Pope Francis a Marxist?

[DictatorCzar]

yeah, the largest denomination in America is the Catholic Church, but if you add all the Protestants, that’s more than the amount of Catholics.

 

[Maximus1]

Very radical?

 

[phil19034]

This leaves us with the Republicans, who when it comes to financial matters, have a much less empathetic policy, basically along the lines of, you’re in this by yourself, if you’re struggling, that’s too bad, you need to just pull yourself up by your bootstraps etc. However, they embrace Christianity, or at least appear to, hence get a lot of the Christian vote.

This is not an accurate view of the Republicans. But I know it’s one pushed by anti-religion / anti-Christianity members of the media

It’s not that the Republicans say “you’re in this by yourself” - they don’t. Republicans are all for helping the poor. However, the disagreement is on who is responsible and can help the best.

Republicans believe in the Catholic concept of subsidiarity. Republicans believe the following order should be used when dealing with social issues, plus other domestic issues:

• Non-profits and community based organizations are the first line of defense
• local governments are the 2nd line of defense
• county govt are the 3rd line of defense
• state govt are the 4th line of defense
• federal govt is the last line of defense

Republicans would much rather see the federal govt provide unrestricted grants to states and local govt that need assistance than create massive “one size fits all” programs.

The difference is that Democrats have inherited the view from the old “Federalist” party, where issues should be handled from top down approach. Republicans have inherited the view from the old “Anti-Federalists” party where issues should be handled from a bottom up approach.

As FYI : there are a number of studies that indicate that Republicans donate more money to the poor than Democrats do. Democrats tend to donate more to political and cultural programs (museums, colleges, etc). Plus some other studies indicate that Republicans tend to donate more to charity in general as well.

Point is: Republicans are not this anti-poor, evil group of millions of people. Republicans want to help the poor, but they simply believe that non-profits and state/local govts are far better positioned to provide tailored help than a “bull in a china shop” approach the federal govt would provide.

I hope this helps.

God Bless

 

[Polak]

And just to be clear, The US isn’t far from the only place where a Catholic has this problem, but I mentioned the US because

a) Most people of this forum appear to be from there

and

b) The link was pasted from a website called ‘American thinker’.

I mean, the UK (where I live) is far worse in terms of political options. At least the Republican party are socially conservative in some areas.

The Conservative party here isn’t conservative at all, but despite that, I don’t see as many attacks on Pope Francis from right wing conservatives in Britain as I do from right wing conservatives in the US.

 

[phil19034]

The Conservative party here isn’t conservative at all, but despite that, I don’t see as many attacks on Pope Francis from right wing conservatives in Britain as I do from right wing conservatives in the US.

In all honesty, I think this is also because Pope Francis is an Argentinian. There has always been an animosity from Argentinians to Americans. For example, they hate that we call ourselves Americans because they believe the name of their continent is “America” and the “North” and “South” part are just adjectives.

While we Americans believe there is no continent called America, and that America is the name of our country. We American believe there are TWO continents in the western hemisphere named “North America” and “South America” and the north & south are not adjectives.

We believe everyone living in South America are “South Americans” and everyone living in “North America” are “North Americans”

However, part of the problem is that the Argentinian view is not limited to Argentina, as the Spanish disagreed with the English back during the colonial times that there were two continents. The Spanish always thought it was just one.

Another part of the problem is that you will be hard pressed to find many people living in Mexico or Central America willing to be identified as a North American, even though they are. Central America is part of the North American continent.

The term “Central America” comes from the Spanish view that there is only one American continent and the “North”, “Central” and “South” are just adjectives. But to us Americans, “Central America” is simply a region name, like “Middle East” or “Far East”

My point: Argentinians and Americans are often a little guarded or suspicious of one another (esp when it comes to politics - even if the average American isn’t aware of it. And that’s where I think MOST of this stems from. Because everytime Pope Francis says something negative about capitalism, American who are aware of the Argentinian/American friction are quick to think it’s a direct jab at the USA.

God Bless

 

[Maximus1]

If I was a Republican as you identify them, I would point out that Trump has been given discretion with a half trillion dollars and within days fired his oversight. You state the classic arguments, I just wonder if there is any truth to them that remains.
Subsidiary is a worthy ambition, but it is limited and includes exception when it is limited.
One of the principle criticisms should be that we find the greatest inequalities, bigotry, and unfairness at state and local levels of government. This of course is not absolute, but it is a true statement in terms of deviance from a basic norm.
People like Bernie are clearly dedicated to the lower classes in a way that Republicans generally are not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One thing a person looking at the U.S. from the outside should realize is that when it comes to the poor and working people, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties. Neither one does anything of significance for the truly poor, and hasn’t for years. Neither one really does all that much for working people either. Both primarily serve the wealthy and powerful, which are sometimes the very same people.

The big differences between them are in social issues like abortion, homosexual “marriage”, gender anomalies, etc.

At risk of being wrong, I’m going to opine that the Pope’s economic and social ideas are Latin American in origin and don’t have a lot in common with American political thinking. Not much with European thinking either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I was a Republican as you identify them, I would point out that Trump has been given discretion with a half trillion dollars and within days fired his oversight.

It wouldn’t make any difference, nor will it make any difference who he appoints. He’ll be roundly condemned by the Democrat media anyway. Might as well get people who will actually follow his directives without disputing him in the media.

 

[phil19034]

Subsidiary is a worthy ambition, but it is limited and includes exception when it is limited.

I don’t see how subsidiarity has any limitations or exceptions.

The concept is simple: government decisions/services should be made/provided as close to the people as possible.

Sometimes that’s non-profits and city govts, sometimes that the federal govt.

The issue isn’t with subsidiarity. The issues are with disagreements regarding which level can handle a situation best due to:

1. disagreements between pro subsidiarity individuals who disagree with which level is appropriate in a given situation
2. and with people who prefer a top/down approach

 

[Maximus1]

What?
Apparently the subjective belief of ,“roundly condemned,” is a green light to have licsence and discretion to be socio-pathic.
And
therefore why not remove all oversight as well by creating sycophantic oversight.
I am having difficulty understanding your statement to include another interpretation. Maybe you can describe one.

 

[phil19034]

If I was a Republican as you identify them, I would point out that Trump has been given discretion with a half trillion dollars and within days fired his oversight.

I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

The bureaucracy is NOT an oversight on the President of the United States.

The executive branch bureaucracy works for the President.

The Congress and Supreme Court are the “oversight” or more properly called “check” on the President.

The President can’t fire Congress nor a Supreme Court Justice

 

[Ridgerunner]

Apparently the subjective belief of ,“roundly condemned,”

Hardly “subjective” on a media observer’s part when over 90% of the Democrat media reporting on Trump is negative.

 

[Maximus1]

The party of subsidiary caught for the half trillion Federal slush fund administered by one man in an election year. That covers the non- theoretical.
Subsidiary does recognise that it basically does not always meet objectives. Objectives rather than methods are paramount.
Subsidiary says that before you decide, well we did as good as we can that way, oh well, I guess that’s it; that some things should be done using Federal methods. Another words subsidiary should not be an excuse for a " half job" well done. That is the real objection.

 

[phil19034]

The party of subsidiary caught for the half trillion Federal slush fund administered by one man in an election year. That covers the non- theoretical.
Subsidiary does recognise that it basically does not always meet objectives. Objectives rather than methods are paramount.
Subsidiary says that before you decide, well we did as good as we can that way, oh well, I guess that’s it; that some things should be done using Federal methods. Another words subsidiary should not be an excuse for a " half job" well done. That is the real objection.

Still not sure what you are tying to say.

The State govts are not capable of providing trillions of dollars in stimulus.

Now, if you disagree with the stimulus, that’s a different argument, but only the Federal govt can give that amount of money.

Also, it’s not like one party only approved it. It was passed bipartisan.

 

[Maximus1]

90% negative has no significance in terms of truth. Bad leadership one would expect to be 90%.
We forget Trump has insulted more people nationally in three years than any ten president’s before him. He makes his own negative.
OTHERWIZE every president thinks the press unfair.