Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
I guess the order of moral gravity might be:
Shooting and killing someone in cold blood is worse than having an abortion (or maybe the same), which is worse than persuading people not to reduce their greenhouse gases by wrongly telling them that AGW is not happening (as if they are a science authority with the expertise and right to tell people that & thereby causing others to fall into sin), which is worse than emitting greenhouse gases well beyond what is necessary to live a good and decent life (that is, refusing to become energy/resource efficient/conservative within one’s means and go on alt energy when feasible when there are plenty of off-the-shelf options).

Since I’m not shooting or killing anyone or having an abortion, I need to focus on my more minor sins, such as emitting greenhouse gases beyond what is necessary.

Others in worse state of sin should be focusing on stopping killing people in cold blood and having abortions. That certainly comes first, but they can also multi-task and reduce their GHG emissions at the same time 🙂
Click to expand...
So how does this attitude carryover when one enters the voting booth?
 
SuperLuigi said:
It’s not that simple. This isn’t an issue of doctrine, and it’s important for everyone to know all sides to an issue before making public statements.

Santorum’s statements here are more than justified, especially with the scandal surrounding man-made climate change.
Click to expand...
Well, if we listen to officials at the Vatican. There is no scandal- only those who accept reality and those who deny it.

Man made global warming is not controversial accept to the fringe.

Everyone accepts it.
 
ringil said:
Well, if we listen to officials at the Vatican. There is no scandal- only those who accept reality and those who deny it.

Man made global warming is not controversial accept to the fringe.

Everyone accepts it.
Click to expand...
Yes :tiphat:
 
Path_Finder said:
Fringe?

To me, that is only language that marginalizes others if you go with that. Name-calling and no less than that.
Click to expand...
How else could one describe Bernie Sanders and the Tea Party? 🤷 They are both further to the left and right respectively than most Americans. Fringe can be an accurate descriptor. In terms of man-made contributions to climate change being a reality, only a tiny fringe minority of the scientific community would deny this.
 
ringil said:
Well, if we listen to officials at the Vatican. There is no scandal- only those who accept reality and those who deny it.

Man made global warming is not controversial accept to the fringe.

Everyone accepts it.
Click to expand...
Except those who don’t. And as the years go by with increased CO2 and no warming the fringe gets bigger and bigger
 
stinkcat_14 said:
A couple of questions here: How do we know when regulation becomes socialist? In the US, neither party has done anything significant to reduce the amount of regulation, so are we already socialist? Is Cap and trade socialist?

Also, who are our anti-capitalist politicians? In the US, perhaps Bernie Sanders is one, but he is just one person with relatively little influence. Some might argue that Obama is anti-capitalist, but the 1% have done better under Obama than they did under Bush. So is Bush an anti-capitalist? How do we tell when someone is anti-capitalist? Perhaps I am anti-capitalist and I don’t even know it.
Click to expand...
When people say they are anti-capitalist, shouldn’t we tend to take them at their word?

When groups rally against pipelines and use studies and regulation not as means to mitigate environmental damage, but to shut down the project completely, then why not take them at their word?

When people say that they want to radically transform the economy, and rail against capitalism as exploitative, heartless and greedy, then why not take them at their word?

The one percent do as well under socialism, feudalism, or any other system as they do under capitalism.
Capitalism is not defined by the existence of the one percent.

Whether or not America is already socialist, suffice to say that if those who rally for revolutionary changes to the economy are not rallying to make the economy more free enterprise or less directed by government control and government interference. They are rallying to make it more socialist, more subject to the dictates of the experts and the elites who know what is best for us.

Suffice it to say that they are not rallying to make it more socialist in the Christian sense either, and a return to the celibacy and privations of monastic life. This is all about experts and elites seizing the economy in order to direct it in the direction that they see fit.
And that is socialism, as socialism has always been practiced since the decline of the monasteries and the rise of Marx.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
There is no requirement to support such schemes. On the other hand, nobody can seriously argue (as some have here) that these schemes are socialist in nature. It is certainly a reasonable thing to debate, how if at all, governments should respond to climate change or other environmental issues.
Click to expand...
Massive taxation in the name of equality is socialism.

To each according to his needs, and from each according to his ability is the slogan which defines socialism in this Marxist era.

I am on the side of the debate that does not want the economy to be massively taxed and directed by elites and experts in order to bring out social and environmental change.
Where are you in that debate?
 
Vouthon said:
How else could one describe Bernie Sanders and the Tea Party? 🤷 They are both further to the left and right respectively than most Americans. Fringe can be an accurate descriptor. In terms of man-made contributions to climate change being a reality, only a tiny fringe minority of the scientific community would deny this.
Click to expand...
Yes, fringe simply describes those of the far ends of an issue.

And Athropologic Warming deniers are on the fringe of an issue which has been pretty settled by science- to the point that an extremely conservative entity (not in politics but in approach) like the Church acknowledges it.
 
estesbob said:
Except those who don’t. And as the years go by with increased CO2 and no warming the fringe gets bigger and bigger
Click to expand...
So the highest echelons of the Church- pretty wise men- have fallen pretty to a big lie perpetuated by the left?
 
Darryl1958 said:
Massive taxation in the name of equality is socialism.

To each according to his needs, and from each according to his ability is the slogan which defines socialism in this Marxist era.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite quotes- and not at all inconsistent with Catholic Social teaching.
 
Vouthon said:
How else could one describe Bernie Sanders and the Tea Party? 🤷 They are both further to the left and right respectively than most Americans. Fringe can be an accurate descriptor. In terms of man-made contributions to climate change being a reality, only a tiny fringe minority of the scientific community would deny this.
Click to expand...
Vouthon, I realize that you are not from America and so might need to be cut some slack on this. But when you call the Tea Party “fringe” I want you to point out which stand they take is on the fringe? Note that their positions on the issues are not different from what Reagan was saying in 1980’s when he was winning landslides.

Ishii
 
Darryl1958 said:
Massive taxation in the name of equality is socialism.

To each according to his needs, and from each according to his ability is the slogan which defines socialism in this Marxist era.

I am on the side of the debate that does not want the economy to be massively taxed and directed by elites and experts in order to bring out social and environmental change.
Where are you in that debate?
Click to expand...
ringil said:
One of my favorite quotes- and not at all inconsistent with Catholic Social teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. It is a phrase born of the false idea that we can create a heaven on earth.

Btw, you still haven’t answered my question: what Catholic teaching is Rick Santorum disobeying ?

Ishii
 
Simply put… another reason (in a long list) to dismiss Santorum as a legitimate candidate.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
There is no requirement to support such schemes. On the other hand, nobody can seriously argue (as some have here) that these schemes are socialist in nature. It is certainly a reasonable thing to debate, how if at all, governments should respond to climate change or other environmental issues.
Click to expand...
Darryl1958 said:
When people say they are anti-capitalist, shouldn’t we tend to take them at their word?

When groups rally against pipelines and use studies and regulation not as means to mitigate environmental damage, but to shut down the project completely, then why not take them at their word?

When people say that they want to radically transform the economy, and rail against capitalism as exploitative, heartless and greedy, then why not take them at their word?

Whether or not America is already socialist, suffice to say that if those who rally for revolutionary changes to the economy are not rallying to make the economy more free enterprise or less directed by government control and government interference. They are rallying to make it more socialist, more subject to the dictates of the experts and the elites who know what is best for us.

Suffice it to say that they are not rallying to make it more socialist in the Christian sense either, and a return to the celibacy and privations of monastic life. This is all about experts and elites seizing the economy in order to direct it in the direction that they see fit.
And that is socialism, as socialism has always been practiced since the decline of the monasteries and the rise of Marx.
Click to expand...
Darryl, what Stinkcat does not understand is that socialism can be implemented in a piecemeal way - a little at a time, one “tragedy at a time” (to paraphrase an Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel). Just because they realize that they cannot impose socialism on America all at once, nor even blatantly announce their goals doesn’t make them any less socialist, nor does it make them any less dangerous. Indeed, as you point out, it is difficult to conclude otherwise when you take into account the things they say, “spread the wealth around” (Obama), and of course the socialization of 1/6 of our economy that is the ultimate goal of Obamacare is a giant leap as well.

Ishii
 
estesbob said:
call it you want but they would be devastating to the poor & middle class in this country and would have an even more negative impact on those living in developing countries.

Fortunately I am sure the pope is going to mention in his encyclical the need not to overburden the poor with whatever solutions governments implement . Unfortunately I believe that most of the left well ignore this .
Click to expand...
Since nobody has really proposed anything, we don’t what effect it would have on anybody. There are certainly things that can be done that would have a minimal impact on the poor and middle class. For example, if we swapped payroll taxes (which are very harmful to the poor and middle class) for a pollution tax it could reduce pollution and make the poor and middle class better off. But like I said, nobody has proposed anything, so blanket statements are pretty meaningless.
 
ishii said:
…and of course the socialization of 1/6 of our economy that is the ultimate goal of Obamacare is a giant leap as well.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishii… why can’t the ultimate goal be that more people have access to healthcare for the betterment of society? Why so negative a view?
 
lynnvinc said:
Since I’m not shooting or killing anyone or having an abortion, I need to focus on my more minor sins, such as emitting greenhouse gases beyond what is necessary.

Others in worse state of sin should be focusing on stopping killing people in cold blood and having abortions. That certainly comes first, but they can also multi-task and reduce their GHG emissions at the same time 🙂
Click to expand...
Let us hope, lynnvinc, that when you enter the voting booth, you focus on stopping the ones wanting to promote abortion.

That was my main point.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top