The Pope And Climate Change: The Left Is Going To Hate This!

[John Reece]

this isn't the topic of the thread, and I think we've already discussed it as much as I really care to.

With respect to understanding Pope Francis: if he seems to be contradicting obvious truths in his (often exaggerated) off-the-cuff remarks, try dialing back the interpretation a bit and see whether a more rational interpretation presents itself.

Thanks for your instructive comments.

[Spartacus]

The Church could use the steely resolve of Pope Pius V.

....

Interestingly, in that same speech the pope wondered aloud why the Allies didn’t do more to stop the Holocaust: “The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb [the railway lines]?” Presumably this desire for specific air strikes can be reconciled with his condemnations of arms makers so long as the bombs are manufactured by, say, Hindus. And are the weapons that his security detail carries made by Buddhists?

....

We live in an era of Christian persecution not seen since the Roman Empire.

....

We seem incapable of calling for courage and resistance, if courage and resistance mean taking up arms.

....

In a long war where the difference between military victory and defeat comes down to the will of the historically Christian West, it is incumbent on Christian leaders to strengthen our resolve, not plunge parishioners into self-doubt. The book of Ecclesiastes teaches us that there is a time for peace and a time for war. In the Middle East, with jihad on the march, now is the time for war. Pope Francis has, in the past, acknowledged this reality, calling for international action to stop ISIS. Yet wars are fought with weapons, and condemning their makers is hardly the clarion call the West so desperately needs. Now is not the time for mixed messages. If war is necessary, it requires moral leadership from people of faith. Popes have done it before. Can they do it again?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ans-persecuted

this isn't the topic of the thread, and I think we've already discussed it as much as I really care to.

With respect to understanding Pope Francis: if he seems to be contradicting obvious truths in his (often exaggerated) off-the-cuff remarks, try dialing back the interpretation a bit and see whether a more rational interpretation presents itself.

[John Reece]

The Church could use the steely resolve of Pope Pius V.

....

Interestingly, in that same speech the pope wondered aloud why the Allies didn’t do more to stop the Holocaust: “The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb [the railway lines]?” Presumably this desire for specific air strikes can be reconciled with his condemnations of arms makers so long as the bombs are manufactured by, say, Hindus. And are the weapons that his security detail carries made by Buddhists?

....

We live in an era of Christian persecution not seen since the Roman Empire.

....

We seem incapable of calling for courage and resistance, if courage and resistance mean taking up arms.

....

In a long war where the difference between military victory and defeat comes down to the will of the historically Christian West, it is incumbent on Christian leaders to strengthen our resolve, not plunge parishioners into self-doubt. The book of Ecclesiastes teaches us that there is a time for peace and a time for war. In the Middle East, with jihad on the march, now is the time for war. Pope Francis has, in the past, acknowledged this reality, calling for international action to stop ISIS. Yet wars are fought with weapons, and condemning their makers is hardly the clarion call the West so desperately needs. Now is not the time for mixed messages. If war is necessary, it requires moral leadership from people of faith. Popes have done it before. Can they do it again?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ans-persecuted

[Spartacus]

Is it to Southeast Asia that the pope is referring in his frequent disparagements of capitalism?

We've already been over the fact that popes have been disparaging capitalism fairly frequently for over 100 years. I don't know what Pope Francis is referring to in any given instance; southeast Asia is just a fairly obvious set of cases that leap to my mind.

[Darth Executor]

I know some factory workers from southeast asia who might like a word with you.

Most of whom get a better deal than they would have otherwise.

[John Reece]

I know some factory workers from southeast asia who might like a word with you.

Is it to Southeast Asia that the pope is referring in his frequent disparagements of capitalism?

[Spartacus]

That's an awfully low bar you're setting, given there are about two countries left in the last twenty years who have been avowedly Marxist. Throwing in various permutations of Marxism would raise it quite a bit (adding China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe's disastrous forced redistribution of land). I'd be interested to know what suffering has been caused by "the various permutations of capitalism" in that time, too.

I know some factory workers from southeast asia who might like a word with you.

[One Bad Pig]

Pope Francis is from Argentina, not Venezuela.

In the last 20 years, more suffering worldwide has been caused by the various permutations of capitalism than by Marxist regimes; I think it's fitting that the Pope should focus more on the harms caused by global capitalism than by what's been done recently by the handful of surviving Marxist regimes. That's not to say that Pope Francis won't speak out against Marxism when it's appropriate to do so, but to treat prioritize it over matters that affect much larger numbers of people would be to neglect his real duty. Marxism doesn't really have global advocates anymore; capitalism does. I'd really rather see the Church spend time trying to correct the course of capital than hunting Marxism down in whatever corners of the earth it still claims.

That's an awfully low bar you're setting, given there are about two countries left in the last twenty years who have been avowedly Marxist. Throwing in various permutations of Marxism would raise it quite a bit (adding China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe's disastrous forced redistribution of land). I'd be interested to know what suffering has been caused by "the various permutations of capitalism" in that time, too.

[Spartacus]

Your comments are quite reasonable, and I thank you for them.

I would rather not think of Pope Francis as a Marxist sympathizer ― if not a Marxist himself ― but he makes it difficult for me to sympathize or empathize with him when he says nothing (that I have heard) in criticism of communist dictatorships (for instance currently in his homeland, Venezuela, as well as in Cuba), and quite much against the capitalist system that has resulted in such great prosperity and benefit to people in all levels of society, especially the poor, when it has been practiced in free societies (which sadly is less and less true of the U.S.A. as Obama in league with the current congressional leadership proceeds apace in his quest to "fundamentally change" America). I am quite opposed to the crony corporatism currently practiced by the current leadership of the Republican congress in close coordination with Barack Obama (as well as the Chamber of Commerce and billionaire computer tech moguls).

I very much miss, on the other hand, the close coordination that was at work between John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, when the focus was on resisting communist tyranny and setting people free to prosper by the fruit of their labor unbound by totalitarian government.

Pope Francis is from Argentina, not Venezuela.

In the last 20 years, more suffering worldwide has been caused by the various permutations of capitalism than by Marxist regimes; I think it's fitting that the Pope should focus more on the harms caused by global capitalism than by what's been done recently by the handful of surviving Marxist regimes. That's not to say that Pope Francis won't speak out against Marxism when it's appropriate to do so, but to treat prioritize it over matters that affect much larger numbers of people would be to neglect his real duty. Marxism doesn't really have global advocates anymore; capitalism does. I'd really rather see the Church spend time trying to correct the course of capital than hunting Marxism down in whatever corners of the earth it still claims.

[John Reece]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the above, but I hope this isn't some form of anti-wikipedia pedantry. Would you have taken it better if I'd pointed you toward the book via Amazon?

... I'd rather not see us bogged down in this, because my point in bringing it up was that America's reputation isn't spotless, either. As for anything else Raul Castro said, that doesn't amount to anything more than innuendo with respect to Pope Francis' own positions. That an avowed Communist should like Pope Francis does not necessarily make Pope Francis a communist.

We don't know what Pope Francis and Castro may have discussed in private. It may well have included challenges to long-standing Cuban policies and practices, though, to be perfectly fair, the Cubans seem to be doing a pretty fair job of opposing it themselves, and Pope Francis has praised them for doing so. What will Pope Francis say or do when he visits Cuba later this year? Heaven only knows, but it probably won't involve a full-throated endorsement of the regime.

Your comments are quite reasonable, and I thank you for them.

I would rather not think of Pope Francis as a Marxist sympathizer ― if not a Marxist himself ― but he makes it difficult for me to sympathize or empathize with him when he says nothing (that I have heard) in criticism of communist dictatorships (for instance currently in his homeland, Venezuela, as well as in Cuba), and quite much against the capitalist system that has resulted in such great prosperity and benefit to people in all levels of society, especially the poor, when it has been practiced in free societies (which sadly is less and less true of the U.S.A. as Obama in league with the current congressional leadership proceeds apace in his quest to "fundamentally change" America). I am quite opposed to the crony corporatism currently practiced by the current leadership of the Republican congress in close coordination with Barack Obama (as well as the Chamber of Commerce and billionaire computer tech moguls).

I very much miss, on the other hand, the close coordination that was at work between John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, when the focus was on resisting communist tyranny and setting people free to prosper by the fruit of their labor unbound by totalitarian government.

[Starlight]

A comedian on HBO, and a Guantanamo detainee testifying for the Democrats who have been obsessively and dishonestly attacking Bush administration officials throughout Bush's presidency and ever since.

Ah, right, you're one of those Bush-worshipping crazy-people to whom any evidence that the Bush administration were lying torturers needs to be dismissed as left-wing spin. Cool. Well don't let facts, wikipedia, the Pope, or anyone else get in the way of your misplaced faith. Since I'm not American, I don't care enough to argue with you on the subject, other than to observe that you seem to be entirely misguided.

[Spartacus]

Are you referring to the Wikipedia article you posted?

If so, this is a case in which relying on such a source is grossly inadequate.

I take it you missed my edited addition at the end of the post to which your are responding: see here.

It would be asking too much of you to read the book, but at least you should read all the reviews at the bottom of the Amazon.com link.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the above, but I hope this isn't some form of anti-wikipedia pedantry. Would you have taken it better if I'd pointed you toward the book via Amazon?

... I'd rather not see us bogged down in this, because my point in bringing it up was that America's reputation isn't spotless, either. As for anything else Raul Castro said, that doesn't amount to anything more than innuendo with respect to Pope Francis' own positions. That an avowed Communist should like Pope Francis does not necessarily make Pope Francis a communist.

We don't know what Pope Francis and Castro may have discussed in private. It may well have included challenges to long-standing Cuban policies and practices, though, to be perfectly fair, the Cubans seem to be doing a pretty fair job of opposing it themselves, and Pope Francis has praised them for doing so. What will Pope Francis say or do when he visits Cuba later this year? Heaven only knows, but it probably won't involve a full-throated endorsement of the regime.

[John Reece]

Er, yeah, I'm going to assume you haven't watched the news over the last year, or have been living in a cave, or have only watched Fox News or something...

You see, the US Senate did an extensive review of the CIA files, compiling a 6000 page report, and released a 500 page summary at the end of last year. It showed that the Bush/Cheney/Rodriguez etc administration had outright lied about every single thing related to the topic of torture: They tortured much worse than mere waterboarding, that they obtained no useful information from any of it, and many of the people they tortured were innocent. John Oliver has an entertaining 15 minute analysis of it here (crude language warning + obviously disturbing material).

Even more recently, claims have surfaced that there were additional torture methods used beyond even those noted in the Senate report.

A comedian on HBO, and a Guantanamo detainee testifying for the Democrats who have been obsessively and dishonestly attacking Bush administration officials throughout Bush's presidency and ever since.

I am well familiar with the history and am just as unimpressed with what you have posted as you may be with my postscript video here.

[Starlight]

Postscript (video) re the Amazon link above: here.

Er, yeah, I'm going to assume you haven't watched the news over the last year, or have been living in a cave, or have only watched Fox News or something...

You see, the US Senate did an extensive review of the CIA files, compiling a 6000 page report, and released a 500 page summary at the end of last year. It showed that the Bush/Cheney/Rodriguez etc administration had outright lied about every single thing related to the topic of torture: They tortured much worse than mere waterboarding, that they obtained no useful information from any of it, and many of the people they tortured were innocent. John Oliver has an entertaining 15 minute analysis of it here (crude language warning + obviously disturbing material).

Even more recently, claims have surfaced that there were additional torture methods used beyond even those noted in the Senate report.


P.S. It's worth noting that last week the US Senate voted to ban torture. It's also worth noting that 100% of Senate Democrats voted in favor of the ban, while only 60% of senate Republicans did so. The 21 Republican senators who voted in favor of torture are listed here.

[John Reece]

Are you referring to the Wikipedia article you posted?

If so, this is a case in which relying on such a source is grossly inadequate.

I take it you missed my edited addition at the end of the post to which your are responding: see here.

It would be asking too much of you to read the book, but at least you should read all the reviews at the bottom of the Amazon.com link.

Postscript (video) re the Amazon link above: here.