Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Is The Pope A Commie?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
    Easy when you are a fabulously rich entity.
    Setting aside the patrimony of the 13th-16th centuries, "fabulously rich" is not the right word to describe the entity which is the conduit for so much charitable work the world over with so little overhead expense.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #47
      Sure it is , I made no comment on charitable work-- Bill Gates does tremendous charitable work and is fabulously wealthy
      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        Ug...I don't think I should have posted anything. The opinion that I have on this subject is in the extreme minority, and I don't think anybody will be really willing to entertain it. It would probably just be easier to forget I said anything.
        I don't think those sort of views are an extreme minority at all... especially among libertarian types, they're fairly common. And I don't want you to feel unsafe expressing your opinions here. You have a history of making well defended points so you would be taken seriously even if not all agree.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          I don't think those sort of views are an extreme minority at all... especially among libertarian types, they're fairly common. And I don't want you to feel unsafe expressing your opinions here. You have a history of making well defended points so you would be taken seriously even if not all agree.
          Aw, shucks. You say the nicest things.

          ETA: But seriously, thanks. That's a cool thing to hear.
          Last edited by Zymologist; 05-10-2014, 10:17 PM.
          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
            Aw, shucks. You say the nicest things.

            ETA: But seriously, thanks. That's a cool thing to hear.
            But your mom still dresses you funny....






















































            ( KG! You want he should get the big head or something?!)
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
              Ug...I don't think I should have posted anything. The opinion that I have on this subject is in the extreme minority, and I don't think anybody will be really willing to entertain it. It would probably just be easier to forget I said anything.
              Being of a libertarian bent myself I would be interested.
              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

              sigpic

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                Godwin's law. You lose.

                More seriously, popular revolutions against authoritarian oppression and social reform movements in many parts of the world were led or informed by Marxism. Catholic social teaching was dealing with Marxism before the bloodshed of the Russian and Spanish revolutions, back before marxism had the political means to start enforcing the side of
                Marxist ideology which Benedict criticized in the CDF document.
                Funny you should mention that...

                If nothing else, the fact that anyone who speaks up for the poor is immediately labeled a Marxist means that the term is no longer as pejorative as you would like it to be. When everyone from Dorothy Day to Pope Francis has been accused of Marxism by the reactionary right, the term kind of loses its force.
                Originally posted by Dorothy Day
                In 1960, she praised Fidel Castro's "promise of social justice". She said: "Far better to revolt violently than to do nothing about the poor destitute." On January 3, 1962, a Vatican press conference revealed that Castro had excommunicated himself by his persecution of the clergy and bishops.[49] (This excommunication occurred latae sententiae,“by the very commission of the offense.”). Several months later, Day traveled to Cuba and reported her experiences in a four-part series in the Catholic Worker. In the first of these, she wrote: "I am most of all interested in the religious life of the people and so must not be on the side of a regime that favors the extirpation of religion. On the other hand, when that regime is bending all its efforts to make a good life for the people, a naturally good life (on which grace can build) one cannot help but be in favor of the measures taken."
                The wikipedia page has the best quote: "Jesuit Daniel Lyons "called Day 'an apostle of pious oversimplification.' He said that the Catholic Worker 'often distorted beyond recognition' the position of the Popes."

                Just as leftists, socialists, and Communists do with all authority, from the political and heirarchical to the personal:

                I want a mess,” said Jorge Bergoglio during World Youth Day in Rio last year — and boy, is he making one.

                I’m not referring to the John XXIII/John Paul II canonization but to another potentially more momentous incident that’s been obscured by it.

                On Easter Monday, Francis phoned an Argentine woman who had been refused communion by her parish priest for living in an invalid marriage. Bergoglio told her she could “safely receive Communion, because she is doing nothing wrong.”
                These people are Communists in spirit, liberals in actual fact, though they may be anything else as long as it serves the Spirit of the Age, as distinct from the Holy Spirit.

                They're also utter intellectual lightweights incapable of speaking to real human or divine aspirations in any serious context. You may as well defend the cast of "The View."

                Comment


                • #53
                  ^owned
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    When an avowed pacifist like Day says that violent revolution is better than complacency, we would do well to understand it not as an endorsement of violent revolution, but as a condemnation of complacency with respect to economic injustice.

                    That you, Epo, should accuse anyone else of being "incapable of speaking to real human or divine aspirations in any serious context," provides me with no little amusement.
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Spartacus does not own anyone, but is presumably opposed to slavery, and a pretty smart kid.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                        When an avowed pacifist like Day says that violent revolution is better than complacency, we would do well to understand it not as an endorsement of violent revolution, but as a condemnation of complacency with respect to economic injustice.
                        Or, she could just be trying to realize the benefits of violence without paying the cost, like pretty much every other leftist out there who believes in cathartic violence:

                        Although progressives avoid violence themselves, they don’t mind it when others use it and it suits their purposes. You see this in the early Victorian period. In “A Tale of Two Cities” Dickens portrays the French Revolution as an unfortunate but inevitable explosion of violence created by the cruel oppression of the people by the aristocracy. Reaction by northern abolitionists and progressives to the Nat Turner uprising and massacre of whites was that it was a more or less justified response to slavery. The reaction to the John Brown raid was similar, or more positive.

                        The idea of cathartic violence as the inevitable and socially and spiritually cleansing response to oppression was codified by Lincoln, implicitly in the Gettysburg Address and more explicitly in his Second Inaugural Address. The idea faded with Reconstruction but came back with the communist promotion of black civil rights in the early 20th century and the wider civil rights movement and worldwide communist revolution later in the 20th century.

                        The idea remains with us as the leftist response to crime by groups they classify as oppressed-blacks and Hispanics obviously, but even women. Since these groups are good and could only engage in violence if seriously provoked, violence on their part serves as a signal that some oppression must be remedied, on the individual level as well as the social level. Thus criminal proceedings against a black criminal will conclude with what can be done to help him, rehabilitation being an important part of the sentencing procedure in progressive justice systems. The criminal justice system in the US is infused with a sense of regret that it is necessary at all.

                        The concept of cathartic violence is stupid, but more troublesome is its immorality and vacuity. The concept of pacifism is wrong, but at least contains the insight that violence will tend to lead to more violence. Any violent act or system of violent acts must contain in its intent some kind of stable solution that is better than the status quo. And it must recognize that violence has a serious deleterious effect on the person engaging in the violence. Violence can never be cathartic, this is a gross intellectual, moral and spiritual error.

                        Some kind of reconciliation is crucial for positive human existence; even progressives sometimes make bogus attempts at it, as when a communist revolution and mass murder aren’t going to happen- as in South Africa- or have been attempted and failed- as in Central America. But in almost all cases, progressivism is wedded to the idea of cathartic violence.
                        Give South Africa time, most of the violence has been officially extralegal but following a pattern of actual genocide.

                        That you, Epo, should accuse anyone else of being "incapable of speaking to real human or divine aspirations in any serious context," provides me with no little amusement.
                        Who is this man who brings a knife to gunfight?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          I am fairly surprised at how many Christians argue that governments are inherently illegitimate and that taxation is inherently theft. I do not personally believe either position is very compatible with Christianity given the biblical support for the legitimacy of both, which is of course not to accuse those holding such positions of anything more than cognitive dissonance.
                          I don't think it is Biblically considered more than a necessary evil either. Government would be unnecessary and nonexistent if it weren't for the need of defense and to punish evildoers, which would be unnecessary in the absence of evildoers who harm others.

                          Also I think you are misusing the term "cognitive dissonance." It is not the holding of contradictory views but the discomfort felt upon realizing that one has been holding contradictory views. (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.)

                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I don't think Franklin is presenting an argument so much as merely expressing his view. The point is, one could easily make the accusation that he was much more of a socialist than Obama and somewhere up there with Pope Francis.
                          Hamilton was perhaps even worse.

                          Did Adam and Eve own the Garden of Eden?
                          Interesting question. I think something like the Lockean view makes the most sense. Something like this: At first the Garden was unowned, but parts could become owned by doing work upon it. For example, if we imagined a hypothetical foreigner (who did not actually exist, of course); he could at the beginning have legitimately entered the garden and taken and eaten some good fruit (unless explicitly forbidden by God Himself). But if Adam did a bunch of work, say gathering apples and making cider, then the cider would be owned by Adam, and it would be theft for the foreigner to take the fruit of Adam's labor.

                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          If Francis is a socialist, so is Benedict, and so was Jesus. In other words, if "socialist" is the only word you know for these ideas, you need a bigger moral vocabulary.
                          They certainly aren't socialists, because they did not advocate the collective ownership of the means of production. A welfare state is not socialism.

                          Benedict was at least as bad as Francis (as far as I know) regarding economics (as seen in his Caritas in Veritate). But I don't think their wrongheaded ideas can be attributed to Jesus.

                          Originally posted by Manwë Súlimo View Post
                          I'm coming to this discussion blind, so please forgive me if I'm being too simplistic; but if human governments are, in theory, ordained by God then it must follow that they collect tax. They can't operate without revenue - it's just not possible.
                          It would be simpler if God did indeed appear and verbally ordain someone as king (for example). As it is, we have to use our judgement about what/who is and is not a legitimate government and what is the extent of legitimate government. Which is not as straightforward as people at first think. Secondly, it's not logically necessary that good government must be funded by tax (i.e., coercively). There may be voluntary means. Thirdly, even if necessary, it goes back to my point that it would then become, at best, a necessary evil.

                          I think it only gets messy when an individual decides they don't want the protection and benefits of a certain or any society - they can't move anywhere because basically everywhere but Antarctica has been claimed by a government and failure to follow they're laws leads to unpleasantness.
                          I think we also need to be careful to distinguish society and government. Opposing a particular government (or wanting to have nothing to do with it) is not the same as wanting to quit society.

                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          I find your stance extremely bizarre.

                          It's depends entirely on the premise that we own absolutely what we have. But that is not so; we have responsibilities and duties beyond our individual selves, including society at large, and paying taxes is one of them.
                          This requires more careful analysis. It makes no sense to suppose a duty to pay tax for its own sake, apart from the any need for taxes. After all, a bunch of wealth could be taken via taxation, and then destroyed. To whom would this be a duty to pay? It would benefit no one, and make everyone worse off. In such a case if you wanted to help your fellow men, you would oppose such taxation. Thus you have to take into account the need for the taxation and what causes the duty to arise. (Not to mention the question of to whom it is due.)

                          A moral obligation to submit to tax would also not be an endorsement of taxation. Consider that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek to one doing violence, he is in no way condoning the one doing violence.

                          More fundamentally, from a Christian perspective, we don't have absolute ownership even of ourselves. All was made by God and belongs ultimately to God. We are stewards of what He gives us, and He wants us to pay taxes.
                          You are equivocating. Ownership is meant in different senses. Otherwise, it would always be false to say any man owns anything, because God owns everything. In which case the commandment "Thou shall not steal" would be meaningless. But ownership among men is meant in a different sense than when we say God owns everything. Consider a hammer; yes, God owns it in the ultimate, unqualified sense. But when we say a human, let's call her Alice, owns the hammer, we are talking about inter-human interaction. What we mean is that it is immoral (more specifically injustice) for another human to take the hammer from Alice without her consent. We mean that among humans, it is Alice who has the moral license to decide how the hammer is used. (Which of course could be preempted by God's explicit action, because of his ultimate ownership, at any time. But I've never seen that happen.)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                            Or, she could just be trying to realize the benefits of violence without paying the cost, like pretty much every other leftist out there who believes in cathartic violence:
                            Or like anyone who defends the death penalty as it's currently practiced.
                            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                              Who is this man who brings a knife to gunfight?
                              Pot calling the kettle black much? You might have the right idea to show up to the fight against liberalism and other modern evils (like modern liberals claiming they are eliminating racism, when alls they do is simply reverse who is the oppressor and oppressed), but compounding your zeal with raw hatred for people not of your own race or sex isn't helping.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                This requires more careful analysis. It makes no sense to suppose a duty to pay tax for its own sake, apart from the any need for taxes. After all, a bunch of wealth could be taken via taxation, and then destroyed. To whom would this be a duty to pay? It would benefit no one, and make everyone worse off. In such a case if you wanted to help your fellow men, you would oppose such taxation. Thus you have to take into account the need for the taxation and what causes the duty to arise. (Not to mention the question of to whom it is due.)
                                It may not have been clear in that post: I'm not saying that it's a social duty or responsibility to pay all taxes, but that it's a duty to pay some taxes.

                                A moral obligation to submit to tax would also not be an endorsement of taxation. Consider that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek to one doing violence, he is in no way condoning the one doing violence.
                                I think this point needs more analysis. You cannot say that it is not an endorsement of taxation, but rather, that is not necessarily an endorsement of taxation. The key determinant, in my opinion, would be the reason given for submitting to taxation.

                                You are equivocating. Ownership is meant in different senses. Otherwise, it would always be false to say any man owns anything, because God owns everything. In which case the commandment "Thou shall not steal" would be meaningless. But ownership among men is meant in a different sense than when we say God owns everything. Consider a hammer; yes, God owns it in the ultimate, unqualified sense. But when we say a human, let's call her Alice, owns the hammer, we are talking about inter-human interaction. What we mean is that it is immoral (more specifically injustice) for another human to take the hammer from Alice without her consent. We mean that among humans, it is Alice who has the moral license to decide how the hammer is used. (Which of course could be preempted by God's explicit action, because of his ultimate ownership, at any time. But I've never seen that happen.)
                                I am not equivocating. On the contrary, I am distinguishing very clearly between God's absolute ownership of everything, and man's non-absolute ownership of some things. Let us consider the picture you paint. You say that God can preempt Alice's moral license, doesn't He do that by revealing through Scripture that taxes should be paid?

                                If you don't mind, I would also like to comment further on your earlier post; thus far, you have provided no sufficient reason to think that taxation is necessarily evil:
                                If you start with a hypothetical group of people stranded on an island, say, without a government and without the idea of a human government, but understanding morality of justice (don't steal, don't kill, etc.), they would recognize that a powerful guy suddenly going around and forcing everyone to give him money (or goods) is theft/unjust. Likewise a gang (even majority) banding together and forcing everyone else to give them money is theft. The only reason for them to ever come to the conclusion that it's acceptable to appoint a head thief or organize a thieving organization (they'll call it a "government") is if they think the cause is so necessary that it becomes a necessary evil. The most likely original justification for this is something like: that hostile forces are coming to destroy them, and without this mass theft (which they decide to call "tax") they won't be able to amass the means of defense and they will all perish or have everything stolen from them by the hostiles. (Whether they are correct in the assessment of its necessity may be a matter of debate.)
                                Possibly it might be so that in the hypotheticals you give that the form of taxation is evil. It does not, however, address taxation in all scenarios. As you are a Christian, I find your omission of any form of God's ordination of government or taxation in your hypothetical rather surprising.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                0 responses
                                2 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                419 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X