Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[crai7]

Members of the Vatican Swiss Guard mostly come from the Swiss cantons that are officially Catholic. The Protestant cantons of Switzerland were what drove the Reformation. Two different birds altogether.

Yes I know there are Catholic cantons, but I wasn’t aware that the Swiss guard was only recruited from those cantons. I suppose there was a period when they had to sort out who was who during the 16th century, as all the cantons were originally Catholic.

Now isn’t this interesting, Pope Francis dismissed the head of the Swiss Guard for being too ‘authoritarian’.

Pope Francis, according to Vatican sources, is unhappy at the Swiss officer’s excessively strict military discipline imposed on his non-commissioned officers and men…The Pope has a relaxed relationship with his security staff, knows most of them by name, and often accepts only reluctantly the advice of those who warn him of possible dangers to his life from lax security arrangements

That is consistent with the attitude to weapons.

SOURCE: bbc.com/news/world-europe-30320800

 

[crai7]

OK, well not sure where you are from since you did not care to elaborate, but many European and South American countries are in a similar situation. Just a matter of time before it all collapses…just like Greece.

Ah ha, what they need is the old fashioned Protestant work ethic Not that the so called ‘Protestant’ countries will really hold onto those notions for much longer.

 

[bobcrawford]

It would be if Christ via Matthew was actually speaking about a yet unwritten book we refer to as Revelations. But Christ, and thus Matthew would not have been speaking about a book of the Bible that had not been written yet, so it is not relevant. Nice try though.

 

[bobcrawford]

Ah ha, what they need is the old fashioned Protestant work ethic Not that the so called ‘Protestant’ countries will really hold onto those notions for much longer.

I agree the Protestant work ethic does not exist much in the U.S. or the European countries currently, but not sure so asking, are you suggesting that Catholics did not develop a work ethic and thus are more supportive of people accepting handouts rather than obtaining what one need to live on through a job and dignity?

 

[Tomdstone]

You need only look at the debt of each country for proof. Look at Greece today. Look at the debt of our own country. It is over $100,000 for every man, woman and child. There is no way to repay it. Read, listen to the news. Greece is the problem now, but they state that Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc are in similar straits.

Constant handouts of food, now healthcare, housing, etc. without work, are bankrupting countries. People need to learn to work to get food, healthcare and housing. People need to support themselves. Sure we can help those down on their luck until they get back on their feet, but we now have multigenerational of families whose members have never worked a day in their lives. That is immoral. Yet, were is the Pope’s comments on those who fail to work?

BTW, what exactly does building wealth on the backs of the poor mean?

Many people want to work, but there are no jobs available.

 

[bobcrawford]

I understand. I am also worried about my Church. It seems it has stepped into territory that causes me great concern.

For example, I am very troubled about a pope who criticizes Capitalism while cozying up with Atheistic Communists.

I am troubled by a Church that has allowed so much child abuse and child molestation happen within its walls for so many decades, then has to pay off the victims with money given to them through the hard work of many Catholics. Then give a double whammy the parents who gave the money be extracting even more money from families for Catholic School tuition to make up for those losses.

I am troubled by this and other popes and bishops who fail to act against so-called Catholic politicians who open promote abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, and make-believe global warming and cozy up to those same politicians. Why aren’t they excommunicated?

I am troubled by a Church that lets active homosexuals continue to practice homosexual acts while remaining priests.

I am troubled by a Church whose nuns openly support socialized healthcare which contains forced purchase of abortion drug and contraceptive coverage.

I am trouble by a Church which allows its Catholic Universities to invite pro-abortion politicians speak to its students.

I am troubled by a Church which has an annulment process that degrades, humiliates and continues to abuse women trying to get out of abusive, failed marriages.

I am troubled by a Church that preaches against greed, while charging Catholic School tuition that is unaffordable for most families except the rich. So the rich are criticized, yet catered to at the same time.

I am troubled by a Church that talks about taking care of the poor, yet allows its bishops to have expensive vacation residences far beyond what the average Catholic family can afford.

So you think what I believe is troubling?

Finally, Jesus in his infinite wisdom would not have made reference to something in the Book of Revelations. While he did talk about things unknown to people of that time, he would not have tried to leave people bewildered and confused.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yeah, no kidding. If the Japanese were ready to surrender why were we looking at a land invasion and prediction of casualties of close to 1,000,000 US soldiers killed or wounded.

It just is not true that the Japanese were ready to surrender. Were they defeated at that point? Sure, but were they going to give up without continuing the fight? Not a chance. It was the atomic bomb that forced the surrender. No revisionist history is going to change that fact.

Eisenhower and others said that the Japanese were ready to surrender. However, the USA under Truman declared that the use of atomic bombs against Japan was justified. Now if it is OK for the USA to use the atomic bomb, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, then why would it not be OK for North Korea or India or Pakistan or Israel or China to use nuclear bombs in the future? Of course, the pretext in using the bomb would be to bring about a higher degree of peace. This is the usual pretext given for waging war in many instances. It is being waged to bring about peace. That’s what we often hear about dropping the bomb on Japan that the a-bomb was dropped and hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered so that we could have peace. A group of Chechens said that they wanted to bring about peace and an end to the Second Chechen war, so they captured the school at Beslan and hundreds of innocent children were massacred.
These methods are totally immoral and criminal.

 

[bobcrawford]

Many people want to work, but there are no jobs available.

Then you do want so many others have done over the years. You start your own company, create something people need be it a service or a product.

Sitting around waiting for a job is not always going to be productive.

As has been said, “Jesus helps those who help themselves.”

 

[bobcrawford]

Eisenhower and others said that the Japanese were ready to surrender. However, the USA under Truman declared that the use of atomic bombs against Japan was justified. Now if it is OK for the USA to use the atomic bomb, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, then why would it not be OK for North Korea or India or Pakistan or Israel or China to use nuclear bombs in the future? Of course, the pretext in using the bomb would be to bring about a higher degree of peace. This is the usual pretext given for waging war in many instances. It is being waged to bring about peace. That’s what we often hear about dropping the bomb on Japan that the a-bomb was dropped and hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered so that we could have peace. A group of Chechens said that they wanted to bring about peace and an end to the Second Chechen war, so they captured the school at Beslan and hundreds of innocent children were massacred.
These methods are totally immoral and criminal.

Not a good analogy. The U.S was first attacked by Japan. Second, it is their opinion that Japan was ready to surrender. There are just as many other opinions that Japan would never surrender and that it would take an invasion of the home islands and over 1M casualties to end the war, hence why Truman chose the atomic bomb.

Second, if North Korea, India, or North Korea, etc. used nuclear bombs without being attacked that would be unjust. If the U.S. had used the atomic bomb without being attacked, that would have been unjust. But that is not what happened. The U.S. was attacked first by Japan.

Third, the Japanese were not murdered. They were killed in a war. Each and every Japanese at that time would have become a defender of the home islands had the U.S. invaded, thus they were civilian combatants.

This revisionist history some people spew is very disturbing and distorts the truth. So many are adopting the practices of the Democrats that it is destroying this country from within.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Now if it is OK for the USA to use the atomic bomb, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, then why would it not be OK for North Korea or India or Pakistan or Israel or China to use nuclear bombs in the future?

And with that all credibility goes out the window. Justice as equality, nothing more, nothing less. Ugh.

 

[bobcrawford]

And with that all credibility goes out the window. Justice as equality, nothing more, nothing less. Ugh.

Agreed. Comparing the U.S. and WWII to the Godless North Koreans, the murderous Christian hating Muslims in Pakistan, etc. is without credibility.

 

[bobcrawford]

Through hard work and personal sacrifice. You know, what Americans used to do before Socialism gripped our country and started to take it into decline like your country.

 

[Tomdstone]

Agreed. Comparing the U.S. and WWII to the Godless North Koreans, the murderous Christian hating Muslims in Pakistan, etc. is without credibility.

The use of the atomic bomb set a bad precedent. I disagree with the reasoning that it is moral to target a city and thereby murder thousands of children to attain some goal. If the USA used this justification, what is there to prevent other countries from doing the same?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The use of the atomic bomb set a bad precedent. I disagree with the reasoning that it is moral to target a city and thereby murder thousands of children to attain some goal. If the USA used this justification, what is there to prevent other countries from doing the same?

The belief that atomic bombs are uniquely evil weapons is dangerous illogic. The moral test of killing is not the weapon but the context. This line of reasoning could actually lead to a nuclear war.

No amount of forbearance on the part of countries like the US will prevent NK from nuking SK when it gets in the mood. There is no prevention thereby.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Immigrant Irish basically built the railroads in the 19th century US. They suffered from a lot of prejudice and poverty but I believe their work ethic was recognized by many, though they were stereotyped as drunkards and lazy by some. I am rereading Walden - Thoreau talks about the Irish living around him (1845) in a few passages; it’s fascinating; kind of condescending here and there, but interesting historically. He sees them as hard workers but also sort of perennially crushed under poverty and misfortune.

 

[bobcrawford]

No I have not, but my mother and father did, but not sure what your point is with that comment. It’s a very small world today. I don’t have to plant my feet there to have knowledge of Ireland.

Second, what do you think Irish, Germans, English, Swiss, Italians, Poles, etc. did when they came to America? Do you think they were all rich and had jobs waiting?

They went to work. They worked hard. They earned. They saved. They used what they saved to build businesses. The either got an education or they educated themselves.

My former neighbor, an Iranian, moved to the U.S. alone as a teen after the fall of the Shah. He told me he had nothing. He got a low paying job, went to school and got an engineering degree. He does very well today. He made something of himself from nothing.

There are so many stories like this, then there are the stories of people you live in the projects, waiting for someone to come along and give them a job or a handout. They blame their lack of success on someone else, never taking responsibility for their own problems.

It has been and always will be, the givers and the takers. As we used to say in this country and try to remind Obama, “you do not strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.” This is what I think our pope thinks should be done. It doesn’t work.

 

[bobcrawford]

Immigrant Irish basically built the railroads in the19th century US. They suffered from a lot of prejudice and poverty but I believe their work ethic was recognized by many, though they were stereotyped as drunkards and lazy by some. I am rereading Walden - Thoreau talks about the Irish living around him (1845) in a few passages; it’s fascinating; kind of condescending here and there, but interesting historically. He sees them as hard workers but also sort of perennially crushed under poverty and misfortune.

Yes they did and they did work hard. As I said, my mother’s grandparents were Irish immigrants. Like most groups at one time or another, they were stereotyped, discriminated against, had hard times and good times. But the important thing is that most all overcame and succeeded. The discrimination is long gone, though we Irish are still stereotyped as, shall we say drinking too much. I can live with that…hiccup!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes they did and they did work hard. As I said, my mother’s grandparents were Irish immigrants. Like most groups at one time or another, they were stereotyped, discriminated against, had hard times and good times. But the important thing is that most all overcame and succeeded. The discrimination is long gone, though we Irish are still stereotyped as, shall we say drinking too much. I can live with that…hiccup!

Yes, I have Irish too - they do work hard and, uh, drink hard too… Not all of them I should say. My mother’s line was very devout.

 

[Tomdstone]

The belief that atomic bombs are uniquely evil weapons is dangerous illogic.

True to some extent. In war, there are certain acts which are prohibited at least for civilized people: rape; torture and killing of prisoners; and the intentional killing of noncombatants including children and women. If rape, torture or mutilation shortens a war, is it moral for a commander to order it? I don’t think so. Is it OK to shoot defenseless women and children to end a war? How is dropping an atomic bomb on defenseless women and children any different from shooting them directly to end a war? I don;t see the justification in dropping an atomic bomb on a city resulting in defenseless women and children killed so that the war can be ended quickly.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Not a good analogy. The U.S was first attacked by Japan. Second, it is their opinion that Japan was ready to surrender. There are just as many other opinions that Japan would never surrender and that it would take an invasion of the home islands and over 1M casualties to end the war, hence why Truman chose the atomic bomb.

Second, if North Korea, India, or North Korea, etc. used nuclear bombs without being attacked that would be unjust. If the U.S. had used the atomic bomb without being attacked, that would have been unjust. But that is not what happened. The U.S. was attacked first by Japan.

Third, the Japanese were not murdered. They were killed in a war. Each and every Japanese at that time would have become a defender of the home islands had the U.S. invaded, thus they were civilian combatants.

This revisionist history some people spew is very disturbing and distorts the truth. So many are adopting the practices of the Democrats that it is destroying this country from within.

Also need to put this into context of what was occurring with the conventional raids, atrocities committed by the Japanese and the experience in the island hopping campaign showing how resistant or loathe the Japanese were to surrendering. A lot of speculation on how they’d react to an actual invasion.

There were mass civilian casualties in conventional raids in Europe and Japan. The theory being that the workforce creating/supporting the construction of arms and supplies were legitimate targets. British, US, and Germany all did area bombing resulting in mass civilian casualties.

So- whether using a single bomb from a single bomber is somehow morally more reprehensible than a massive raid with thousands of bombers is something to consider. I don’t see much of a difference-- and the US did drop thousands of leaflets warning civilians to evacuate. A ‘city’ wasn’t being targeted – production and support facilities were being targeted. Osaka, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg etc. etc. etc. The war was brutal, savage and incredibly destructive even without introducing the atomic bomb.

To get back on topic-- there were obviously weapons manufacturers on both sides. Which ones were moral, which ones weren’t? Were the arms essential for protecting liberty and freedom, for particular countries to exercise sovereignty over themselves vice being conquered? Do countries have a moral obligation to enter into conflicts to oppose tyranny, or to end atrocities? Hard to do it without weapons.