The Pope takes back his Church

[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.

Another question... is greed worse than murder?

Why is it an indivdual moral choice to murder your child, but not if you want to be greedy? Why do you feel you can impress your morals upon someone else and stop them from being 'greedy' under society's laws? If you want their money for what you feel it should be used for, doesn't that make you the greedy one?

 

[Newby]

Frank, "thou shalt not" call evil good as American capitalism is the antithesis of Christian teaching.

Jake thou shall shutteth the fuck up lest you reveal your ignorance and Marxist idolatry Read a Bible once in a while God was a big fan rewarding his people

Controlling the anti-Christian greed of capitalism and directing it into social market democratic paths is not Marxism, good buddy. You certainly readeth but comprehendeth it not.

What else that is 'anti Christian' should be controled or prohibited via law? Abortion?

Are you also advocating a theocrasy?

 

[Newby]

"because the Gospel is liberty" does not mean you are exempt from the two Great Commandments.

"because the Gospel is liberty" does not mean the secular state cannot step in because those who should know better refuse to do right.

Remember this! You no longer have the votes, son.

Hypocrit! Just one post above this one you were advocating control of 'anti Christian' behavior, and you call that a 'secular state'. Or is it okay to enforce the Chrisitian morals that you agree with via the 'secular state', and the ones that you don't agree with you can scream 'separatation of church and state'? Why is it okay for force some morals and not others? What's the distinction?

Of course, I don't expect you to answer my dear, this is for the audience at large. I rarely respond to your posts because they're vapid and full of fear for that imaginary 'reactionary right', which you've never really defined and never will.

 

[Newby]

The allegation was and still is that this nation is "totally aligned with the teaching of Christ" and that is what is being addressed. The for profit healthcare system is at variance with that allegation and not even the originator of the allegation was willing to defend it. So until you can show exactly how the profit driven motive aligns with the "teaching of Christ" you are just deflecting.

CF went with the statement that the overall concept of the US consitutional system is in line (in his opinion) with the teachings of Christ. you retorted with the standard progressive appeal to emotion, and what I questioned you on was YOUR statement, not your question to CF.

You have yet to answer my subquestion, and instead ask me to answer for CF, of which I have no intention. I question your premise that the for profit, at 5-10% profit insurance business is what is reponsible for people going into bankruptcy. You have yet to respond to my question to YOUR question.

It rolls up from that, not the other way around.

My response to CF was this question;

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

You chose to erroneously mischaracterize it as an "appeal to emotion" because you couldn't refute it. Your subsequent deflections will be ignored until you can either refute that stark variance with CF's allegation or just admit that you cannot.

And he responded asking you to prove that the 'profit' bankrupts the family. You clearly implied that it was the profit that caused them to go bankrupt. You have yet to prove that, altho I'm only on page four, perhaps there's an answer forthcoming. Doubtful, tho.

 

[Newby]

You are ALL over the map - that garbled collection of right wing talking points made absolutely no sense regarding what it responded to - and that is not a solid indication that you have the first clue what you're writing about.

I apologize for you being unable to understand me. I am not reciting any talking points. I am pointing to principles taught in the scriptures. I will freely admit I am not perfect in my ability to convey the Word of God.

It is one of my biggest frustrations in life that I don't have the ability to articulate everything I know and see. But I think that the Lord probably gave me this weakness for a reason.

What you said made perfect sense Av, you did a wonderful job of explaining it. Some people will just never be able to accept or understand. If He could not make them see or hear, you should never feel bad that you cannot.

And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? 18"HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR?

 

[Newby]

So it is the 5-10% profit margin that is the cause of the bankruptcy?

Should doctors accept a salary that bankrupts the family, should the nurses? the hospital staff?

Deflection from answering the question asked duly noted.

You're right.

Let's skip over the fact that your opinion here is based entirely in the dogmatic value that a human life's worth cannot be expressed in economic value. . . let's just pretend that you're correct.

People should not be going into the medical profession to profit. They should be going into the medical profession because people need to be helped. Let's assume that this isn't an opinion and that, somehow, this moral can be proven as "correct".

So let's stop paying doctors large salaries. Fuck that they had to pay their way through school and bust their ass for seven years, if that's the route they wanted to go they should've been willing to do it for free.

Let's nationalize all medicine from here on out, make sure those evil fuckers that blast millions of dollars in R&D and those greedy ass scientists who come up with the drugs in the first place aren't doing so to take our money. People that want to come up with new medicines should be doing so for the good of mankind, not for their pocket books. Let's just take their stuff. You know, as a society. . . for the children and all that.

And those dickheads selling insurance? We should simply do away with them, if you catch my drift. They shouldn't be paying peoples' medical bills only because those people paid into the insurance scheme, and they damn well shouldn't be doing it for a profit. They should pay for everyone's medical treatment because fuck 'em, they got the money and they need to help people.

So yeah, let's go all out and enforce your morality on the entire medical industry. Then, when we've removed all personal incentive, watch how quickly people smart enough to be surgeons divert into other more profitable majors.

Watch how quickly world class chemists start peddling their wares in other fields in stead of researching and inventing new medicines.

Watch how quickly people with the capital to play the insurance game start investing in other shit in stead, and, while you're at it, make sure your medical savings account is brimming, dummy.

Sorry, but this "culture of greed" has presided over the fastest technological growth spurt the world's ever seen. You can attribute a lot of it to abundant energy resources, but if you think that morally pressuring people to help each other is going to create the kind of innovation that a free market promotes, you're dreaming.

 

[Newby]

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.

What democrat supports that? If you think any do, you're an idealistic fool.

 

[elektra]

I love Capitalist Greed, Greed has done more wonderful things in the world than the current Pope of the Catholic church.

Hell, Greed is the best thing in the world.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I love Capitalist Greed, Greed has done more wonderful things in the world than the current Pope of the Catholic church.

Hell, Greed is the best thing in the world.

Ironic!

 

[longknife]

I'm torn by this.

Francis is a man of the people who does his best to avoid unneeded trapppings of the wealth of the church. He lives with others, shares their meals, conducts rites for those he lives with, and goes places where other popes have never gone. He reads the letters sent to him and is not beyond picking up the phone himself and calling someone he feels needs his condolences.

Yet, this statement seems to fly in the truth of history. As someone pointed out, the American experiment has been unique in the world allowing a huge percentage of the population a lifestyle envied by the rest of the world. In a normal ratio, we have a hugely smaller percentage of the truly poor. And out citizens probably donate more to charity per capita than any other nation in the world.

So, let us look at his background. He was born and grew up in a country that, throughout its history, has had a very small percentage of wealthy who control the government that deals with letting them keep their wealth and power. I see his statement in view of this as being one that castigates the tiny group of those in power for not letting the poor help themselves to a better life style. What percentage of Argentinians own the land and businesses? How much of those Argentinians hold government or political positions?

And how does this hold true in the rest of the world? Even in Socialist systems, there is a small percentage of those in power and holding unusual/unneeded wealth.

[Sorry, got to rambling and don't want to take the time to re-write]

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

I am not wealthy and it worked for me.
You do not understand economics much less supply side economics.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you are a "little" person then get off your ass and out of here and go find a second job.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you are a "little" person then get off your ass and out of here and go find a second job.

Typical republican blaming the "little" people for not working enough because greed obsessed corporations refuse to pay living wages and benefits.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Pope is not a republican. He does not speak for all Christians. He does not speak for Jesus Christ. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. The same Church that Martin Luther led a rebellion against.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you are a "little" person then get off your ass and out of here and go find a second job.

Typical republican blaming the "little" people for not working enough because greed obsessed corporations refuse to pay living wages and benefits.

Why not? It is ultimately their own fault. If they don't like the wages they are getting and the lack of benefits, it's not up to the corporation to make their lives anything. It's up to the individual. Get a better job. Get an education. Don't get an education. Get some skills instead. When did people hand their self-direction over to a corporate CEO?

 

[elektra]

I love Capitalist Greed, Greed has done more wonderful things in the world than the current Pope of the Catholic church.

Hell, Greed is the best thing in the world.

Ironic!

Greed feeds the world, Greedy Capitalist, the Catholic Church does not feed the world.

 

[Newby]

If you are a "little" person then get off your ass and out of here and go find a second job.

Typical republican blaming the "little" people for not working enough because greed obsessed corporations refuse to pay living wages and benefits.

Why not? It is ultimately their own fault. If they don't like the wages they are getting and the lack of benefits, it's not up to the corporation to make their lives anything. It's up to the individual. Get a better job. Get an education. Don't get an education. Get some skills instead. When did people hand their self-direction over to a corporate CEO?

Everyone's just a poor victim and they need the democrats to socially engineer their victimhood away, no one is responsible for their own situation in life.

 

[Barb]

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.

I am not wealthy and it worked for me.
You do not understand economics much less supply side economics.

I wouldn't presume to assume what I do or don't know, if I were you.

 

[manifold]

Certainly a lot better than that fuck'n naziburger he replaced.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You missed the point, he always wants his morals imposed on others, which is why he always whinges about other people imposing their morals whenever the discussion turns to moral issues, it saves hi from trying to justify his position.