we have plenty of faith in the people governing ourselves. That's why we oppose the government restricting our decisions. If we had no faith in the people we would adopt your policies.

 

[Katzndogz]

Unless you know what the Pope meant by the terms free enterprise and quality of life, you can't know what he meant. If he meant that free enterprise does not improve the quality of one's spiritual life, he is absolutely correct.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Preferable? Define preferable. Last I checked this was an objective value, just like the morals that drive you kids to say shit like insurance people are evil because they profit off of the death of children.

I know enough about other nations with socialized health care to know that putting a government in charge doesn't guarantee treatment any more than the private sector does, and I know enough about history to know that putting the government in charge of wealth distribution doesn't guarantee that there won't be portions of the population suffering from poverty.

No matter how comprehensively you legislate and no matter how noble your stated purpose is, shit will continue to happen. Count on it.

Your lack of faith in We the People to govern ourselves is duly noted. Then again you support a gouging private sector and a corporate owned legislature.

Actually, we have plenty of faith in the people governing ourselves. That's why we oppose the government restricting our decisions. If we had no faith in the people we would adopt your policies.

Thank you for admitting that you support a gouging private sector and a corporate owned legislature.

 

[Barb]

The Pope who said "Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative" in the very same document you just praised?

Please, lets talk about this "Wonderful new Pope." I am willing to bet I can use his words to prove to you that you hate everything he stands for.

So if we part ways on anything I must "hate everything he stands for?" Lighten up, Nancy. You're just a little to emotional about this.

No, it means you are using fake science and outright lies to support your viewpoint, which is absurd.

On the other hand, you could try proving he was right when he said that free enterprise has never improved the quality of life for anyone. That would at least who that you are basing your opinion about him being right on something other than him agreeing with you.

You're the one calling it "fake science," you prove your words. I've posted plenty about Reagan and what actually trickles down from supply side economics (UNREGULATED enterprise, rather than "free") that you should damned well know better. Yes, I am glad that someone with the influence and platform he has "agrees with me," but my opinions don't stem from ignorance or talking points - I studied this very thing and all the bullshit that sells your backwards point of view for six years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if we part ways on anything I must "hate everything he stands for?" Lighten up, Nancy. You're just a little to emotional about this.

No, it means you are using fake science and outright lies to support your viewpoint, which is absurd.

On the other hand, you could try proving he was right when he said that free enterprise has never improved the quality of life for anyone. That would at least who that you are basing your opinion about him being right on something other than him agreeing with you.

You're the one calling it "fake science," you prove your words. I've posted plenty about Reagan and what actually trickles down from supply side economics (UNREGULATED enterprise, rather than "free") that you should damned well know better. Yes, I am glad that someone with the influence and platform he has "agrees with me," but my opinions don't stem from ignorance or talking points - I studied this very thing and all the bullshit that sells your backwards point of view for six years.

I called it psuedo science, and the proof is that he flat out stated that free market economics has never improved anyone's life. If you want examples, take a look at Russia before and after communism.

 

[Barb]

No, it means you are using fake science and outright lies to support your viewpoint, which is absurd.

On the other hand, you could try proving he was right when he said that free enterprise has never improved the quality of life for anyone. That would at least who that you are basing your opinion about him being right on something other than him agreeing with you.

You're the one calling it "fake science," you prove your words. I've posted plenty about Reagan and what actually trickles down from supply side economics (UNREGULATED enterprise, rather than "free") that you should damned well know better. Yes, I am glad that someone with the influence and platform he has "agrees with me," but my opinions don't stem from ignorance or talking points - I studied this very thing and all the bullshit that sells your backwards point of view for six years.

I called it psuedo science, and the proof is that he flat out stated that free market economics has never improved anyone's life. If you want examples, take a look at Russia before and after communism.

That's not quite what he said though,

54.
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system./QUOTE]

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.QUOTE]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're the one calling it "fake science," you prove your words. I've posted plenty about Reagan and what actually trickles down from supply side economics (UNREGULATED enterprise, rather than "free") that you should damned well know better. Yes, I am glad that someone with the influence and platform he has "agrees with me," but my opinions don't stem from ignorance or talking points - I studied this very thing and all the bullshit that sells your backwards point of view for six years.

I called it psuedo science, and the proof is that he flat out stated that free market economics has never improved anyone's life. If you want examples, take a look at Russia before and after communism.

That's not quite what he said though,

54.
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Interesting.

You claim he didn't say what I said he said, and then quote the exact place where he actually said it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ah the left. They blast the Catholic church for most all things but when the church blasts the rich they love them.

 

[Barb]

I called it psuedo science, and the proof is that he flat out stated that free market economics has never improved anyone's life. If you want examples, take a look at Russia before and after communism.

That's not quite what he said though,

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Interesting.

You claim he didn't say what I said he said, and then quote the exact place where he actually said it.

 

[Barb]

 

[Gadawg73]

Catholic church discriminates against women and gays.

 

[Barb]

Catholic church discriminates against women and gays.

It does - there's no denying that - and this Pope doesn't say that doctrine OR dogma will be changed in any meaningful way regarding either. BUT, he did say that women should have a more meaningful role, short of priesthood, AND that the religious right (paraphrasing) spends too much time and energy opposing issues such as equality instead of supporting the good the Church can and should do in this world.

I never expected him to upend centuries old dogma, but at least he's trying to redirect priorities.

And for that, even heathens such as me thank, and support, him.

 

[Gadawg73]

Catholic church discriminates against women and gays.

It does - there's no denying that - and this Pope doesn't say that doctrine OR dogma will be changed in any meaningful way regarding either. BUT, he did say that women should have a more meaningful role, short of priesthood, AND that the religious right (paraphrasing) spends too much time and energy opposing issues such as equality instead of supporting the good the Church can and should do in this world.

I never expected him to upend centuries old dogma, but at least he's trying to redirect priorities.

And for that, even heathens such as me thank, and support, him.

Talk is cheap. If you support discrimination against gay folks so be it but I don't.

 

[Barb]

Catholic church discriminates against women and gays.

It does - there's no denying that - and this Pope doesn't say that doctrine OR dogma will be changed in any meaningful way regarding either. BUT, he did say that women should have a more meaningful role, short of priesthood, AND that the religious right (paraphrasing) spends too much time and energy opposing issues such as equality instead of supporting the good the Church can and should do in this world.

I never expected him to upend centuries old dogma, but at least he's trying to redirect priorities.

And for that, even heathens such as me thank, and support, him.

Talk is cheap. If you support discrimination against gay folks so be it but I don't.

I'm not a Catholic - so it's kind of disingenuous to say I support the Church. As for the Pope, I don't have to like everything he does to like most of what he does. Kind of like Obama (and I AM a democrat) - I part ways with him in many areas, ones that he actually HAS control over (Unlike the Pope, who did not invent the Church's doctrine regarding gays), but I agree with him about enough that I believe is important that I do support him.

 

[Gadawg73]

It does - there's no denying that - and this Pope doesn't say that doctrine OR dogma will be changed in any meaningful way regarding either. BUT, he did say that women should have a more meaningful role, short of priesthood, AND that the religious right (paraphrasing) spends too much time and energy opposing issues such as equality instead of supporting the good the Church can and should do in this world.

I never expected him to upend centuries old dogma, but at least he's trying to redirect priorities.

And for that, even heathens such as me thank, and support, him.

Talk is cheap. If you support discrimination against gay folks so be it but I don't.

I'm not a Catholic - so it's kind of disingenuous to say I support the Church. As for the Pope, I don't have to like everything he does to like most of what he does. Kind of like Obama (and I AM a democrat) - I part ways with him in many areas, ones that he actually HAS control over (Unlike the Pope, who did not invent the Church's doctrine regarding gays), but I agree with him about enough that I believe is important that I do support him.

If the Pope did exactly the same things he always does yet claimed he was a Republican you would be the first one here to condemn him.

 

[Barb]

Talk is cheap. If you support discrimination against gay folks so be it but I don't.

I'm not a Catholic - so it's kind of disingenuous to say I support the Church. As for the Pope, I don't have to like everything he does to like most of what he does. Kind of like Obama (and I AM a democrat) - I part ways with him in many areas, ones that he actually HAS control over (Unlike the Pope, who did not invent the Church's doctrine regarding gays), but I agree with him about enough that I believe is important that I do support him.

If the Pope did exactly the same things he always does yet claimed he was a Republican you would be the first one here to condemn him.

If a republican came out and said supply side economics only worked for the wealthy, excluded people from society, that the gap between rich and poor was too wide and vast, and that the government needed to concentrate on helping WE little people, I would vote for them - as soon as I recovered from my stroke.

 

[Newby]

What a shame.

The nations that are the most Socialist and practice government enforced redistribution are the world poorest.

The USA became the most prosperous nation on the planet because we tried something new and different and totally aligned with the teaching of Christ

Do you seriously believe that Jesus would condone making a profit off of a sick child that bankrupts a family?

Define 'profit'? Is someone being paid a wage for their work 'profit' in your eyes? Is the cost of medication 'profit'? Are the people who research and produce medication making a profit off of their God given intelligence and talents? How do you propose the system should work? Anyone who works in the medical industry receives no compensation for their labor? I think Jesus wouldn't expect those working in the medical industry and their families to starve for the sake of helping others. How could you give and be a good steward of charity if you gave away the means to produce that which you give? I'd love to hear what alternative you have that will provide the same quality medical care that we have today?

Do you feel the same about those that 'profit' off of the abortion industry? Or are those profits okay?

 

[Newby]

Deflection from answering the question asked duly noted.

its not deflecting, its clarifying. And you obviously can't answer it.

Jesus would ask all involved to provide said service for free, but he also would render unto ceasar, and not force people to do it. It would be thier choice, something progressives only seem to tolerate when ti comes to abortions.

So your answer is that Jesus practices moral equivocation?

Why is it that when it comes to feeding the poor, or healing sick children, we're all in this together as a society and everyone must have your morals forced on them under government fiat, but when it comes to societal morals as a whole and killing unborn children, then it's the individual's choice to practice what's morally right or not? Or do you think it's moral to kill your unborn child? Why are your morals forcible by government, but others are left up to the individual to practice or not?

 

[Newby]

So your answer is that Jesus practices moral equivocation?

The answer is that your question is an appeal to emotion based on bad facts, and ingorance of the true costs of healthcare. here is a hint, it isnt the profit that is causing the problem.

I don't pretend to speak for Jesus. Ask him yourself what his position is.

And yet you were more than willing to use him to justify the unjustifiable when it comes to what CF called being "totally aligned with the teaching of Christ"?

Obviously profit driven healthcare is not "totally aligned with the teaching of Christ" and you are incapable of reconciling them. Your attempts to deflect aside you are not addressing the moral allegation raised by CF.

So you're seriously advocating that we use the teachings of Christ when enfocing morals and laws on the society as whole via government? Yeah, right..

Or are you using the 'teachings of Christ' as a club to beat people up because they don't agree with your socialist views of how society should be run? Yeah, that sounds a little better. But what you don't get is that salvation through Christ is up to each and every individual, that relationship is a chioce. And it will be each person that has to account for their own sin, whether it be greed, advocating murder, etc... not the 'sins of society'. So if the board of directors of a hospital decides to increase prices of healthcare to put more money in their pockets, and it goes against what Christ taught, then they'll have to account for that decision on a personal level and suffer whatever attonement is given. But it sounds to me like you expect Christians to abandon the belief of individual salvation and force their morals on everyone via government power, like that's going to bring about individual salvation somehow? So what's your position on this? Are you advocating Christians morals be forced via law?

 

[Newby]

I find it interesting that there are so many people who think that taking care of the poor and needy is something new that the Pope has started. I am not Catholic and even I am aware of the tremendous work the Catholic Church has done in providing humanitarian aid to those in need.

I find it interesting that you have a compulsion to mischaracterize others. Then again maybe you just have a reading comprehension problem instead.

What is "new" is that the Pope is calling out the fundamentalist capitalist greed that is causing so much unnecessary hardship worldwide.

And what are you advocating to replace it? What is your 'perfect' society going to use as an incentive to produce if not profit? Or do you think human nature is just going to magically change somehow after thousands of years because you decreed it should be so? Or is it okay to force your moralistic view on everyone via government fiat, just so long as it's not based in 'religion'? Does that sum it up?