Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[Suudy]

Who would notice what fear is when the whole of a culture is immersed in it.

Ah, so only those outside are enlightened enough. Try coming living in Idaho and then we’ll see how much fear you might feel.

Until of course, there is a school shooting, which eventually is brushed under the carpet - a few concerned looking politicians, a few: “We’ll do this, we’ll look into that”. Then nothing.

No school shootings around here. In fact, very few murders. The only murder I can think of recently was actually a stabbing. There’s no fear of gun violence here.

1. Because half of the world’s wealth is owned by American land owners who are simply too powerful to be reckoned with.

I own, in total, about 5 acres (just over 2 hectares for you metric folk). I assure you, I have no power. My wife’s uncle owns nearly 400 acres (over 161 hectares). And I assure you, he has no more power than me. So spare us the landowner shtick. In fact, the richest politicians in the US are nearly all Democrats who oppose guns and are for significantly stricter gun control. It isn’t money and landowners blocking changes.

1. Because the illness is in the gun-ho / land of prosperity culture.

Ah, so we’re all sick in the head. Thanks for the tip. I’ll go attend my Gun Owners Anonymous meeting first thing Monday morning.

What the U.S. could do is spend less money on Arms development and more on social reform.

In fact, the US spends significantly more on social programs than defense. Look at the budget outlays of the federal government. From the government, see here for 1990 to 2010 spending.

In 2010:
Total spending: $3,456 billion
Defense spending: $768 billion (about 22% of total)
Payments to individuals: $2,285 (over 66% of total)

The US government spends nearly 3X more on social programs than on “Arms development.” And that’s just federal spending. Add in the state spending (which is pretty much 0 for “Arms development”) and the percentage on social programs is even larger.

So, the “Arms development” by the US isn’t the problem.

 

[friardchips]

Funny, I was under the impression that the UK is more of a police state than the U.S. From what I read and see on documentaries, Big Brother in the form of cameras are everywhere.

Anyway, pot, kettle, black. The UK’s history on the world stage is not immaculate either.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree and in spite of it all I hold you in high regard.

Cheers.

Thanks, likewise, nice talking with you!

I have no problem with Americans and I don’t think the U.K is any better in many ways.

We are all swaying in the same storm! (Like what you said!).

Take care.

 

[friardchips]

Ah, so only those outside are enlightened enough. Try coming living in Idaho and then we’ll see how much fear you might feel.

No school shootings around here. In fact, very few murders. The only murder I can think of recently was actually a stabbing. There’s no fear of gun violence here.

I own, in total, about 5 acres (just over 2 hectares for you metric folk). I assure you, I have no power. My wife’s uncle owns nearly 400 acres (over 161 hectares). And I assure you, he has no more power than me. So spare us the landowner shtick. In fact, the richest politicians in the US are nearly all Democrats who oppose guns and are for significantly stricter gun control. It isn’t money and landowners blocking changes.

Ah, so we’re all sick in the head. Thanks for the tip. I’ll go attend my Gun Owners Anonymous meeting first thing Monday morning.

In fact, the US spends significantly more on social programs than defense. Look at the budget outlays of the federal government. From the government, see here for 1990 to 2010 spending.

In 2010:
Total spending: $3,456 billion
Defense spending: $768 billion (about 22% of total)
Payments to individuals: $2,285 (over 66% of total)

The US government spends nearly 3X more on social programs than on “Arms development.” And that’s just federal spending. Add in the state spending (which is pretty much 0 for “Arms development”) and the percentage on social programs is even larger.

So, the “Arms development” by the US isn’t the problem.

Nice fairy tale. Thanks for the bedtime story. Now I feel so sleepy I might head off for sweet dreams! Thank you!

 

[Suudy]

Nice fairy tale. Thanks for the bedtime story. Now I feel so sleepy I might head off for sweet dreams! Thank you!

Which part is the fairy tale? The numbers from the government on spending? Or that we take your rants against the 2nd amendment seriously?

 

[friardchips]

Ah, so only those outside are enlightened enough. Try coming living in Idaho and then we’ll see how much fear you might feel.

In the land of the free, and the first choice in argument is grubby violence, albeit vocal.

You just proved EXACTLY what I meant.

Thank you.

:clapping:

 

[friardchips]

Ah, so only those outside are enlightened enough. Try coming living in Idaho and then we’ll see how much fear you might feel

Or maybe you did not mean how this sounds as this does sound as if you are attempting to threaten me? :dts:

That was up to 2010. You don’t happen to have access to more current figures by any chance? Proportionately, government spending on social reform should be immensely high, compared to spending on arms. What would be more interesting to see, is WHERE and HOW more recent spending figures have been distributed on social reform, and the results of such. You probably don’t have access to that info. though. Considering the whole U.S. spying scandal, it would be understandable to assume, that those figures were misleading.

---

To the OP: fear breeds fear.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks, Brendan. Notice the emphasis is on defence. Will read again in more depth later. We are certainly not called to pacifism

But it answered the question that you posed…

The document says nothing about arms profiteering or irresponsible selling of arms.

Why should it? And did you have any particular instances of profiteering or irresponsible selling of arms that you are thinking of?

It must be a long job to enumerate the military ‘defence’ capabilities of the U.S.

Funny how this military might doesn’t extend to defence, in reality, but only ever to revenge or gain.

Actually, I thought the US military did a great job in WW-II, but I suppose that there might be some who considered D-Day and Guadalcanal to be offensive actions. On the defensive side, the US military was probably the deciding force in keeping the Soviet Union out of Western Europe.

 

[Suudy]

Or maybe you did not mean how this sounds as this does sound as if you are attempting to threaten me? :dts:

I means exactly what I said in the original: there’s nothing to fear. There was no threat. It was to point out where I live in Idaho there is no fear of gun violence.

That was up to 2010. You don’t happen to have access to more current figures by any chance?

Do you really think defense spending has increased under Obama? But fine, here’s the estimates from the White House (here). Go to table 8.1. From that, it projects out to 2020. But here are the 2014 actuals:

Total spending: $3,506 billion
Defense: $596 billion (about 17%)
Non-defense (excluding debt payments): $2,680 (about 76%)

The White House doesn’t break it down into payments to individuals such as the census numbers, but it does show that the total defense spending percentage has dropped since 2010.

Proportionately, government spending on social reform should be immensely high, compared to spending on arms. What would be more interesting to see, is WHERE and HOW more recent spending figures have been distributed on social reform, and the results of such.

Indeed. We’ve spent billions upon billions since the War on Poverty was declared, and it has done, at best, nothing and at worst, made thing worse. But regardless, the point is that the US does exactly what you say you want it to do. It spends far more on social programs than the military.

You probably don’t have access to that info. though. Considering the whole U.S. spying scandal, it would be understandable to assume, that those figures were misleading.

Those numbers are available in the White House report. If you want to sort through the 364 pages of it, you can find it. Start looking at table 8.5 and later. It breaks out spending by program. From there, it points out that in 2014 the US spent $2,238 in what it calls “Human resource programs,” which include programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP (food stamps), housing assistance, etc. And that doesn’t include other programs like farm subsidies, energy subsidies, etc. This is nearly 3.5 times more than what was spent on military and arms.

And I have no idea what the “U.S. spying scandal” has to do with the numbers. The numbers are freely available to examine. And there are a large number of watchdog groups who do exactly that.

 

[friardchips]

But it answered the question that you posed…

Why should it? And did you have any particular instances of profiteering or irresponsible selling of arms that you are thinking of?

Actually, I thought the US military did a great job in WW-II, but I suppose that there might be some who considered D-Day and Guadalcanal to be offensive actions. On the defensive side, the US military was probably the deciding force in keeping the Soviet Union out of Western Europe.

No one says that Christianity is about pacifism. No one has said the U.S did not help near the end of WWII. I don’t see why you keep pursing this line of debate.

The emphasis when on guns and war breeds over zealous attitudes in favour of a gun mentality. This leads to irrational reliance on guns and an inability to draw back and decide in what capacity defence is called for. What does ‘defence’ mean.

In case you didn’t know it, it wasn’t just the U.S who was embroiled in the Cold War troubles. I actually put the end of the Cold War, not down to the U.S, or to the U.K, but to the spiritual realms and dominions and the prayers of a now-saint. In fact, it is said, that politicians were not keen on one of the Catholic Church events which I think was responsible for the taming of the Cold War. Look now. Russia wants to spend 3 trillion on arms. If it were not for western politicians back then, causing obstruction, this might not be the current situation.

You must have your head in a golden bubble. Look at the world. Look at the death toll of people murdered by guns. Not all deaths are by gun, but guns are used to back up the those who do it by other means. It is not a bad situation or out of control. It is worse than pitiful.

The U.S is capable of taking out who it wants. The U.S got that man from the West who was beheading people. So if the U.S can single out a target and be sure it was him they managed to get, then they can do a whole lot more, like help Syrians and Iraqi families against IS. You can do what you want when you want. And this help is always very selective and very self-concerned.

And you talk about the Cold War. What about now then, with all the spying on civilians and other countries. Maybe the Cold War never left the heart of the American government.

 

[friardchips]

I means exactly what I said in the original: there’s nothing to fear. There was no threat. It was to point out where I live in Idaho there is no fear of gun violence.

Do you really think defense spending has increased under Obama? But fine, here’s the estimates from the White House (here). Go to table 8.1. From that, it projects out to 2020. But here are the 2014 actuals:

Total spending: $3,506 billion
Defense: $596 billion (about 17%)
Non-defense (excluding debt payments): $2,680 (about 76%)

The White House doesn’t break it down into payments to individuals such as the census numbers, but it does show that the total defense spending percentage has dropped since 2010.

Indeed. We’ve spent billions upon billions since the War on Poverty was declared, and it has done, at best, nothing and at worst, made thing worse. But regardless, the point is that the US does exactly what you say you want it to do. It spends far more on social programs than the military.

Those numbers are available in the White House report. If you want to sort through the 364 pages of it, you can find it. Start looking at table 8.5 and later. It breaks out spending by program. From there, it points out that in 2014 the US spent $2,238 in what it calls “Human resource programs,” which include programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP (food stamps), housing assistance, etc. And that doesn’t include other programs like farm subsidies, energy subsidies, etc. This is nearly 3.5 times more than what was spent on military and arms.

And I have no idea what the “U.S. spying scandal” has to do with the numbers. The numbers are freely available to examine. And there are a large number of watchdog groups who do exactly that.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I obviously misread it. It was the break between the end of the sentence in question and the next paragraph. But I take your word for it.

And thank you for these figures. I’ll have a look through them. Maybe not all 300 odd pages.

Interesting to have them up on here actually. Quite a resource!

What I meant by ‘spying programs’ was a few years back when media reported the U.S was spying on people and countries under the guise of anti-terror. This is no new news. However, my first point is, that if the Obama administration has spent less on military, going by the evidence you have produced here, if it indeed reads that way, then does this include the money spent on spying technology? And if this has been going on for a long time then maybe the money used for this was not placed under ‘arms’ or in the obvious category. A huge amount must have been spent on this technology and the networks of government branches working on the project. Where does the money feature for all these years on such endeavours? My second point, is that this is the fear inducing world I was talking about. The summit of a world built on shakily naive ideals, that might seem okay on the outside, but segregate many minorities. Does an international spying network really sound freeing. Is this what the world has come to? So the point: wouldn’t it make more sense to really combat with compassion rather than military advancement? Why can’t money be spent on trying to learn about other cultures. What does the foreign cultural minister, if you have one, actually do? Why do people get disgruntled? Why do they lose the plot? Is western politics just a sham that sets a bad impression on the rest of the world? Are we hypocrites? So much so, that we get hordes of barbarians, twisted and hypnotised in their extreme fundamentalist theocracy, hating with every breath all of us, for what? What do we represent to those people? This has been going on since the time of WWI. This is where guns take the world. And we still don’t have any answers?! We can’t even go and rescue innocent women and children from slaughter because…why? The West owes it to them to do so because we helped majorly in the last century to contribute to their mess.

 

[friardchips]

Indeed. We’ve spent billions upon billions since the War on Poverty was declared, and it has done, at best, nothing and at worst, made thing worse.

Surely some mouths were fed? Is this a waste of money because it doesn’t bring obvious profit?

How has the U.S distributed the funding to tackle poverty that it could come to nothing?!

 

[Midwest88]

Seriously? I’ll take the Pope seriously when he talks about morality and ethics. This is the guy who invited an extreme environmental activist to host a conference at the Vatican, and this is the man who is silent on the decision of same-sex “marriage” in both Ireland and the US.

 

[friardchips]

Seriously? I’ll take the Pope seriously when he talks about morality and ethics. This is the guy who invited an extreme environmental activist to host a conference at the Vatican, and this is the man who is silent on the decision of same-sex “marriage” in both Ireland and the US.

Probably silent from exasperation. What is there to say? Sometimes things speak for themselves.

 

[Midwest88]

I also have to ask those who believe everything a Pope says regardless of whether he is speaking from the throne in an explicit statement he’s speaking from the throne and it’s on a matter of faith and morals, was Pope Benedict IX who was elected somewhere between the ages of 10-18–most likely 13, and was a known homosexual who had open sex parties in the Lateran palace, sold the Papacy only to get it back again, and was so mad that when he was crowned he went screaming down the halls, “I am Caesar! I am Jesus Christ!”, was he right too?: Was he Jesus and Caesar? eek: The Pope is always the Pope, but his area of infallibility is very limited in scope and he is not immune to constructive criticism of his statements. I will always be loyal to The Pope, but unless he is acting within his powers I don’t have to agree or obey.

This. The Pope should talk about what he knows, similar to what scientists or a professors. A sociology professor talking about the urban poor and its connection to welfare, or a scientist talking about molecular particles. The Pope talking about how weapon manufacturers, those that are Catholic, aren’t in good standing is rather ridiculous. This Pope is talking about topics he has no expertise in or any true and deep insights in. This man is failing us as a pope.

 

[Brendan]

No one says that Christianity is about pacifism. No one has said the U.S did not help near the end of WWII. I don’t see why you keep pursing this line of debate.

The emphasis when on guns and war breeds over zealous attitudes in favour of a gun mentality. This leads to irrational reliance on guns and an inability to draw back and decide in what capacity defence is called for. What does ‘defence’ mean.

In case you didn’t know it, it wasn’t just the U.S who was embroiled in the Cold War troubles. I actually put the end of the Cold War, not down to the U.S, or to the U.K, but to the spiritual realms and dominions and the prayers of a now-saint.

 

[friardchips]

This. The Pope should talk about what he knows, similar to what scientists or a professors. A sociology professor talking about the urban poor and its connection to welfare, or a scientist talking about molecular particles. The Pope talking about how weapon manufacturers, those that are Catholic, aren’t in good standing is rather ridiculous. This Pope is talking about topics he has no expertise in or any true and deep insights in. This man is failing us as a pope.

I think he has seen a lot.

 

[friardchips]

friardchips;13098684:

Self defense (individuals and nations) by definition is very self-concerned.

Defence is not just about oneself in the political sense, it is about the protection of innocent lives, and surely this means wherever the vulnerable are. Does the West not make money from these troubled countries? And so, is the West not in some way indebted, or responsible, due to the resources it has taken advantage of over the years?

Maybe what I am suggesting is that gun mentality doesn’t seem to inspire neighbourliness as an engrained virtue!

It is always seems to be about the cost, in money terms, rather than human life.

 

[CaptFun]

Pope says weapons manufacturers can’t call themselves Christian

Does this apply to Barack Obama?

Whom the Pope is to visit later this year in the *White House? < Or is it still awash in Rainbow hues?
*
Isn’t the POTUS also Commander in Chief of the largest military in the world, with a yearly military budget that the President has to either present or sign off on?

Obama does call himself Christian from time to time.

Weapons manufacturers generally have to sell to someone.

And how does this headline go with this other one from March about “the Vatican” backing
military force to stop the ISIS genocide? With already manufactured weapons maybe?

cruxnow.com/church/2015/03/13/vatican-backs-military-force-to-stop-isis-genocide/

And how does that go with another supposed quote of the Pope’s on these threads implying that the Allies in World War II were wrong in not doing enough to stop the carnage at the Auschwitz concentration camp? According to the story the Pope thought they should have bombed the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz. With manufactured weapons there I deduce, but why bring up the past unless there’s a parallel lesson for us today (that I don’t get right now).

huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/21/pope-francis-auschwitz_n_7632276.html

This stuff may be beyond my grace grade. Is it an international outreach to the non-Christian world? Confusion-ism?

It’s possibly the press taking advantage of every loose off the cuff statement of the Pope and high Vatican officials like Archbishop Tomasi (purported source of the pro-military force against ISIS genocide quotes). At some point I hope our front office gets better at

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.

where the press is concerned.

After getting burned by the press in 2006, Benedict became much more … shrewd IMO.

Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in 2006 … quoted a long-dead Christian emperor about a discussion, a dialogue.
… “carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus” on the subject of Islam, the threat of which, in the form of the Ottoman Empire, was forcefully before him.
… the Emperor, whom Pope Benedict described as

“an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam,”

asked,

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The pope noted that the comment was recorded sometime “during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402.” The pope also noted that the Emperor spoke with “startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable.”

The press reported the incident as if it were Pope Benedict’s own words, and not a quote - and a condemnation of Islam (but not interestingly Orthodox Christianity, considering his critique of the Emperor’s comment).

Pope Francis might do well to review that situation – and Benedict’s adjustments – as he has taken to opine on historical events from World War II on unto persecution of heretics in the Middle Ages – while per the future has weighed in with quite a high profile on global warming.

In our sound bite culture, he might anticipate whatever he will say or write will be reported in some quarters in the worst possible way - per peace and unity - by a media that often sees things through the prism of class warfare or presents entertainments in a traditional protagonist/antagonist terms (with the messengers deciding upon which role the Church is playing in their presentations).

 

[Suudy]

Surely some mouths were fed? Is this a waste of money because it doesn’t bring obvious profit?

Sure, some mouths were fed. But it did nothing to improve the poverty in the US. In fact, despite spending trillions of dollars, the poverty rate has never dropped (and in recent times has risen). From here:
Americans have paid $15 trillion in a noble but misguided effort to use government agencies and statist policies over the past 50 years. Yet, the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now near 15.1 percent, Americans have lost 55 percent of their wealth in the past five years, and nearly 50 million Americans are struggling to make a living. Meanwhile, 126 agencies spending $1 trillion a year cannot seem to gain any ground.
Yet, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out numerous times, the poverty rate was falling rapidly (especially amongst blacks) prior to the “War on Poverty.” And then it got worse.

Of course it is more complex than that. What the government considers poverty has changed over the years.

How has the U.S distributed the funding to tackle poverty that it could come to nothing?!

Through inefficient, wasteful programs. Billions lost on the bureaucracy, waste, fraud, and abuse. And I think the old adage says it all: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Feeding people only gets them by. Teach people to be productive, and they feed themselves and others.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This. The Pope should talk about what he knows, similar to what scientists or a professors. A sociology professor talking about the urban poor and its connection to welfare, or a scientist talking about molecular particles. The Pope talking about how weapon manufacturers, those that are Catholic, aren’t in good standing is rather ridiculous. This Pope is talking about topics he has no expertise in or any true and deep insights in. This man is failing us as a pope.

I would be less concerned if he were simply offering his opinion on the subjects. We all shoot the breeze on topic we are not expert on based on what we read or think of it.

But while the title is not literally his words, it certainly captures the gist of his meaning. He is expressing his opinion in papal terms, i.e. who is anathema to the Church and it’s teachings.

And this is not an isolated case but part of a larger pattern.

Very worrisome.