Preaching to the Choir (Reader Post)

Loading

choir

There are numerous CONSERVATIVE web sites to which we can turn for the truth, the unedited story. Such web sites as Flopping Aces do a tremendous job of disseminating our thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. They provide facts that allow us to form our opinions based upon the complete story. Unlike most of the MSM. There are, of course, exceptions (Fox comes to mind), but the vast majority of the MSM promulgates liberal hypocrisy, half-truths, and out-and-out lies (Chris Matthews of leg tingle fame comes to mind).

Even though there are numerous conservative web sites, only conservatives (for the most part) visit them. Liberals who comment are quickly shown to be thinking un-critically. We conservatives are “preaching to the choir.” We need to expand our horizons.

What got me thinking along these lines was Sarah Palin’s comment about Pope Francis’ recent remarks, and Bill Maher’s reaction. And the MSM non-reaction to Martin Bashir’s remarks.

Pope Francis said:

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.   [emphasis mine]

Was Pope Francis referring to the “trickle-down” theory as crude and naïve? If so, his economic expert credentials were omitted. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts …[.]” Gee, the Pope was quick to offer HIS opinion. I could not find any reference to substantiate the Pope’s opinion. Yet the MSM reported the Pope’s opinon as if it was fact. Personal note: my intent here is not to attack Catholics (I’m married to one), but to illustrate that the Pope has an agenda.

To which Palin responded:

He’s had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media.

I’m kinda trying to follow what his agenda is. You know he came out with a couple of things in the media but again I’m not one to trust the media’s interpretation of somebody’s message but having read through media outlets.

Palin then, as interpreted by the MSM, “apologized” for her remarks.

It was not my intention to be critical of Pope Francis. I was reminding viewers that we need to do our own homework on news subjects, and I hadn’t done mine yet on the Pope’s recent comments as reported by the media. Knowing full well how often the media mischaracterizes a person’s comments (especially a religious leader’s), I don’t trust them to get it right when it comes to reporting on the Vatican.

I apologize for not being clearer in my response, thus opening the door to critical media that does what it does best in ginning up controversy.   [emphasis mine]

Bill Maher, ignoring Palin’s comments about not trusting the media’s interpretation, had to interject his opinion into this situation. Maher said, “Well, if she thinks Pope Francis is liberal, wait until she sees what Jesus has been saying.” Maher then presented a series of tweets that he claimed was exchanged between the Pope and Palin. The tweets were supposed to (I guess) be funny, but they weren’t, and further illustrated Maher’s opinion. Maher never got around to the crux of what Palin said about not trusting the MSM. Nor did he get around to citing what Jesus said, as illustrated below. I’m pretty sure Maher has not read it. And, Maher never got around to saying that the Pope was offering an unauthenticated opinion. Typical liberal.

I guess Pope Francis needs to be reminded about what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 22: 15-21.

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.

16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.

17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?

19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,
20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
(NIV)

Jesus was saying that politics and religion don’t mix – PERIOD. Politics (and politicians) FORCES its agenda upon us. We Christians (and other religions) CHOOSE to act charitably.

If there was ever a single Biblical passage that shows Pope Francis to have a liberal agenda, this is it. But does the MSM choose to interpret Pope Francis’ remarks thusly? In the immortal word of John Belushi on SNL: “Nooooooooooooooooooooo!” So, again the MSM edits, chooses only what will further its agenda. If the MSM and liberal web sites are presented with this, they, like ostriches, stick there heads in the sand in order to ignore unpleasant facts or situations.

It’s little things, like the Pope’s statement of opinion, that make liberals easy to trip up (if they ever decide to listen and think about what they’ve heard). “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up” is their usual response.

So, in an effort to stop “preaching to the choir,” if any FA readers know of some liberal web sites where we can comment, we need to know them. One of my favorites is BlogCritics.org, but I hate to give them any publicity. And if any readers know how to get liberals, once they have been presented the truth, to acknowledge it, we need to know that as well. Alas, I’m afraid that it will never happen, that DrJohn is correct: “… nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.” But hope springs eternal.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my very conservative web site.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I like your commentary, Warren B.
The Pope said:

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

I think that Pope Francis’ problem lies with his word, ”inevitably.”
You cannot prove a thing inevitably happens.
It would take waiting forever.
However, no system of economic theory, other than capitalism, has brought MORE justice and inclusiveness to the world.
I’m old enough to recall the early micro-loans that helped pull many of India’s”untouchables,” out of their dire impoverishment.
One story I had a hand in, so I know it’s true was that of an untouchable widow.
She took a $20 loan and created two in-home businesses.
One was a breakfast offering, some fried bread common to her part of India.
The other was a rental space for people to use to sleep or work inside her home.
Soon she paid back the loan plus the interest.
She continued to do well.
The Pope’s comment that “the excluded are still waiting,” reminds me of yet another Scripture.
Jesus spoke a parable of three servants whose owner had entrusted them with gold.
Two of the three put their money to work.
They doubled their value.
The third buried his gold so it was safe and made no money.
Matthew 25:14-30
The excluded get value, but are like that third servant, they refuse to use it in a creative and rewarding way.
There will always be such people among us.
No amount of gifting them with redistributed wealth will change them.

@Nanny G: AMEN Nanny G! You conveyed the message much better than I did.

OK, liberals, comment. We need a good laugh.

He’s had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media.

I’m kinda trying to follow what his agenda is. You know he came out with a couple of things in the media but again I’m not one to trust the media’s interpretation of somebody’s message but having read through media outlets.

No media interpretations are involved. Unlike Sarah Palin, Pope Francis expresses his thoughts with great lucidity. If you want to know what he really thinks you only have to read his words.

This quote, by the Pope bothers me. I noticed it the first time I read it, but was looking for something else at the time, so I didn’t comment on this quote: but here goes.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

trickle-down theories? Is one of those trickle down theories that the more you get, by earning or growing or however, the more your tithe will be? If you give 1/10th then $1 out of every $10 will go to the church to help it’s members. But if you earn a million, the church will get 100,000. And if that applies to all members of the church, (not just the conservatives) then it seems as if the church is relying on trickle down economics for their principles to work. Is he now saying that the church’s trickle down is not working or the USA’s trickle down not working, or maybe S. Africa’s? The entire principle of Christian theology deals with those that have sharing with those that don’t, but giving a minimum of 10% to the church. Now, some church’s(the people that run them) think that money should go to having more elegant choir robes, more padding on the seats of the church pew’s, a much finer house for the minister. and then other church’s think that money should go toward having a place to feed the hungry, a place for the homeless to sleep, etc. Well, it seems as if that applies to the government as well. Think about how many hungry people could be fed with the money Obama, Moochelle, and kids will spend on their Christmas vacation in Hawaii this year, or next year, or their 6 week jaunt to Martha’s vineyard next summer, yada, yada, yada? Is it more important that they take those trips, or let a little of that money trickle down to the homeless and hungry? Well, if they take that vacation, we’ll know the answer to that question. Maybe ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work very well when those that have, decide they would rather keep than to ‘trickle it down’. I think trickle down likely works better when it is Christians that have the means to trickle down than it does when it is socialist liberal politicians that have the means to trickle down, but would rather consume than trickle.
So, just which was the Pope criticizing? The churches that don’t share with the homeless and hungry or the politicians that don’t do so either? So, if he is really sincere in his belief that ‘trickle-down’ doesn’t work, then there are a lot of church’s that are exploiting their members. Maybe it is they that should look inside.

@Greg:

No media interpretations are involved. Unlike Sarah Palin, Pope Francis expresses his thoughts with great lucidity. If you want to know what he really thinks you only have to read his words.

So you didn’t bother to read what Sarah Palin actually said, only what you wanted to hear? She was asked to comment on what the Pope said, she said that she couldn’t comment on what the pope said because she had only seen what the Media said that he said.(after two language translations) And if you don’t think there was vivid imaginations used by the press when reporting what the pope said, then you don’t know the press.
Tell us specifically how you know that the Pope “expresses his thoughts with great lucidity”, or is that just what the press ‘says’ that he does.

If you want to know what he really thinks you only have to read his words.

that may give you the answer and it may not. If I understand correctly, he talks in French, they translate that to Latin then the Latin is interpreted to English. Which version is more ‘lucid’, the French, the Latin or the English? How do we know that the meaning hasn’t been changed in the interpretation. Is a red rose actually a red rose, or is it a rose red. Depends on your language. When he used the words ‘trickle down’ did he say it in French, Latin or English. Did he intend it as the political ‘trickle down’ or the religious ‘trickle down’?

@Greg:

If you want to know what he really thinks you only have to read his words.

greg, do you have a link to the words as spoken by the pope in the language he actually spoke them in?

@Redteam, #6:

Official English translations of the Pope’s various statements can be found here. The text in the language he originally writes in would be of little use to me. My Spanish is inadequate. I don’t understand Latin at all.

I presume the Vatican has translators who are highly skilled in the world’s major languages, charged with the task of accurately expressing his thoughts and meanings to the church’s faithful.

I think the POPE was sending a message to the poor,
don”t expect other to carry you, don”t wait there for anyone,
move your butt and show that you are doing the best you can to help yourself and other even poorer than poor,
wich doesn’t necessary mean no money,
then the bread will come to you with butter,
because no normal human can resist to help a good cause,
same as you see a car on the side of the road, you continue on your way,not seeing problems
but if you see the driver trying to work inside the dash,
you are compelled to stop and ask if he need help,
while the other car is still waiting,
but today there are dangerous human who contribute in getting no one, who had a bad encounter, to stop is not for everyone,
I think the more there are evil, the less help will come to those who live close to it,they are view as same just for being there,

Jesus was saying that politics and religion don’t mix – PERIOD. Politics (and politicians) FORCES its agenda upon us. We Christians (and other religions) CHOOSE to act charitably.

Says who? Did Jesus say taking care of the poor was just an option, because I don’t remember that. I spent countless hours (not necessarily of my own volition) reading and studying the New Testament and I also don’t recall Jesus glorifying greed or the accumulation of personal wealth through free market capitalism. I don’t recall him saying, “it’s totally up to you, brah. Keep it all. that’s cool too!” If you want to leave politics out of religion, I suggest you don’t force religion through the narrow prism of your particular contemporary brand of American far right conservatism. What the Pope is speaking about is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church for centuries. And it doesn’t include contempt for the poor and glorification of personal wealth.

If there was ever a single Biblical passage that shows Pope Francis to have a liberal agenda, this is it.

A liberal agenda, you say? He wouldn’t happen to be from Kenya? Have you seen his long form birth certificate?

nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.”

Coming from the guy who unironically quoted Sarah Palin’s embarrassingly confused critique of Pope Francis’ heartfelt plea to take care of the less fortunate.

@Redteam:

This quote, by the Pope bothers me.

Why don’t you ask your hero, Retire5. She is a devout Catholic and will explain to you the concept of Papal Infallibility as it applies to the Pope’s critique of trickle down economics. I’m surprised she’s not here now, defending the Pope. A man cannot serve two masters, after all.

Tom
WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?
THE TWO MASTERS ARE GOD AND THE DEVIL,
NOT WEALTH, BUT IF YOU DO EVIL WITH WEALTH,
SAME RECIPY FOR THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN GRANTED POWER BY
A GOOD TOLERANT PEOPLE HE CANTURN TO A DEVIL AND ABUSE HIS POWER,
BYE

@ilovebeeswarzone:

The premise of this post is simply false, if the Bible is our source. Despite what Sarah Palin thinks, Jesus never said or implied that acting charitably is simply a choice. This line of reasoning is what a certain strain of contemporary conservative Christian chooses to believe to reconcile their far right market politics and lifestyles with their beliefs. What the Pope is talking about – a shared responsibility to care for one another – is something they simply don’t want to hear, but the Bible is quite clear.

Luke 14:12-14
He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

Luke 12:33-34
Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

John 3:17–18
But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and jin truth.

@Tom: Tom, you make an interesting point.
Christians are supposed to be MOVED to care for the unfortunate.
When Jesus met a rich man – who had been a dishonest tax collector – the man not only began following Jesus’ teachings, he gave back all he had extorted from honest (low information) tax payers.
But being wealthy, in itself, is not proof of “contempt for the poor and glorification of personal wealth.”
When Obama’s surrogates were sliming Mitt Romney for ”not paying any taxes,” the truth came out that Mitt could have declared far more in charitable giving than he did….thus he could have legally paid less or even no taxes.
But he didn’t ”let his right hand know what his left hand was doing,” (crow about his charitable giving) so he hadn’t asked for deductions on every penny.
If you read the Bible carefully (voluntarily or not) you might have noted that Jesus encouraged people to ”be their own boss,” as opposed to slaving for someone else (other than God).
Does the Pope do the same?
I have no idea.
But it would be a wise bit of advice for his people.
Wordsmith found an old Buddhist proverb that said, ”It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.”
In good times it might be OK to be a poor person, sitting outside a building hoping for charity, or sitting by the mailbox waiting for the welfare check.
But ALL THE TIME it is better to be self-sufficient.
Christians are urged to be self-sufficient, see: 2 Corinthians 9:8, 1 Timothy 6:6 and Philippians 4:11.

@Nanny G:

Self-sufficiency is indeed wonderful. But we all know there have always been, and still are, those who need help. Before helping, did Jesus instruct his followers to first ascertain whether the poor where legitimately needy, and thus worthy of charity; or merely lazy, and thus worthy of a good pep talk? Did Jesus instruct his followers to judge the poor or to help them?

Nan, do you think the Pope was making a point of economic theory in the quote above? The original poster asked for his “economic expert credentials” after all. My personal view is that this is a facile misunderstanding of the Pope’s point. I don’t think what he’s really talking about is the societal utility of a largely discredited economic theory; I think he’s talking about what is important to people, what people focus on, what they care about, what they worship. It’s certainly interesting that while the original poster choice to include nonsensical and confusing commentary from Sarah Palin, he choice to exclude the key part of the Pope’s remarks that unlock their actual meaning:

How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.”

@Tom:

Says who? Did Jesus say taking care of the poor was just an option, because I don’t remember that. I spent countless hours (not necessarily of my own volition) reading and studying the New Testament and I also don’t recall Jesus glorifying greed or the accumulation of personal wealth through free market capitalism. I don’t recall him saying, “it’s totally up to you, brah. Keep it all. that’s cool too!” If you want to leave politics out of religion, I suggest you don’t force religion through the narrow prism of your particular contemporary brand of American far right conservatism. What the Pope is speaking about is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church for centuries. And it doesn’t include contempt for the poor and glorification of personal wealth.

Why don’t you ask your hero, Retire5. She is a devout Catholic and will explain to you the concept of Papal Infallibility as it applies to the Pope’s critique of trickle down economics.

Well, since you chose to drag me into this:

I do not agree with Pope Francis, and I think that he makes comments in his native language that are often quoted wrong in the translation. I also understand where he is from, the fact that he is a Jesuit, and probably has liberation theology leanings. I also think he should stick with the largest problem the Church faces, secularization in the western world, and not delve off into economics, a subject he clearly does not understand and views with a jaundiced eye.

But what I do know is that while Christ said that we should all be charitable, He never put that charity in the hands of the Roman government, nor did He say that the Roman guards had a right to enforce that charity. Quite the contrary, Jesus Christ left charity up to the individual, not the collective. You can’t seem to grasp that being forced to be charitable (via the IRS) is not charity, it is redistribution of wealth.

Ironically, it has been the generosity of the wealthy that have provided ALL of us with so much; libraries, universities, hospitals (MD Anderson being but one example, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital another, all the Shriner’s Hospitals, including those for crippled children and their famous burn center), et al. Charity that goes ignored by the left. The National Museum of Art was built, and furnished with art work, due to the charity of one wealthy man.

But there are those who can speak to what the Pope said better than I can:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/andrew-napolitano-reacts-to-pope-francis-comments-on-economics/

And Tom, knowing that you’re probably too lazy to do any research into actual Catholic doctrine, and will continue to spout your Socialist mantra, I will give you the money paragraph, with Father Z’s comments of course:

“Traditional Catholic social teaching imposes on all of us a moral obligation to become our brothers’ keepers. [This isn’t just an imperative from Catholic social teaching, by the way.] But this is a personal moral obligation, enforced by conscience and church teaching and the fires of hell [When is the last time you saw that in a secular paper? When is the last time you heard that from a pulpit?] not by the coercive powers of the government. Charity comes from the heart. It consists of freely giving away one’s wealth. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. That’s theft, not charity.”

When the IRS forces the productive to pay into its coffers so that it can redistribute that money to those of us politicians feel are deserving, that is not charity, it is forced theft of money that could have been given freely to charity.

@Tom:

I suggest you don’t force religion through the narrow prism of your particular contemporary brand of American far right conservatism.

Yet, you throw your religion around here as if it were a rag doll in the jaws of a dog. You’re a typical liberal, who will denounce the faith of others, then drag yours out for exhibition.

And again, I ask you: do you support traditional marriage and oppose all abortions, as is Catholic dogma?

Or will you dodge that question, once again, as you did so many times on another thread?

@retire05:

What a surprise. I never would have guessed that someone who is willing to flay and terrorize homosexuals with unbridled zeal based on one or two vague passages in the Bible, is likewise willing to ignore literally dozens of explicit Bible passages on the poor and charity,while dismissing the Pope’s very specific statements on the subject as “quoted wrong in the translation” (that is before conceding that he’s just wrong, since he’s a Jesuit, after all). At lease we know what master you serve, now. He’s a fat man that preaches the gospel of prosperity conservatism in your ear every morning through talk radio. He even got you to turn against that terrible liberal Pope.

@retire05:

You’re confused and there’s nothing to dodge. I never said I was a dogmatic Catholic, or even a believer in God, on this thread or any other. I said I have read and know the Bible. I don’t have to worry about being the hypocrite you are, whining about traditional marriage while defying the current Pope. It’s interesting how you love the rules that allow you to make people you hate miserable, but when the Pope pleads with you to not forget an old man dying in the gutter, that you have a problem with. Amazing, considering how you’ve accused others of being fake Catholics.

So now we’ve got Andrew Napolitano—a Fox News judicial analyst—schooling conservatives on the Pope’s lack of qualification to comment on the moral implications of free market capitalism, because of his “disturbing ignorance” concerning economics. Apparently the Pope should restrict his comments to things he does know about (The moral implications of human sexual conduct, for example?) and understand that the topic of capitalism and its moral consequences is off limits.

Unbelievable.

Tom
VERY WELL SAID,
JESUS, AND I LOVE HIM TOO,
he also mention to not insult the CONSERVATIVES, YOU THINK AS ENEMY,BECAUSE THEY EXPOSE THE FALURE OF YOUR SIDE,
SARAH PALIN DID NOT SAY NOTHING WRONG,
those who accused her said something wrong as they did before some times ago, WHEN THEY PLANTED THEIR SEEDS
OF HATE IN THE MIND OF YOUNG UNINFORMED MINDLESS,
to almost get her kill by the amount of hate WHICH WAS GIVEN TO HER,
NOT BECAUSE SHE HAD SAID SOMETHING WRONG BUT BECAUSE THEY FEARED HER POWER TO DESTROY THEM FROM THEIR SEATS,
JESUS WOULD NOT APPROVED, SHE WAS FIGHTING THE DEVIL ITSELF,
AND YOU COME AND TEACH HERE OF JESUS, WHILE INSULTING THE CONSERVATIVES,
AND REPEATING WHAT YOUR HATERS TOLD YOU,
JESUS WOULD NOT APPROVE THAT EITHER,,
HE WOULD HAVE APPROVE OF DENOUNCING THE ATHEIST WHO APPROVE OF DEMOLISHING THE TEN COMMANDS PUBLIC NICE ART PIECE THERE SINCE MANY YEARS GIVING A MESSAGE OF GOD, THY SHALL NOT….
AND PUT A SATANIC VERSE POST TO REPLACE IT,
WITHOUT ANY OUTRAGE FROM THE DEMOCRATS LEADER,, YOUR SIDE OF INTEREST,
SO, SPARE YOUR TONGUE HERE, IT’S UNNECESSARY, YOU ARE PREACHING IN THE DESERT.
HERE FOR YOU,
the 10 commands,
I AM THE LORD THY GOD,
THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER gods BEFORE ME,
THOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN,
REMEMBER THE LORD’S DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY,
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER,
THOU SHALL NOT KILL,
THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,
THOU SHALL NOT STEAL,
THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR,
THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS,
THIS IS A TREASURE TO BE TAUGHT TO EVERY CHILD IN EVERY SCHOOL, AND IN EVERY HOUSE OF AMERICA,

” The regulation of free markets by governments, the control of the private means of production by government bureaucrats, and the unholy alliances between governments, banks and industry have raised production costs, stifled competition, established barriers to entry into markets, raised taxes, devalued savings and priced many poor out of the labor force. “

That, Andrew, is not the reason why 50% of the world’s population is trying to live on less than $2.50 per day. The truth is that these are people who are considered to be of little or no value to the free market system. They lack the skills and access to the resources necessary to produce marketable goods; they are far more numerous than any need the free market has for services could ever employ; and they lack the means to be viewed as a consumer market. How is anything ever supposed to trickle down to them?

@Greg:

I presume the Vatican has translators who are highly skilled in the world’s major languages, charged with the task of accurately expressing his thoughts and meanings to the church’s faithful.

Presume? as in assume? you know what that’s worth?

@Tom: 9

Says who? Did Jesus say taking care of the poor was just an option, because I don’t remember that.

Tom, are you saying that Jesus was saying for the legislators of a country to pass laws requiring confiscation of property by people that had worked to earn that property so that they could ‘give’ it to those that will not work to support themselves so that those that received those freebies would continue to vote to keep those legislators in their overpaid jobs so that they would continue to confiscate from the workers to give to the freeloaders? Is that what you’re saying?

@Tom:

Why don’t you ask your hero, Retire5

Sorry I wouldn’t be deferring to a conservative for an answer to a Dim question. I notice you didn’t want to touch it with a 10 ft pole. That’s why they quit making 10 ft poles. Dims wouldn’t use them anymore.

Greg
JUDGE NAPOLITANO IS VERY SMART AND HE SAID THE TRUTH,
THE POPE DOESN’T KNOW OF AMERICA’S CAPITALIST EXCEPT
WHAT HE HEAR OF THEY ARE BAD RICHS NOT HELPING THE COUNTRY
AND KEEPING THEIR WEALTH TO THEMSELF,IT’S WHAT OBAMA HAS GIVEN IN HIS SPEECH,
MANY TIME WHICH HAS BEEN COPIED ON AND ON,
THIS JUDGE IS ONE WHO SHOULD BE ON THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND,
HE WOULD HAVE SAVE THE USA A LOT OF PROBLEMS,
and your dirt spit wont work,

Report: Jane Fonda’s Foundation Hasn’t Given One Penny to Charity in Five Years

According to the Jane Fonda Foundation’s most recent tax return–filed last year and covering calendar year 2011–the organization’s cash, stock, and bond portfolio was valued at $798,133. The filing lists the 75-year-old actress as the foundation’s president and chairman of the board, and reports that she devotes 10 hours a week to the charitable group.

In the most recent tax return, Fonda’s foundation reported making no contributions or grants. Prior tax returns show that the organization, which is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, similarly made no payouts in 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. In 2006, the group made a single $1000 donation to the Atlanta Obstetric and Gynecology Society.

IRS regulations require private foundations to make annual distributions totaling at least five percent of its assets. The rule is intended to prevent foundations from stockpiling and investing funds (while never making contributions, gifts, or grants). If applicable, the so-called Five Percent Rule could have forced Fonda to distribute a minimum of about $40,000 in 2011.

@Greg: Are you saying you have to perform fellatio to know if it is a good thing or not? Do you think ‘experience’ is necessary to judge ‘right or wrong’? Is it necessary to steal someone’s wealth to know if it’s right or wrong? That seems to be the standard for Libs. It is not ‘charity’ if the money is stolen from me and given to someone else. It’s slavery. Wait a minute……aren’t Dims against slavery?

@Tom: Self-sufficiency is indeed wonderful. But we all know there have always been, and still are, those who need help. Before helping, did Jesus instruct his followers to first ascertain whether the poor where legitimately needy, and thus worthy of charity; or merely lazy, and thus worthy of a good pep talk? Did Jesus instruct his followers to judge the poor or to help them?

Jesus , through his hand-picked Apostles, instructed his followers to first ascertain whether the poor where legitimately needy……

Christians, based on Hebrew Scripture were exhorted,

” For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work.…”See 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.

It cross references Proverbs 13:4

The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.”

Also Proverbs 20:4,

The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.”

On a related note:
1 Timothy 5:8,

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

And
Isaiah 58:7 which asks,

“Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house, when you see the naked, to cover them?”

All of these admonitions are personal, one person to another.
When I see a person in need I am obligated by my faith to assist.
BUT when the GOVERNMENT takes my money away from me, by which I could have helped a local in need, they set their own standards, not Bible ones.
For instance, welfare became a ”way of life,” under our generous welfare system.
It gets passed down from mother to child.
As to women, the Bible has advice for ”widows,” at 1 Timothy 5:3-6:

Honor widows who are really widows.
If a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some repayment to their parents; for this is pleasing in God’s sight.
The real widow, left alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; but the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.”

In complete opposition to this, due to the emergence of an entitlement-deserving-viewpoint, are people who refuse to work yet DEMAND our money through the government.
Since these people vote Democrat overwhelmingly, the Democrat-majority government obliges them.
Christian principles are out the window.

@Greg: 50% of the world’s population is trying to live on less than $2.50 per day. The truth is that these are people who are considered to be of little or no value to the free market system. They lack the skills and access to the resources necessary to produce marketable goods; they are far more numerous than any need the free market has for services could ever employ; and they lack the means to be viewed as a consumer market. How is anything ever supposed to trickle down to them?

Now, recall, that you might have been able to say that about India not that many years ago, Greg.
But look how it has changed!
The country picked itself up and its people grabbed hold of free enterprise for all it was worth.
Sure, they are still ”poor” by OUR standards, but with 482.3 million in their workforce they only have 8% unemployed!
China, too, used to be used as a way to get children to clean their plates.
So many were starving!
Not any more!

I recall seeing a North Korean video of soldiers packing UN food bags onto a cargo ship to SELL rather than give to their own starving.
WE gave them food, they sold it for ARMS.
Foreign aid is yet another way the government sets its own standards as to who and how to help.
But that is not that far removed from what one family can do.
We were able to get together a cargo container filled with water bottles, blankets, clothes, canned foods and more within a day of hearing about the tsunami. And that was just one business and a few churches.

on another side,
what kind of atheist judges would rule to remove a cross been there for years,
those who look at it is pleasing them,
the other are haters any thing you put there won’t change it,
they will replace it with a sign of the devil which LIVE all around the USA, LIKE WHAT THEY ALREADY DID TO REPLACE THE 10 command pillars now down destroyed by evil doers,
shame on the judges, they are suppose to be wise and expected to be using their head,
THEY OPENED A CAN OF WORMS, NOW THERE WILL BE TROUBLE AND SOME WILL GET HURT BECAUSE OF THEIR DECISIONS,
AND THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSE TO TAKE IT WITHOUT EXPRESSING THEIR REACTIONS, DON’T COUNT ON IT,

@Tom:

Says who? Did Jesus say taking care of the poor was just an option, because I don’t remember that.

True…neither did He say it was the job of the government. When the government takes money from people to give to others, it is not charity. Only when we reach into our pockets and provide for the poor does it become charity. And that is something we should all do. It is not a job we should delegate to the government.

I spent countless hours (not necessarily of my own volition) reading and studying the New Testament and I also don’t recall Jesus glorifying greed or the accumulation of personal wealth through free market capitalism.

There is a big difference between greed and the accumulation of wealth. Chuck Feeney has given away $7.5 billion and plans on giving the rest away as well. This is someone that has obviously accumulated wealth but is most certainly not greedy.
http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/inspired/individuals/billionaire-feeney-gave-most-of-his-money-away.html
Bill Gates is giving away his money as well and plans to give it all away before he dies. I don’t see either of them giving their money to the government so the government in its infinite wisdom can make sure it goes to the right places.
Just because someone is against government spending doesn’t mean they are not for helping the poor or less privileged.
I think Judge Andrew Napolitano had the best Op-Ed on the Pope’s economic encyclical.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/4/napolitano-liberty-the-wellspring-of-capitalism-an/

@Greg:

That, Andrew, is not the reason why 50% of the world’s population is trying to live on less than $2.50 per day. The truth is that these are people who are considered to be of little or no value to the free market system. They lack the skills and access to the resources necessary to produce marketable goods; they are far more numerous than any need the free market has for services could ever employ; and they lack the means to be viewed as a consumer market. How is anything ever supposed to trickle down to them?

You’re saying that 50% of the world’s population….FIFTY PERCENT….lack skills and access to resources necessary to be productive members of society? I would love to see that report. I ran Google into the ground trying find anything that. I don’t doubt that the numbers are large, but why would capitalism play an adverse role in poverty. Capitalism isn’t why there are poor people in North Korea. Capitalism isn’t the reason people are poor in dictator led African countries. Capitalism isn’t the reason people live on less than $10 a day in communist Cuba. Please explain to me why the salary of the CEO of Chase is affecting the living conditions of people in poor countries.

Thanks, Tom and Greg. Your comments accomplished two things: they provided good laughs, AND they demonstrated just how vapid liberals are and how easily their “arguments” can be shot down.

@Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor): Vapid—would be the juxtapositioning of Pope Francis’ words with those of Sarah Palin. That is truly laughable W.B.

@Richard Wheeler: By vapid, I meant “dull or tedious”, as in “Liberals offer dull and tedious arguments,” as can be seen here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vapid?s=t
Can you clarify what you mean by “truly laughable?”

@Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor):

You mentioned Greg & Tom. Perhaps Richard didn’t want to be left out, so he posted his own dull, tedious and vapid comment.

@Richard Wheeler:

You are trying to evade answering Warren’s question.

Can you clarify what you mean by “truly laughable?”

@Tom:

I never would have guessed that someone who is willing to flay and terrorize homosexuals with unbridled zeal based on one or two vague passages in the Bible, is likewise willing to ignore literally dozens of explicit Bible passages on the poor and charity,

How, exactly, do I “flay and terrorize homosexuals”? Do you even understand those words? Do you not understand the concept of ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’? Must I agree with what I feel is sinful in order to be considered a good person by your standards? Hyperbole seems to be your forte.

You’re confused and there’s nothing to dodge. I never said I was a dogmatic Catholic, or even a believer in God, on this thread or any other. I said I have read and know the Bible.

So while you admit that you are less than a perfect Christian, you seem to think you have the authority to judge the perfection of the Christianity of others. There is only one word that can describe that attitude: hypocritical.

I don’t have to worry about being the hypocrite you are, whining about traditional marriage while defying the current Pope.

In spite of the fact that the Pope’s statements on homosexuality and abortion were grossly mistranslated (as I have mentioned before), traditional marriage and the right of the unborn to live still remains Catholic doctrine.

It’s interesting how you love the rules that allow you to make people you hate miserable, but when the Pope pleads with you to not forget an old man dying in the gutter, that you have a problem with.

How do I make anyone miserable, unless I make you miserable by pointing out your hypocrisy? And if I find an old man dying in the gutter, I will do all within my power to ease his pain and help him. But, I have yet to see anyone dying in the gutter in my lifetime. Nor have I ever encountered someone starving to death. As for helping children, may I suggest you join me this Christmas season and send a big fat cash donation to a) St. Joseph’s School for Lakota Children and b) St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, Memphis, TN.? Both of them a pure charitable organization not depended on government largess.

Amazing, considering how you’ve accused others of being fake Catholics.

I have accused them of being “cafeteria” Catholics. Not, fake. Do try to get your spin correct.

And since you seem to want to represent yourself as an expert on the Bible (having been forced to read it), perhaps you can tell me what passage describes Jesus telling us to help those who are capable of helping themselves but live in poverty by their own accord?

@Aqua:

I think Judge Andrew Napolitano had the best Op-Ed on the Pope’s economic encyclical.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/4/napolitano-liberty-the-wellspring-of-capitalism-an/

It was NOT an encyclical. As you would have known had you read my link to Father Z’s blog.

@Aqua:

True…neither did He say it was the job of the government. When the government takes money from people to give to others, it is not charity. Only when we reach into our pockets and provide for the poor does it become charity. And that is something we should all do. It is not a job we should delegate to the government.

That is absolutely true. I don’t think Jesus would care about how the poor are taken care of, as long as they are. And to your point, he explicitly mentions acts of personal charity. Here’s a question I obviously have no answer for: when voluntary charity isn’t cutting it (as it clearly isn’t) would Jesus be unhappy to see government filling the gap? We are more or less talking about the dreaded “wealth redistribution” after all. My guess is he’d be more concerned with the results, rather than the process.

So naturally I don’t understand why someone feels a need to religiously codify this “no government wealth distribution” mantra by completely perverting the canonical teachings of Jesus. I suspect this urge originates with the relatively new American strain of Christianity that preaches that if you’re successful, that means you’re one hell of a good person (with the obvious implication to the contrary left unsaid).

I also think the Pope, not being American, probably had no idea how invoking “supply side economics” would play to certain Americas, the ones who have gotten their bloomers all twisted. This is one step away from insulting Ronald Reagan, after all! If the Pope had simply stated that he believes it’s damaging for a society to glorify the accumulation of wealth, while ignoring those who are left behind, all these people wouldn’t have had to go internet postal on the Pope.

There is a big difference between greed and the accumulation of wealth.

I couldn’t agree more. I would certainly be happy to be wealthy and wouldn’t feel guilty about it for a second. I’m right here working in the capitalist machine the same as everyone else. Maybe one difference between myself and some on the Right is that I don’t walk around angry all day that someone received an unemployment check or an EBT card. I know all the horror stories about fraud, and the government seems to do things in as wasterful and inefficient manner as possible, but I’m just not going to get upset about helping those in need. There are so many other things to worry about, not to mention, so many other places that the government could be reined it.

@Aqua, #32:

The point is that capitalism values human beings only in terms of their economic worth to the capitalist system. If you’re neither a producer nor a consumer, you’re simply not part of the capitalist economic equation. You have no value. What that system apparently considers 50% of humanity to be worth is around $2.50 per day. Even getting that is probably a struggle.

True Christian ethics considers human beings themselves to be the primary thing of value. It does not condemn the poor for their poverty. Nor does it recommend that their needs be ignored.

@Tom:

I don’t think Jesus would care about how the poor are taken care of, as long as they are.

So, if I hack into your bank account and drain all the funds from it, as long as I gave all that money to the poor, Jesus would be OK with my actions?

And to your point, he explicitly mentions acts of personal charity.

But where does he mention acts of “collective” charity?

Here’s a question I obviously have no answer for: when voluntary charity isn’t cutting it (as it clearly isn’t) would Jesus be unhappy to see government filling the gap?

I doubt that even you are qualified to speak for Jesus Christ. But you only have to look to history to see how the liberal view point, starting in the 1930’s, destroyed what was a pretty good system of charity, handled by churches. Remember all the hospitals that had Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, or a saint’s name in their names? Those were all charity hospitals that also treated those who could afford to pay. Where have all the old folks homes that once took in people who a) had no Social Security check to rely on or b) no family to support them? Where are the orphanages, the adoption agencies, the neighborhood clinics?

Democrat rain men in D.C. decided that the government could do a more efficient job of providing charitable services by stealing the earnings of others. Ooooops.

We are more or less talking about the dreaded “wealth redistribution” after all.

And Jesus Christ said that the Roman government should take the money from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor where?

My guess is he’d be more concerned with the results, rather than the process.

So you assume that Jesus Christ was a “the means justify the end” kinda guy, right?

I also think the Pope, not being American, probably had no idea how invoking “supply side economics” would play to certain Americas, the ones who have gotten their bloomers all twisted. This is one step away from insulting Ronald Reagan, after all!

As much as you will scream your denials, capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any economic system, ever. As Nan pointed out one only has to look at India and China. On the flip side of the coin, look no further than Cuba, any African nation, the entire Middle East and the Pope’s own Venezuela.

If the Pope had simply stated that he believes it’s damaging for a society to glorify the accumulation of wealth, while ignoring those who are left behind, all these people wouldn’t have had to go internet postal on the Pope.

You obviously have no clue why Catholics are so upset with the comments of the Pope on “trickle down” economics.

I would certainly be happy to be wealthy and wouldn’t feel guilty about it for a second.

Bingo!!! The truth slips out.

I’m right here working in the capitalist machine the same as everyone else. Maybe one difference between myself and some on the Right is that I don’t walk around angry all day that someone received an unemployment check or an EBT card.

You are painfully clueless. The right is not angry because someone received an unemployment check (which both employee and employer pays into) or that someone received an EBT card. What we are angry about is that the government feels it has the right to redistribute our wealth, wealth that could be given freely to the charity of our choice. Time after time, studies have proven that conservatives (the Right) are more generous with their money than liberals when it comes to charities.

I know all the horror stories about fraud, and the government seems to do things in as wasterful and inefficient manner as possible, but I’m just not going to get upset about helping those in need.

No one is preventing you from giving to the poor. Hell, give some poor family your entire wealth, if that is what you choose to do. But you have no right to demand the government take from others to do what you should be doing.

So while you’re at it, please bring to our attention where Jesus Christ said that we should help someone who lives in poverty because they refuse to help themselves. I will be waiting on that.

@Greg:

The point is that capitalism values human beings only in terms of their economic worth to the capitalist system. If you’re neither a producer nor a consumer, you’re simply not part of the capitalist economic equation.

Umm, I think you’re confused. That philosophy is the one that Dr. Ezekial Emanual felt should be applied to government supported health care. Your [productive] worth would determine how much should be spent on you for medical care.

@retire05:

So, if I hack into your bank account and drain all the funds from it, as long as I gave all that money to the poor, Jesus would be OK with my actions?

Pathetic. The context of the entire conversation made it clear what the parameters are.

I doubt that even you are qualified to speak for Jesus Christ.

Good point. Maybe I should have qualified my statement with something like “Here’s a question I obviously have no answer for”

But you only have to look to history to see how the liberal view point, starting in the 1930′s, destroyed what was a pretty good system of charity, handled by churches.

And Jesus clearly being an early 21st century right wing American capitalist, he would have hated that.

As much as you will scream your denials, capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any economic system, ever.

That’s a wonderful Christmas snowstrawman. Please reproduce my rantings against capitalism for all to see. It would truly be a Christmas miracle.

You obviously have no clue why Catholics are so upset with the comments of the Pope on “trickle down” economics.

I don’t personally know one Catholic who’s upset with anything he’s said. but I know people who live in 2013, not 1950. You can join us anytime, you know.

What we are angry about is that the government feels it has the right to redistribute our wealth, wealth that could be given freely to the charity of our choice.

because i’m sure every dime of your and eveyone elses’s tax cut would go to charity.

So while you’re at it, please bring to our attention where Jesus Christ said that we should help someone who lives in poverty because they refuse to help themselves. I will be waiting on that.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that, unlike people such as yourself, Jesus never judged the poor for their circumstances, nor put conditions on their charity.

@retire05:

There’s no confusion here.

Nor here: Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Capitalism produces a good economic system, unless you succumb to the dangerous delusion that it’s a source of ethical values. All it really is is a source of good economic principles. Those principals must always be secondary to ethical values.

@retire05:

In spite of the fact that the Pope’s statements on homosexuality and abortion were grossly mistranslated (as I have mentioned before), traditional marriage and the right of the unborn to live still remains Catholic doctrine.

Yes, but you seem to be clueless as to why he’s asked Catholics to stop dwelling on the same divisive topics to the exclusion of all others (such as, perhaps, helping the poor). The Church is in an existential crisis. Retention of the young is not good. The reason is people like you, raving like lunatics about gay marriage. No one under the age of 30 cares. The Pope is obviously a much hipper individual than yourself to have figured out that catering to the pathologically persecutorial zeal of bitter biddies such as yourself is just a recipe for empty pews.

@Tom:

Pathetic. The context of the entire conversation made it clear what the parameters are.

Pathetic? Yes, you are, Tom. And the context was not made clear, at least not by you, except for your now attempt to imitate the Dervish.

I don’t personally know one Catholic who’s upset with anything he’s said

.

Are we to assume the number of Catholics you know are legion? Somehow I doubt that, and Catholics generally don’t air their dirty laundry to others, not even among themselves.

but I know people who live in 2013, not 1950. You can join us anytime, you know

.

Yes, the ’50’s were awful, weren’t they? Men worked to support their families and women stayed home with the children to love, and nurture. More Americans were becoming college educated than ever before. And the middle class was beginning to afford things their parents could have only dreamed of.

Ah, but yes, 2013, with its high divorce rate, high abortion rate (that is destroying the black family, btw), drug use, sexual permissiveness, middle class wage reduction, all so much better than 1953, right?

because i’m sure every dime of your and eveyone elses’s tax cut would go to charity.

Doesn’t matter. The fruits of my labor should not belong to others because it is stolen by the federal government at the point of the IRS lawyer’s pen. How were charities supported when there was no government theft of income to redistribute?

Jesus never judged the poor for their circumstances, nor put conditions on their charity.

Scriptures most certainly judges those who are lazy. Many now are poor because they are lazy. The Bible is clear; if you do not work, you should not eat. Can’t get much plainer than that.

The Church is in an existential crisis. Retention of the young is not good. The reason is people like you, raving like lunatics about gay marriage. No one under the age of 30 cares. The Pope is obviously a much hipper individual than yourself to have figured out that catering to the pathologically persecutorial zeal of bitter biddies such as yourself is just a recipe for empty pews.

Perhaps then you can explain this: in some European countries, gay marriage is legal. France just recently passed laws permitting same-sex marriage. Yet, their church attendance is much less than here in the United States. Their pews are even emptier. You can call me all the names you can think of, it doesn’t make you correct in your “facts.” You keep accusing me of “prosecutorial zeal” against sodomists. How about showing what I do, in my daily life, that is prosecutorial zeal against gays? You can’t. You just run your mouth like a flooded creek.

And, you make shit up.

Warren Think you’d agree there is nothing vapid about the bomb throwing debate between Tom and o5. More like incendiary. Love it