Why Conservatives just don't get the pope

[Vox]

The Pope gets it because he understands the Catholic Church is not about blind doctrine, tradition or the trappings of wealth

It is about people

Unfortunately for him economics is really about people and how they actually behave. And they behave best in an unfettered capitalist system. And that system has done more for poor people in 300 years than the Catholic Church has done in 2000 years.

What is it about you guys?

Why does everything have to be about absolutes? Nobody is going to destroy capitalism. Unfettered capitalism led to the Great Depression in 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008. Why would anyone advocate that?

The pope wants responsible capitalism. Capitalism that is aware of the human impacts of its decisions.

what does this idiotisn has to do with what pope REALY says in hs Evangelii Gaudium?

 

[longknife]

The Libtard hatred of anything they see as conservative [in their minds[ never ceases to amaze me.

The pope clearly stated that he did not speak in a technical manner in his letter - only the social beliefs and teachings of the church. It's also very clear that various translations of his letter can be read differently. One has to remember that Francis wrote the original in Spanish which was translated to Latin and then into English. Very easy to get widely varied results.

In many ways, Francis' proclamations to the faithful and church leaders could be construed as "socialist" - help and succor the poor, the disabled, and disadvantaged. However, he does NOT appear to be suggesting that is something governments should do. He seems, IMHO, to be saying it is a responsibility of the church and its members. Faith AND Charity.

 

[NoNukes]

Why conservatives just don't get Pope Francis' anti-poverty crusade - The Week

Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.

Since outlining his vision for the Catholic church in late November, Pope Francis has endured an amount of criticism from the American right wing commensurate only with the praise piled on by the remainder of global Christianity. For most, Francis' moving exhortation to spread the gospel and engage personally with Jesus was a welcome and invigorating encouragement. But for many right wing pundits in America, Francis' call to relieve global poverty through state intervention in markets was unconscionably troubling.

Francis' message likely raises American conservative hackles because the American right wing has invented such a convincing façade of affinity between fiscal conservatism and Christianity over the last few decades. Though free markets, profit motives, and unrestrained accumulation of wealth have no immediate relationship with Christianity, the cross and the coin are nonetheless powerful, paired symbols of the American right wing

Douthat, for example, argues that global capitalism has been responsible for an overall reduction in poverty. But Francis' exhortation never called for an elimination of capitalism, only that states, as creations of humankind, be structured so as to alleviate the poverty that arises after capitalism has done its work. For Francis, all institutions created by humanity — and yes, distributions of wealth are created, not spontaneous — must be intentionally shaped to further just goals. Since Francis' notion of justice is informed purely by the teaching of Christ, just goals include establishing an equitable distribution of wealth that alleviates poverty and contributes to peace.

If you posted something bad about the Pope, you would be called a Chrustian hating liberal by the conservatives.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Pope gets it because he understands the Catholic Church is not about blind doctrine, tradition or the trappings of wealth

It is about people

Unfortunately for him economics is really about people and how they actually behave. And they behave best in an unfettered capitalist system. And that system has done more for poor people in 300 years than the Catholic Church has done in 2000 years.

What is it about you guys?

Why does everything have to be about absolutes? Nobody is going to destroy capitalism. Unfettered capitalism led to the Great Depression in 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008. Why would anyone advocate that?

The pope wants responsible capitalism. Capitalism that is aware of the human impacts of its decisions.

No. Constant government interference lead to both of those.

Had Hoover continued the policies of Harding/Coolege, the 1929 collapse would have been followed by a quick recovery. Instead, Hoover, a self proclaimed progressive Republican, tried to micro manage the economy and lost to FDR (who ran to the right of Hoover) and then turned around and regulated the economy more.

It's not a coincidence that when the government regulated the economy to a high degree, that depressions and recessions last a long time and the recoveries are slower if there are any at all.

The Pope wants people to take care of the poor. I completely agree with that. And we can take care of the poor among us without the government taking money from anyone to do it.

 

[RightDown]

This whole "coercion" line of argumentation is foolish. Taxes aren't theft. We have laws created by the people for the people. If one does not like the laws in place based on the redistributive effect, then work to change those laws.

Otherwise, you are free to leave the country if you don't want to play by the rules. These people want to enjoy the USA lifestyle but they don't want to pay for it or at least play by the rules. That's sad.

It really is that simple.

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

No it is not theft. There is no intent to steal b/c our government is set up by the supreme law of the land - the US constitution- - to have governance by consent of the governed. There can be no theft by the government for two reasons, government does not formulate intent and even if it could create intent, you consent to the government acts by being a US citizen under the US Constitution.

Do you see that now? You enjoy the benefits of US citizenship and taxes pay for all those benefits that you enjoy. Just b/c you don't like some of the expenditures does not permit you to sabotage the entire tax system as a criminal enterprise.

 

[NoNukes]

Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.

We speak out when we see what is wrong, same as we do with the government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Jesus didn't call upon government intervention to alleviate things...

You are absolutely correct. He did not. He told us to minister to and serve the needs of one another. Not outsource those responsibilities to an unfeeling bureaucracy

 

[Kosh]

Oh gee another far left blog piece believed by the far left Obama drones.

Nothing special about that.

Is this post directed at someone or are you talking to yourself?

I see you've met Kosh. Something wrong w/ "that one" in addition to him being a rw sheeple

As to the OP, the Pope is right. unfettered capitalism tends to bring out the worst in many. See: Wall St 2007- present

More far left propaganda!

And of course the far left will only see anyone not in their microscopic view of the world a s a rw or far right, but that would also include JFK.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Libtard hatred of anything they see as conservative [in their minds[ never ceases to amaze me.

The pope clearly stated that he did not speak in a technical manner in his letter - only the social beliefs and teachings of the church. It's also very clear that various translations of his letter can be read differently. One has to remember that Francis wrote the original in Spanish which was translated to Latin and then into English. Very easy to get widely varied results.

In many ways, Francis' proclamations to the faithful and church leaders could be construed as "socialist" - help and succor the poor, the disabled, and disadvantaged. However, he does NOT appear to be suggesting that is something governments should do. He seems, IMHO, to be saying it is a responsibility of the church and its members. Faith AND Charity.

I dont think they could be construed as socialist. But then I don't accept the premise that socialism helps or succors the poor and disadvantaged. Socialism has done more to hurt the poor than any idealogy i know of.

Socialism requires compulsion. This is why it's completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This whole "coercion" line of argumentation is foolish. Taxes aren't theft. We have laws created by the people for the people. If one does not like the laws in place based on the redistributive effect, then work to change those laws.

Otherwise, you are free to leave the country if you don't want to play by the rules. These people want to enjoy the USA lifestyle but they don't want to pay for it or at least play by the rules. That's sad.

It really is that simple.

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

A very interesting if not absurd post ^^^. Without going into the philosophy of the law, what in your mind allows you to proffer that theft is not defined by the taking of something of value when the legal or moral authority supports such an act?

Would it be just to return borrowed weapons to a lunatic? Or is that theft and a violation of the lunatics Second Amendment Right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This whole "coercion" line of argumentation is foolish. Taxes aren't theft. We have laws created by the people for the people. If one does not like the laws in place based on the redistributive effect, then work to change those laws.

Otherwise, you are free to leave the country if you don't want to play by the rules. These people want to enjoy the USA lifestyle but they don't want to pay for it or at least play by the rules. That's sad.

It really is that simple.

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

No it is not theft. There is no intent to steal b/c our government is set up by the supreme law of the land - the US constitution- - to have governance by consent of the governed. There can be no theft by the government for two reasons, government does not formulate intent and even if it could create intent, you consent to the government acts by being a US citizen under the US Constitution.

Do you see that now? You enjoy the benefits of US citizenship and taxes pay for all those benefits that you enjoy. Just b/c you don't like some of the expenditures does not permit you to sabotage the entire tax system as a criminal enterprise.

The intent, under this context, is redistribution. Taking from one and giving to another. The very OP signals wealth redistribution that the pope supposedly advocated. Consent and compliance are two entirely different things. Consent is an individual volition, not a collective one. If 9 of you agree that taxation is fine and I disagree, did i consent, or am I simply in compliance for not attempting to stop the theft. The answer is simple. There is no 'people' and there is no 'society' in such matters, only individuals.

Do you see that now? Probably not.

What benefits I am suppose to be enjoying by having my property confiscated by the government? What consent did I give to the government or the constitution? The consent of being born here? You tyrants just love these questions.

 

[bendog]

Jesus was crucified because he called on the people to ignore the Jewish Royalty and Temple Priests' allocation of wealth, and Paul preached a gospel of communal ownership.

 

[Kosh]

This whole "coercion" line of argumentation is foolish. Taxes aren't theft. We have laws created by the people for the people. If one does not like the laws in place based on the redistributive effect, then work to change those laws.

Otherwise, you are free to leave the country if you don't want to play by the rules. These people want to enjoy the USA lifestyle but they don't want to pay for it or at least play by the rules. That's sad.

It really is that simple.

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

A very interesting if not absurd post ^^^. Without going into the philosophy of the law, what in your mind allows you to proffer that theft is not defined by the taking of something of value when the legal or moral authority supports such an act?

Would it be just to return borrowed weapons to a lunatic? Or is that theft and a violation of the lunatics Second Amendment Right?

Ripe with far left propaganda.

 

[Avatar4321]

I find it amazing that anyone can say with a straight face that we have a system of unfettered capitalism. And that system is somehow responsible for the economic downturns.

I also don't understand how people still can't figure out that economic downturns are good things. They are the free markets built in correction system. See when people become corrupt, inefficient, idle, dishonest, etc, there is an economic correction. This is to allow us the chance to fix the behavior creating the problems. It's natures way of self regulating our behavior.

 

[RightDown]

Unfortunately for him economics is really about people and how they actually behave. And they behave best in an unfettered capitalist system. And that system has done more for poor people in 300 years than the Catholic Church has done in 2000 years.

What is it about you guys?

Why does everything have to be about absolutes? Nobody is going to destroy capitalism. Unfettered capitalism led to the Great Depression in 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008. Why would anyone advocate that?

The pope wants responsible capitalism. Capitalism that is aware of the human impacts of its decisions.

No. Constant government interference lead to both of those.

Had Hoover continued the policies of Harding/Coolege, the 1929 collapse would have been followed by a quick recovery. Instead, Hoover, a self proclaimed progressive Republican, tried to micro manage the economy and lost to FDR (who ran to the right of Hoover) and then turned around and regulated the economy more.

It's not a coincidence that when the government regulated the economy to a high degree, that depressions and recessions last a long time and the recoveries are slower if there are any at all.

The Pope wants people to take care of the poor. I completely agree with that. And we can take care of the poor among us without the government taking money from anyone to do it.

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, we have a Pope that seems to be preaching the gospel of Christ. What heresy!

Progressivism never was and will never be the Gospel of Christ.

You don't speak for the Christ, now do you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What is it about you guys?

Why does everything have to be about absolutes? Nobody is going to destroy capitalism. Unfettered capitalism led to the Great Depression in 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008. Why would anyone advocate that?

The pope wants responsible capitalism. Capitalism that is aware of the human impacts of its decisions.

No. Constant government interference lead to both of those.

Had Hoover continued the policies of Harding/Coolege, the 1929 collapse would have been followed by a quick recovery. Instead, Hoover, a self proclaimed progressive Republican, tried to micro manage the economy and lost to FDR (who ran to the right of Hoover) and then turned around and regulated the economy more.

It's not a coincidence that when the government regulated the economy to a high degree, that depressions and recessions last a long time and the recoveries are slower if there are any at all.

The Pope wants people to take care of the poor. I completely agree with that. And we can take care of the poor among us without the government taking money from anyone to do it.

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

The boom and bust cycle, which is an Austrian school theory, is the result of central planning and inflationary monetary policy, not capitalism. Where do you fuckers learn history from? It's almost embarrassing to watch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, we have a Pope that seems to be preaching the gospel of Christ. What heresy!

The gospel involves theft? That is news to me...

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's... etc...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you believe the government owns everything and then sets forth to allowance what individuals may have?

 

[bendog]

No. Constant government interference lead to both of those.

Had Hoover continued the policies of Harding/Coolege, the 1929 collapse would have been followed by a quick recovery. Instead, Hoover, a self proclaimed progressive Republican, tried to micro manage the economy and lost to FDR (who ran to the right of Hoover) and then turned around and regulated the economy more.

It's not a coincidence that when the government regulated the economy to a high degree, that depressions and recessions last a long time and the recoveries are slower if there are any at all.

The Pope wants people to take care of the poor. I completely agree with that. And we can take care of the poor among us without the government taking money from anyone to do it.

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

The boom and bust cycle, which is an Austrian school theory, is the result of central planning and inflationary monetary policy, not capitalism. Where do you fuckers learn history from? It's almost embarrassing to watch.

your post not only contains an oxymoron but is literally unitelligible, and you end it with profanity aiming at another's intelligence. Excellent.