Pope suggests Trump: not Christian

[Micosil]

Hey, this thread is back!

Actually, you technically only capitalize “pope” is you are using it along with a pope’s name. So it would be “the pope” or “Pope Francis”.

I’m sure different style guides may vary, but that’s what I was taught.

Interesting. AP seems to agree with you, but Wikipedia for some reason uses “the Pope”.

 

[Joe_5859]

Interesting. AP seems to agree with you, but Wikipedia for some reason uses “the Pope”.

Uh oh, conflicting messages! Does someone have a Chicago Manual of Style to break the tie?

 

[queenofheartscv]

Uh oh, conflicting messages! Does someone have a Chicago Manual of Style to break the tie?

Oh the things we could learn here! Keep this up and no one can say we are wasting too much time on these boards!

 

[gracepoole]

Uh oh, conflicting messages! Does someone have a Chicago Manual of Style to break the tie?

No, no – let’s look to the Modern Language Association!

(And for the win, MLA would also say Pope should be used when it’s referring to the specific – pope should be used when it’s referring to the general)

 

[Joe_5859]

Oh the things we could learn here! Keep this up and no one can say we are wasting too much time on these boards!

No, no – let’s look to the Modern Language Association!

(And for the win, MLA would also say Pope should be used when it’s referring to the specific – pope should be used when it’s referring to the general)

Now I don’t know what to believe! I guess I’ll just have to capitalize “pope” inconsistently. Or maybe as a compromise, I can capitalize the second “p” (i.e. “poPe”)? Eh. now that looks like “Popeye” to me…

 

[Micosil]

Now I don’t know what to believe! I guess I’ll just have to capitalize “pope” inconsistently. Or maybe as a compromise, I can capitalize the second “p” (i.e. “poPe”)? Eh. now that looks like “Popeye” to me…

 

[queenofheartscv]

Catholic with a small “c”? Is that intentional?

mistake corrected; profile updated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am confused by the title and subject of this thread. Does the Pope teach that Christians must accept indigent migrants from poorer countries whether they arrive legally or not and that it is morally wrong to build a wall to prevent them from arriving illegally? If not, can you explain briefly, what the Pope is teaching?

I think the pope is teaching that a mindset that focuses more on keeping immigrants out than on helping them is not a Christian mindset. He did not say that there should be no border security. He didn’t even say there should not be a wall. It’s more of a question of balance. And in the case of Mr. Trump, the balance of what he has said about this issue is on ways to keep immigrants out and very little on how we could help them.

 

[grotto]

mistake corrected; profile updated.

---

Mistake? Oh know, that’s not good its wrong!

 

[queenofheartscv]

---

Mistake? Oh know, that’s not good its wrong!

And by comparing my profile to yours, I realize I forgot to say “Roman!”

 

[Darryl1958]

And by comparing my profile to yours, I realize I forgot to say “Roman!”

Some people are adamant that Roman ought not be used, because Roman refers to a rite, and not the Catholic Church as a whole.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Some people are adamant that Roman ought not be used, because Roman refers to a rite, and not the Catholic Church as a whole.

Just when I thought it’s all settled…

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think the pope is teaching that a mindset that focuses more on keeping immigrants out than on helping them is not a Christian mindset. He did not say that there should be no border security. He didn’t even say there should not be a wall. It’s more of a question of balance. And in the case of Mr. Trump, the balance of what he has said about this issue is on ways to keep immigrants out and very little on how we could help them.

It was a response to a particular question. One assumes Pope Francis was addressing it as asked, including location. It would not seem reasonable to, for instance, demand that India allow generous immigration from Bangladesh, as it would be potentially harmful to an already serious unemployment/underemployment problem in India without doing all that much for Bangladeshis.

On the other side of the coin, would he really be promoting the idea of generous immigration from America into Lichtenstein? Lichtenstein has perhaps the highest per capita wages in the world and a more generous welfare system. But it’s really not so hard to be gainfully employed in the U.S. so one doubts Pope FRancis would promote immigration from the U.S. to Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Ireland or Luxembourg. Beside the fact that all are small countries (albeit facing demographic winter down the road) there isn’t a great deal of difference among them.

Trump added to his comment about immigration that he would also have a “great big door” for return. It was more a procedural comment than an exclusionary one. If, say, someone comes here from Mexico on a tourist visa and it is close to expiration, he has to return to a U.S. consulate in Mexico to get it renewed or to get another type visa. So, if return to the home country is required for legal immigrants as a condition of return, is it such a great stretch to expect it of illegal immigrants?

 

[JW55]

Has the pope had anyone killed? Has he tortured anybody? Has he alienated anybody? Not to my knowledge.

I’m just saying, people at this moment are offended for what the pope said in regards to trump. But guess what? Trump has flipped on issues. Abortion, being a democrat, he’s offended God knows how many groups.

The pope on the other hand has had an impeccable record. Like you asked me I ask you, you rather side with trump than the pope?
Remember trump still doesn’t know what his position on abortion is at this moment. The pope does. You’ll be on the same vote as those who voted for Obama.

I am not looking for an argument of terms, but even the Pope does not claim to be “impeccable”, He can speak as “infallible” at times and has on rare occasions. I understand your intent and realize that was probably not the nature of your message but I thought this should be clarified.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeccability

 

[grotto]

I prefer to use “Roman” Catholic because for many years I had to travel many miles to attend the Holy Mass without abuses - so “Roman is also Roamin”.

 

[Theo520]

I prefer to use “Roman” Catholic because for many years I had to travel many miles to attend the Holy Mass without abuses - so “Roman is also Roamin”.

I like that!

Reminds me of when I was a boy and we had to drive several hours to attend Mass. We weren’t abused, but literally every other family in the surrounding towns belonged to LDS church.

 

[abucs]

I wonder if the vatican moved to Hawaii, would we all start calling ourselves Hawaaian Catholics.

 

[irishpatrick]

I wonder if the vatican moved to Hawaii, would we all start calling ourselves Hawaaian Catholics.

No, we’d still be Roman Catholics.

 

[queenofheartscv]

No, we’d still be Roman Catholics.

We have a lot more in common than we feel sometimes.

 

[Path_Finder]

There could be a pow wow between Kasich and Rubio to seek to band together somehow, we will see by March 18th or so. I love Kasich’s compassion and experience but people like Medved talk up Rubio and that is something too. Perhaps Kasich is not displaying great popularity, at least according to Medved, we will see.

Gov. Reagan’s Secret Missions

He describes the state bureaucracy and how its employees were prejudiced against blacks. A black community leader told Reagan that he had been helping young men get off welfare to find work. He took them to the state employment assistance office to register for jobs. He found out that a few of the men had not filled out the applications form completely, so he took them inside to fill in the blanks.

When they got back inside, they discovered that the bureaucrats couldn’t find the applications, even though the applicants just left a few minutes ago. On a hunch, the community leader walked over to the trash bin and found them inside. “When I got back to Sacramento, I made sure that our bureaucrats didn’t do that again” (p. 164). Whether he accomplished that goal needs investigation, but the heart was in the right place.

Reagan didn’t talk about Eisenhower’s misguided and unworkable deportation program a decade earlier. Obviously, Regan saw things differently.

He would not endorse the current idea of deportation. He may have signed an amnesty deal, and surely that’s not workable today, because a huge percentage of the illegals are not from south of the border, but are overstaying their visas.

Instead of deporting and then bringing back “the good ones” (a dumb idea from a “very smart man” on the campaign), let’s get the illegal immigrants’ paperwork straightened out.

He would not endorse any talk of “never legalization!”

Justice is aligned with fairness, and when one has a bureaucracy in place, it is best to ensure fairness at the starting gate.

There is nothing wrong with helping people when injustice occurs anywhere. Reagan comes across as a kind man, and that’s the image and “vibe” I remember best about him whenever I heard him speak. He had a soothing voice, not a crass and harsh or high and tinny one.

He was a great governor and even greater president.

Read more: americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/gov_reagans_secret_missions.html#ixzz40xLWp6Hk