Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdpreacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz;11466744]If you read my original response you will see that I pointed out where I think government does a better job and where private charities are particularly useful, so I’m not sure where you get the preference for a centralized approach from ( it was simply the poster’s choice to focus on the role I assigned as best suited to government).
Click to expand...
Government is corrupt and does not do a good job with charity.
A charity can’t decide on zoning regulations, where to run a highway or where to place parks/services/transportation hubs
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges.

That’s not the job of charity, it’s the job of government. That in no way enhances your arguments.
Multifaceted means just that: multiple approaches that involve government and private organizations/individuals working together. To my knowledge there are several areas, including services to the homeless, where that sort of cooperation has been particularly fruitful.
Click to expand...
Be more specific. I’ll bet we can find fraud somewhere along that chain.
 
BCole said:
My above post has proven to be correct as 0bama uses Pope Francis’ (translated) words to call for more Gov’t regulation which is not the solution for income inequality, but is in fact the cause. Those loaded words have proven to be useful to Satan.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F12%2F04%2Fobama-quotes-pope-francis_n_4386622.html&ei=NLOgUu2BEImrsQTCjIHQDQ&usg=AFQjCNHgrDRF0jx97xdhObeUvZDTB1qSrA&sig2=rwqI4f_SOGNbDgRn58Ck3A
Click to expand...
Let’s consider who is best suited to determine what is “useful to Satan”, a man who represents Christ on earth and who can cite a truckload of saints’ radical views on poverty to support his statements (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St Francis), or any random person with an audience?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
See the above paragraphs in discussion.

But if you just want to pick out something to refute, the easiest place to begin is with Pope Francis’ statements on the nonviolent nature of “authentic” Islam:

(Bold mine.)
Click to expand...
And the problem with the Pope’s words on Islam is what? Is he saying something radically different from his predecessors?

Given the choice between a man who can close his eyes, spin around randomly and come up with 1000s of references in Catholic teachings for each one of his utterances and a person dependent on ??what exactly, I know whose words I’d choose to stand on.
 
freeRadical said:
LOL, that made me laugh. The Democrats do not teach free-market capitalism. It’s not a free market when they put their hands in it and regulate it into oblivion. **Minimum wage does not equal free-market, vilifying profits does not equal free-market, bailing out losers does not equal free-market, etc.**The Democrats think they know better then everyone and they should run the economy.

I’m going to say this to my econ professors, it will be a good laugh.
Click to expand...
If the bolded part is true then Pope John Paul II was not for free market capitalism. Read Centesimus Annus.
 
ProVobis said:
For the record, there were a number of regulations put into place after the Stock Market crash of 1987. I didn’t hear any one calling the big government out on that one.
Click to expand...
“10 years of ultra-liberalism have resulted in a US financial system whose future may only be assured with the help of federal government handouts” (Albert, Michel: Capitalism Against Capitalism)
 
CrossofChrist said:
“10 years of ultra-liberalism have resulted in a US financial system whose future may only be assured with the help of federal government handouts” (Albert, Michel: Capitalism Against Capitalism)
Click to expand...
He wrote that book in 1991, so he clearly isn’t referring to the present day. It also is an open question what he means by ultra-liberalism. He could be referring to neo-liberalism, which is a more free market term.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
He wrote that book in 1991, so he clearly isn’t referring to the present day.
Click to expand...
The stock market crash in '87 isn’t really the present day either. 🤷
He could be referring to neo-liberalism, which is a more free market term.
Click to expand...
I think that’s what he meant. Pope JPII wasn’t very fond of neoliberalism either.
 
I think the problem is that for many they form their religious views to conform to their political views. It should be the other way around. This goes for both sides of the political divide.
 
seekerz said:
And the problem with the Pope’s words on Islam is what? Is he saying something radically different from his predecessors?

Given the choice between a man who can close his eyes, spin around randomly and come up with 1000s of references in Catholic teachings for each one of his utterances and a person dependent on ??what exactly, I know whose words I’d choose to stand on.
Click to expand...
Ok, tell us where Catholic theology teaches that “authentic” Islam is nonviolent?

The problem with the pope’s words in this specific sentence is that it is flat wrong on the facts and amounts to, at best, wishful thinking. Need I explain the problem with founding policy on wrong facts?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Ok, tell us where Catholic theology teaches that “authentic” Islam is nonviolent?

The problem with the pope’s words in this specific sentence is that it is flat wrong on the facts and amounts to, at best, wishful thinking. Need I explain the problem with founding policy on wrong facts?
Click to expand...
What is “authentic” is vague.
 
So wait…is Pope saying that me skipping out on family to engage in Black Friday shopping is a sin or not?
 
CrossofChrist said:
What is “authentic” is vague.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering if perhaps the legacy of Sufi Islam has given rise to a sincerely mistaken notion of what “authentic” Islam is. If it were the prevalent sect of Islam, we might well not be smiling when we hear the phrase “authentic” Islam.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
I’m wondering if perhaps the legacy of Sufi Islam has given rise to a sincerely mistaken notion of what “authentic” Islam is. If it were the prevalent sect of Islam, we might well not be smiling when we hear the phrase “authentic” Islam.
Click to expand...
Some have suggested that Islam needs a Reformation which should warm the heats of Catholics.
 
seekerz said:
If you read my original response you will see that I pointed out where I think government does a better job and where private charities are particularly useful, so I’m not sure where you get the preference for a centralized approach from ( it was simply the poster’s choice to focus on the role I assigned as best suited to government). A charity can’t decide on zoning regulations, where to run a highway or where to place parks/services/transportation hubs (all things that impact poverty in terms of access to jobs, safe housing environments etc) - that’s the job of government, beginning with local government.

Multifaceted means just that: multiple approaches that involve government and private organizations/individuals working together. To my knowledge there are several areas, including services to the homeless, where that sort of cooperation has been particularly fruitful.
Click to expand...
Despite your protestations, you continue to show a preference, here and earlier, for big government as some mega-solution for all that ails society. When posters point out to you the greater efficiency and more direct efficacy of local efforts, you either change the subject or introduce off-topic subjects like zoning regulations, which have zero to do with adapting buildings to residential use in currently residential zones. I’m not sure if you just don’t want to deal with the reality that governments leave a lot to be desired as lone distributors to the needy, or whether you are just confused as to the subject under discussion.

The subjects under discussion are:
The moral dangers of runaway capitalism
The possibilities and limitations of government in providing for economic equality (i.e., topic of Pope’s address = inequality)

Shifting responsibility for the needy to the private sector (small organizations and individuals) does not subtract from the role of government in infrastructure, public works, zoning, and public safety. What would enhance such a shift would be the proper assistance of government in coordinating (not centralizing, big difference) and/or in other forms of cooperation between government and the private sector.

I remind you again, that every time members of the public have suggested more private involvement/initiative in works of charity, it is the Left, including the Catholic Left, which has vigorously opposed that and has advocated instead for expanded government as “charity.”
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
See the above paragraphs in discussion.

But if you just want to pick out something to refute, the easiest place to begin is with Pope Francis’ statements on the nonviolent nature of “authentic” Islam:

(Bold mine.)
Click to expand...
I don’t consider 54-56 to be a condemnation of capitalism. I think it says what I said before - we have to be aware of the worship of money; we can’t expect capitalism to solve all the problems of the poor and that the state has a role to play.

As far as the Pope’s statement on Islam, I know some Muslims that say what the Pope said here, but Islam is a huge faith with many different facets. I wonder want a person to say that I am the same type of Christian as David Koresh.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Ok, tell us where Catholic theology teaches that “authentic” Islam is nonviolent?

The problem with the pope’s words in this specific sentence is that it is flat wrong on the facts and amounts to, at best, wishful thinking. Need I explain the problem with founding policy on wrong facts?
Click to expand...
Oh, I think JPII encapsulated the heart of the matter (regarding both authentic Islam and authentic Christianity) in these words:
“All true holiness comes from God, who is called ‘The Holy One’ in the sacred books of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Your holy Qur’an calls God ‘Al-Quddus,’ as in the verse: ‘He is God, besides whom there is no other, the Sovereign, the Holy, the (source of) Peace’ (Qur’an 59, 23). The prophet Hosea links God’s holiness with his forgiving love for mankind, a love which surpasses our ability to comprehend: ‘I am God, not man; I am the Holy One in your midst and have no wish to destroy’ (Ho 11:9). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches his disciples that holiness consists in assuming, in our human way, the qualities of God’s own holiness which he has revealed to mankind: ‘Be holy, even as your heavenly Father is holy’ (Mt 5:48).
Click to expand...
“Thus the Qur’an calls you to uprightness (al-salah), to conscientious devotion (al-taqwa), to goodness (al-husn), and to virtue (al-birr), which is described as believing in God, giving one’s wealth to the needy, freeing captives, being constant in prayer, keeping one’s word, and being patient in times of suffering, hardship and violence (Qur’an 2:177). Similarly, St. Paul stresses the love we must show toward all, and the duty to lead a blameless life in the sight of God: ‘May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race as much as we love you. And may he so confirm your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless in the sight of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus Christ comes with all his saints’ (1 Th 3:12-13).”
Click to expand...
[

Source](http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...can-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm) (and a very enlightening one I might add)
 
seekerz said:
Oh, I think JPII encapsulated the heart of the matter (regarding both authentic Islam and authentic Christianity) in these words:
Click to expand...
I hope it is obvious that JPII is quoting the Koran and showing parallels Christianity, not declarimg what “authentic” Islam is or is not. He is certainly not claiming that “authentic” Islam is nonviolent.

In fact, one can find nonviolent passages in the Koran but, in contrast to the Bible, which graduates toward nonviolence, the Koran graduates toward violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top