Why Conservatives just don't get the pope

[Katzndogz]

The Pope does not speak for, nor does he represent Christianity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

After decades of conservatives cheering on the likes of the Christian Coalition, how great is it to see them suddenly proclaim that religious figures ought to stay out of politics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Pope does not speak for, nor does he represent Christianity.

How do you know?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She says it like anarchy is a bad thing. Meanwhile advocating tyrnany, violence and oppression via a government system. Then blames it on corporations.

Stupid. I mean, really stupid, but predictable all the same.

You explain to us how to have a functioning government if every individual has to personally consent to anything the government does.

You can't. That's why anarchy is the only moral solution.

However, one thing you can't credibly claim is that the federal government received the consent of the governed for anything it does.

Is it 'moral' for one man to claim a piece of property as his own if he doesn't have the consent of everyone around him, unanimously, to make that claim?

 

[Katzndogz]

The Pope does not speak for, nor does he represent Christianity.

How do you know?

Because he's a Catholic. He's head of the Catholic Church. Not all Christians are Catholic. To liberals, like yourself, the two terms might be interchangable. In the real world, to real Christians the Pope's word has meaning only to Catholics. Other denominations pretty much ignore him. The Pope speaks for and represents a single Christian denomination.

 

[whitehall]

It's absolutely amazing that radical libs have done a 180 and are now big fans of the Pope....or...lefties still hate the Vatican but they keep the Pope's anti-capitalist issue alive in a forlorn dream to split the Catholic Church.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Pope does not speak for, nor does he represent Christianity.

How do you know?

Because he's a Catholic. He's head of the Catholic Church. Not all Christians are Catholic. To liberals, like yourself, the two terms might be interchangable. In the real world, to real Christians the Pope's word has meaning only to Catholics. Other denominations pretty much ignore him. The Pope speaks for and represents a single Christian denomination.

Then you acknowledge that being anti-abortion or against same sex marriage are not Christian positions, IOW,

a person can be pro-choice and pro same sex marriage and be just as Christian as the next person?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's absolutely amazing that radical libs have done a 180 and are now big fans of the Pope....or...lefties still hate the Vatican but they keep the Pope's anti-capitalist issue alive in a forlorn dream to split the Catholic Church.

People are agreeing with the Pope on issues they agree with him on. What's amazing about that?

 

[Katzndogz]

How do you know?

Because he's a Catholic. He's head of the Catholic Church. Not all Christians are Catholic. To liberals, like yourself, the two terms might be interchangable. In the real world, to real Christians the Pope's word has meaning only to Catholics. Other denominations pretty much ignore him. The Pope speaks for and represents a single Christian denomination.

Then you acknowledge that being anti-abortion or against same sex marriage are not Christian positions, IOW,

a person can be pro-choice and pro same sex marriage and be just as Christian as the next person?

Of course not. If the Pope said today that the Catholic Church was going to uphold abortion rights and all Catholic Churches would have to perform same sex marriages, it would have no effect on Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists or any other denomination. Opposing abortion and same sex marriage might be a position that Catholics and other denominations share, but that still doesn't make them one and the same. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That he died and was resurrected. Everything else is up for grabs. The Episcopalians and Presbyterians split over the issue of same sex marriage and become two more denominations. Does this mean that the people who left and started another denomination have some how stopped being Christians? No.

 

[dannyboys]

Here's the real reason many Reps have no time for the RC church.
Start with watching the movie The Mission.
Yes it's 'only a movie' but there are many historical truths to be found about how the RC church treated stone age people.
Today go to any dirt poor place in S. America where the population is only just surviving. What's the first thing you see in any town? That's right a HUGE European style RC church. It's disgusting!
From the time of first contact with the West coast tribes in America the RC church was there.
Black mailing stone age indians to 'worship the 'White' virgin mary. It's disgusting!
The RC church doesn't want any of their 'Jonestowners' to practice birth control. Why? So more little babies will become Catholics so they can give the 'Church' money they would have used to buy food so the Vatican can pay for the thousands of sexual abuse law suits.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one today cares about how the Church treated people back in the stone age. Really. They don't. Peole just don't give the stone age that much thought.

 

[bripat9643]

You explain to us how to have a functioning government if every individual has to personally consent to anything the government does.

You can't. That's why anarchy is the only moral solution.

However, one thing you can't credibly claim is that the federal government received the consent of the governed for anything it does.

Is it 'moral' for one man to claim a piece of property as his own if he doesn't have the consent of everyone around him, unanimously, to make that claim?

If he is the first one to use that property, then yes it is.

 

[Peterf]

He's only popular with the ignorant, the stupid, and the sanctimonious.

You tell em Fingerboy

That is why he is Time Magazines Person of the Year

so was Hitler....does being person of the year prove anything?...

It proves - well, indicates - that the chosen one has been much written about in the MSM.

The MSM is infested with lefties. Unsurprisingy their political leanings play the decisive part in who they choose to write about.

 

[Peterf]

Because he's a Catholic. He's head of the Catholic Church. Not all Christians are Catholic. To liberals, like yourself, the two terms might be interchangable. In the real world, to real Christians the Pope's word has meaning only to Catholics. Other denominations pretty much ignore him. The Pope speaks for and represents a single Christian denomination.

Then you acknowledge that being anti-abortion or against same sex marriage are not Christian positions, IOW,

a person can be pro-choice and pro same sex marriage and be just as Christian as the next person?

Of course not. If the Pope said today that the Catholic Church was going to uphold abortion rights and all Catholic Churches would have to perform same sex marriages, it would have no effect on Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists or any other denomination. Opposing abortion and same sex marriage might be a position that Catholics and other denominations share, but that still doesn't make them one and the same. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That he died and was resurrected. Everything else is up for grabs. The Episcopalians and Presbyterians split over the issue of same sex marriage and become two more denominations. Does this mean that the people who left and started another denomination have some how stopped being Christians? No.

Just who are 'Christians' is contested. The Unitarians say they are; other protestant denomination say they not. The hottest issue today is the Mormons many/most Christians do not accept them as their fellows.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's the real reason many Reps have no time for the RC church.
Start with watching the movie The Mission.
Yes it's 'only a movie' but there are many historical truths to be found about how the RC church treated stone age people.
Today go to any dirt poor place in S. America where the population is only just surviving. What's the first thing you see in any town? That's right a HUGE European style RC church. It's disgusting!
From the time of first contact with the West coast tribes in America the RC church was there.
Black mailing stone age indians to 'worship the 'White' virgin mary. It's disgusting!
The RC church doesn't want any of their 'Jonestowners' to practice birth control. Why? So more little babies will become Catholics so they can give the 'Church' money they would have used to buy food so the Vatican can pay for the thousands of sexual abuse law suits.

I said in a different thread that libs' reality is shaped by movies. Here we see it again.

 

[Vox]

Liberals' reality is shaped by movies. Really.

Yes. The liberals' guru is Oliver Stone and his films are what they imagine to be 'history'.

Yes. The substitute for leftwing Zinn history books in statist universities is Oliver Stone movies.

You nailed that one.

Arthur Schlesinger's work was also shelved for JFK!

We statists cannot sneak anything by your watchful eyes.

The Pope, on this particular economic issue, is correct. Trickle down is a farce that, by definition, favors the wealthy elites.

Link?
to the Pope saying that

 

[bendog]

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. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, 2013

 

[Vox]

And where does it state that trickle down economics "by definition" favors the wealthy elites?

at the very best the paragraph expresses concern that it MIGHT not work, not STATES that it does not work.

Because in the first world it actually works perfectly well.

If one bothers to get off the coach to notice.

 

[Vox]

And the Pope says explicitly - IN THIS CONTEXT.

so what CONTEXT is he talking about.

this one:
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

well, the described CONTEXT does not have even ONE IOTA of the reality of the FIRST WORLD, it is actually the DIRECT OPPOSITE in the first world, but it is a correct description of the problems in the third world countries.

So, most probably, the Pope is right - IN THE THIRD WORLD countries trickle down economics might not work.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the economy of the United States of America.

Neither our "poor" are "excluded", "exploited" or "left aside".
Our "poor" would be considered solid middle class in all the countries the Pope is talking about - like Argentina or Brazil.

But we are not Argentina or Brazil.

His words do not apply to us. At all.

 

[bendog]

I believe in paragraph 56 he asserts trickle down only, or largely, only benefit the monied elite. But, I believe the above quote is a direct indictment of the philosophy that decreasing taxes on the wealthy will always benefit all. And, he's correct. There's no econ support for trickle down or the notion that tax cuts always pay for themselves.

However, more importantly imo, I agree his comments are not directly aimed at our national economy. His view is that the govt and leaders have a responsibility to use policy to more fully spread the economic gains to all people. And, there I think he speaks directly to America. To the extent possible we should aid in global education. But, the reality also is that globalization has benefited the poor in asia.