Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

[brimic]

It was a play on the "earth is flat" thing from way back and "official" positions of the Church.  Yeah, there were lots of scientists/astronomers who were clergy.  The Pope was usually not one of those. 
 

X-ring.

This pope doesn't strike me as one who has the best interests of the Catholic Church in mind as much as aiding abetting tyranical socialism around the world. Maybe its just me... I respected the Popes in my lifetime before him, but this one is just off in a big way...

[De Selby]

X-ring.

This pope doesn't strike me as one who has the best interests of the Catholic Church in mind as much as aiding abetting tyranical socialism around the world. Maybe its just me... I respected the Popes in my lifetime before him, but this one is just off in a big way...

What's the evidence of his support for tyrannical socialism???

If it's that he says the bible supports giving to the poor...how far we've come in two thousand years.  From "sell all that you have" to "take all that you can and keep it" is a pretty much 180 degree turn in Christian thought, but then I guess Jesus predicted that the most wealthy and powerful would do that with the gospel.

[Jamisjockey]

What's the evidence of his support for tyrannical socialism???

If it's that he says the bible supports giving to the poor...how far we've come in two thousand years.  From "sell all that you have" to "take all that you can and keep it" is a pretty much 180 degree turn in Christian thought, but then I guess Jesus predicted that the most wealthy and powerful would do that with the gospel.

“Inequality is the root of social ills ... as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.

[Jamisjockey]

His own words. 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#No_to_an_economy_of_exclusion

He rails against the very things that make people free.  No thanks.

[Boomhauer]

X-ring.

This pope doesn't strike me as one who has the best interests of the Catholic Church in mind as much as aiding abetting tyranical socialism around the world. Maybe its just me... I respected the Popes in my lifetime before him, but this one is just off in a big way...

Butbutbutbut he's the cool, hip, down with it* Pope! How could he possibly be oh so very wrong?


*Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[De Selby]

His own words. 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#No_to_an_economy_of_exclusion

He rails against the very things that make people free.  No thanks.

That's pretty basic Christian doctrine - it's not Marxism by a mile. 

I don't recall where the bible said free and unregulated financial markets are the key to freedom.  I think you need to separate your secular views on markets here from his basic and simple religious message.  If the gospels say anything about wealth, it's stating the obvious to say that they say it should be used to help the poor. 

Marxism makes the economy something like a mathematical equation or physics problem - it is not a theory that relies on moral charity, which is all I see the pope preaching.

[MicroBalrog]

The Catholic church is not a friend of liberty?

How surprising.

[MicroBalrog]

"“Inequality is the root of social ills ... as long as the problems of the poor are [v]not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation[/b] and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.""

Nowhere in the New Testament did Christ say that we must 'reject the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation', in fact, the Bible does not have a clear-cut political message that supports one faction or another - this is how there are Christians of every political stripe.

If indeed Jesus Christ believed - as you imagine he was - that social inequality was inherently evil and the only solution was a radical reordering of society to accomplish equality - then Jesus Christ's teachings are incompatible with individual liberty.   But Jesus did not preach this.

[De Selby]

"“Inequality is the root of social ills ... as long as the problems of the poor are [v]not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation[/b] and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.""

Nowhere in the New Testament did Christ say that we must 'reject the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation', in fact, the Bible does not have a clear-cut political message that supports one faction or another - this is how there are Christians of every political stripe.

If indeed Jesus Christ believed - as you imagine he was - that social inequality was inherently evil and the only solution was a radical reordering of society to accomplish equality - then Jesus Christ's teachings are incompatible with individual liberty.   But Jesus did not preach this.

That may be so about Christianity but you'll note that he's wuoting the bible and early Christians throughout.

Early Christians debated whether it was even possible for the wealthy to be Christians - there is a clear and recurring message about giving to the poor (to the point of embracing poverty) in the bible.

There are Christians of every political stripe for the same reason there are "Jews" for Jesus.  I'm sure they argue there are no clear cut rules about God being a flesh and blood person in Jewish religious texts -  it that's a ridiculous thing to argue, just like arguing that there is somehow an ambiguous message about what to do with riches in the New Testament.

[MicroBalrog]

There are Jews for Jesus for the same reason there are Satanist Jews, Catholic Ukrainians, and Christian Arabs - a Jew isn't just a religion, it's also a nation, same as "French", "Ukrainian", "Russian", and "Japanese".

[MicroBalrog]

There are Christians of every political stripe for the same reason there are "Jews" for Jesus.  I'm sure they argue there are no clear cut rules about God being a flesh and blood person in Jewish religious texts -  it that's a ridiculous thing to argue, just like arguing that there is somehow an ambiguous message about what to do with riches in the New Testament.

There is no endorsement of the progressive income tax in the New Testament.

[De Selby]

There are Jews for Jesus for the same reason there are Satanist Jews, Catholic Ukrainians, and Christian Arabs - a Jew isn't just a religion, it's also a nation, same as "French", "Ukrainian", "Russian", and "Japanese".

Uh, no, they do claim that Jewish texts and laws "prove" that Jesus was the messiah and God - that's a bit different from being an ethnicity that believes this or that religion.

[De Selby]

There is no endorsement of the progressive income tax in the New Testament.

That is true - there is a clear endorsement of not worrying about it if your money is taken to care for the poor, or even supporting it.    Indeed, the rich people who ask for advice on how to get to heaven generally get told to give it to the poor - not sure how that squares with fighting social welfare programs tooth and nail.

[MicroBalrog]

Furthermore, Jamisjockey never argued that the Pope was not a proper Christian. He argued the Pope's views are not consistent with the ideas of the free market and unfettered private enterprise.

This is true. The pope explicitly rejected the free market and unfettered private enterprise.

You can argue that these things are consistent with the teachings of Christ (I personally reject the teachings of Christ anyway), but saying that these things are consistent with the teachings of Christ in no way diminishes Jamisjockey's point.

[MicroBalrog]

That is true - there is a clear endorsement of not worrying about it if your money is taken to care for the poor, or even supporting it.    Indeed, the rich people who ask for advice on how to get to heaven generally get told to give it to the poor - not sure how that squares with fighting social welfare programs tooth and nail.

Do you imagine I oppose social welfare programs out of greed?

[De Selby]

Do you imagine I oppose social welfare programs out of greed?

No - but then again that doesnt make people who support them Marxists, anymore than believing in charity and social welfare programs makes the pope a Marxist.

His point (and I can't imagine any rational understanding of Christian texts to the contrary) is that any principle that leaves people in poverty (of their "own choosing" through bad investments or otherwise) isn't a Christian principle.   Hence, economic theories that rationalise away poverty aren't compatible with the practice of that faith.

It's fairly common sense - it's indeed very hard to find Christian writings that rationalise unfettered rights to private property as somehow holy until a long, long time after the founder spoke.

[MicroBalrog]

Nobody has called the Pope a Marxist. The only person who has used the term "Marxist" is you.

[De Selby]

Nobody has called the Pope a Marxist. The only person who has used the term "Marxist" is you.

What does "aiding and abetting tyrannical socialism" mean then?

[MicroBalrog]

What does "aiding and abetting tyrannical socialism" mean then?

Marxism constitutes a specific set of historicist beliefs about the nature of classes, the economy, etc. (Totally wrong beliefs that have led to the death of dozens of millions.)

It's easily arguable, that the pope's argument that society needs to be rearranged provides - though perhaps unwittingly - backing to creatures like Chavez, Maduro, and other thugs around the globe.

[Ron]

Christs teachings about wealth primarily concerned the condition of the heart of the person who was rich.

Charity, giving to the poor, is also a matter of the condition of the heart.

The early church in Acts was very much communal with their personal property not by decree or commandment, but by desire. (The sin of Ananias and his wife was deceiving all the others who had pledged all).

Christs Kingdom is not of this world in that nobody has been given authority to use force/violence to see that Gods will is done.

Historical Christianity went off the rails IMHO when it was yoked up with the Roman state. While there was certainly some good that came out of it there is no scriptural mandate for government to police the people for proper Christian behavior. 

   

[lupinus]

Christ never said don't be wealthy.

He said the rich should be giving generously to the poor, and that it was very hard for a rich man to enter heaven. The core message was don't be a greedy, uncharitable, money grubbing SOB.

[makattak]

No - but then again that doesnt make people who support them Marxists, anymore than believing in charity and social welfare programs makes the pope a Marxist.

His point (and I can't imagine any rational understanding of Christian texts to the contrary) is that any principle that leaves people in poverty (of their "own choosing" through bad investments or otherwise) isn't a Christian principle.   Hence, economic theories that rationalise away poverty aren't compatible with the practice of that faith.

It's fairly common sense - it's indeed very hard to find Christian writings that rationalise unfettered rights to private property as somehow holy until a long, long time after the founder spoke.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat."

It sure sounds to me as though the circumstances of someone's poverty is important.

[brimic]

Charity and giving to the poor =/= having .gov confiscate wealth at gunpoint and redistribute it to the poor.

[MechAg94]

What you consider poverty and what was real starving poverty in Jesus' time are not the same thing.  Charity and Govt mandated welfare programs are also not the same thing. 
)

No - but then again that doesnt make people who support them Marxists, anymore than believing in charity and social welfare programs makes the pope a Marxist.

His point (and I can't imagine any rational understanding of Christian texts to the contrary) is that any principle that leaves people in poverty (of their "own choosing" through bad investments or otherwise) isn't a Christian principle.   Hence, economic theories that rationalise away poverty aren't compatible with the practice of that faith.

It's fairly common sense - it's indeed very hard to find Christian writings that rationalise unfettered rights to private property as somehow holy until a long, long time after the founder spoke.

[Ron]

The rich must bleed but ignore the parts about marriage and sexual mores; especially homosexuality (mandated disclaimer: homosexuals are fully human and worthy of all love and respect as any of us are regardless of us being fallen human beings).

Always beware of "religion" filtered through a persons political persuasion whether it is post modern liberal presuppositions or right wing nationalist presuppositions as well as all other extremes and variations in between.

Property rights are enshrined in the ten commandments.

Civil authority picking up the slack where social/religious and family support don't meet the needs of the poor also have an ancient history.

The balance point that is truly just is the point of contention.

Coveting the wealth of and for all intents and purposes stealing the wealth of the well off and giving to the poor who often won't even put effort into their own sustenance is not the message Jesus preached.