Seems El Pappa blames the fleeing "refugees" on the Christian West, and not the Muslim created ISIS and similar death cults.

You try to give a guy like this the benefit of the doubt, but then reality hits you in the face. I'm not catholic, but I try to believe some of us are in this battle together.

The guy is wrong on so much! He's simply taking an OPPORTUNITY of a CRISIS to push his anti West COMMUNIST agenda.

QuoteIn an interview with Portugal-based Radio Renascença aired yesterday, Pope Francis declared that the current refugee crisis in Europe is being caused by a "bad, unjust" socio-economic system that worships "the god of money."

In the interview, where questions were posed in Portuguese and the responses were given by Pope Francis in Spanish, the pontiff said coveting money will bring about both human and ecological ruin

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/pope-blames-refugee-crisis-god-money-socio-economic-system-bad-unjust#.pzb19j:eGkA

Quote from: carlb on September 15, 2015, 02:04:01 AM
Seems El Pappa blames the fleeing "refugees" on the Christian West, and not the Muslim created ISIS and similar death cults.

You try to give a guy like this the benefit of the doubt, but then reality hits you in the face. I'm not catholic, but I try to believe some of us are in this battle together.

The guy is wrong on so much! He's simply taking an OPPORTUNITY of a CRISIS to push his anti West COMMUNIST agenda.

He is clearly a socialist that comes from a socialist country. That is all we really need to understand about him.

Like Islam, the pope heads both a religion and a state.

I was discussing his role as a POLITICAL leader, and the POLITICAL idiotology that drive him and his influence in the POLITICAL realm over a BILLION followers who are influenced by his POLITICAL Views.

Yet because this POLITICAL leader is a religious leader, the thread got moved here to Die.

His influence in the political realm really shouldn't be dismissed. He has more influence than the American Communist sitting in the White House.

I was reading some recent history of this fundamental transformation.  Believe it, Obama did not invent it. It has been going on since Clinton's first term. Anyway, it talked about a formerly prosperous Polish neighborhood in one of the industrial cities, formerly prosperous in that the residents left the old neighborhood for the suburbs. Nothing unusual about that. Might have been Dearborn or Chicago, forget which.
What is important is that there were three nice, fairly large, empty Catholic churches. Those empty churches became the cities first mosques. Now there is a dominant Islamic neighborhood there.
Anyone see the hand of the Georgetown Jesuits in this? Oh, wait, no. That would be Loyola and the U of Chicago. Got my territories confused. Georgetown does Washington, Baltimore,  around in there. Fordham and Columbia do NY. 

Yes, the longer he reigns over the RCC, the more of his core beliefs we see.  And they aren't good!

I'm wondering if the previous Pope is regretting his decision to step down?  Oh well, his health is probably so poor that he isn't bothered with the wayward Pope.

I find it interesting that virtually every political institution in the world is divided against itself.  That includes the RCC.  Cardinals are at odds over the liberalization of the Church.  And virtually every western power is in political chaos with their citizens polarized.

The world is primed for major change.  And Russia and Turkey are primed to take the reins.

Israel is nearing disaster from a nuke.

We are on the precipice of major upheavals.

Hey, why are you guys dragging politics into the religion forum? (sarcasm, for those without the sarcasm gene)

Quote from: carlb on September 15, 2015, 04:12:19 PM
Hey, why are you guys dragging politics into the religion forum? (sarcasm, for those without the sarcasm gene)

Quote from: carlb on September 15, 2015, 04:12:19 PM
Hey, why are you guys dragging politics into the religion forum? (sarcasm, for those without the sarcasm gene)

I have no problems with you talking politics in the religion forum, or even talking religion.       

But to be flooding the political board with it will kill this political board in no time.  But if you would like I can give you a board address that you can posts everything on the political board.   Politics, religion, jokes and cooking.  You name it they don't move it.   



Added... Unless it is to the Bunker.  

Quote from: walkstall on September 15, 2015, 07:41:05 PM
I have no problems with you talking politics in the religion forum, or even talking religion.       

It is a serious conundrum.

(1) You want to keep religion out of politics, yet, you also want to keep the people with no morals out of government. Otherwise, you wind up with, well, the current US Supreme Court.
(2) That is also the complaint about the Democratic political machines of NY, Chicago, and others. The city jobs are all filled by people who graduated from the same Catholic schools -- police, fire, schools, city hall, on and on it goes,  down the inevitable slope of patronage and mismanagement.

The (2) are the relatively easy ones. The regular people, Catholic and non Catholic alike, simply move to the suburbs, leaving the city in the hands of the professional Democrats who may or may not be by this time Catholic exclusivists. In many cases, they are not Catholic exclusivists, just entrenched politicians. I am talking about people like Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Ray Flynn, even Barack Obama.  They are a form of blood sucker, always with a good victim story handy.

The (1) is where is gets sticky. If you wish to steal, and I object, am I forcing my religious views upon you? (I suggest Obama might feel that I was.) I like Lakewood. Does that mean I think Joel Osteen should control City of Houston hiring? Of course not. But that is exactly what exists in many cities of America. Like I say, a conundrum.

Quote from: red_dirt on September 16, 2015, 10:23:36 AM
It is a serious conundrum.

(1) You want to keep religion out of politics, yet, you also want to keep the people with no morals out of government. Otherwise, you wind up with, well, the current US Supreme Court.
(2) That is also the complaint about the Democratic political machines of NY, Chicago, and others. The city jobs are all filled by people who graduated from the same Catholic schools -- police, fire, schools, city hall, on and on it goes,  down the inevitable slope of patronage and mismanagement.

The (2) are the relatively easy ones. The regular people, Catholic and non Catholic alike, simply move to the suburbs, leaving the city in the hands of the professional Democrats who may or may not be by this time Catholic exclusivists. In many cases, they are not Catholic exclusivists, just entrenched politicians. I am talking about people like Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Ray Flynn, even Barack Obama.  They are a form of blood sucker, always with a good victim story handy.

The (1) is where is gets sticky. If you wish to steal, and I object, am I forcing my religious views upon you? (I suggest Obama might feel that I was.) I like Lakewood. Does that mean I think Joel Osteen should control City of Houston hiring? Of course not. But that is exactly what exists in many cities of America. Like I say, a conundrum.

Quote from: red_dirt on September 16, 2015, 10:23:36 AM
It is a serious conundrum.

(1) You want to keep religion out of politics, yet, you also want to keep the people with no morals out of government. Otherwise, you wind up with, well, the current US Supreme Court.
(2) That is also the complaint about the Democratic political machines of NY, Chicago, and others. The city jobs are all filled by people who graduated from the same Catholic schools -- police, fire, schools, city hall, on and on it goes,  down the inevitable slope of patronage and mismanagement.

The (2) are the relatively easy ones. The regular people, Catholic and non Catholic alike, simply move to the suburbs, leaving the city in the hands of the professional Democrats who may or may not be by this time Catholic exclusivists. In many cases, they are not Catholic exclusivists, just entrenched politicians. I am talking about people like Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Ray Flynn, even Barack Obama.  They are a form of blood sucker, always with a good victim story handy.

The (1) is where is gets sticky. If you wish to steal, and I object, am I forcing my religious views upon you? (I suggest Obama might feel that I was.) I like Lakewood. Does that mean I think Joel Osteen should control City of Houston hiring? Of course not. But that is exactly what exists in many cities of America. Like I say, a conundrum.

Religion is ALWAYS an issue in every election.  Every candidate is expected to declare his faith and have evidence to support his declaration.  Why?  Because it is extremely important to most Americans.  A person's faith (if sincere) defines him.

However, as you have noted with the Catholics in office, their "faith" seems to be a mere declaration with no substance.  All the democrat Catholics that I know of support abortion.  And now they support gay marriage.  Both of these are contradictory to their declared religion.  That tells voters that their faith is devoid of principle; they do not hold to the tenets of their faith.  So, of what value is it.  It is a pure "label" to mislead the voters.

There is a difference between making a mistake and actually declaring your open opposition to your own faith.  That is why many catholics called for Pelosi to be excommunicated.  But she wasn't.   Who knows why?

But my point is that religion has traditionally been joined at the hip with political social issues.  That is because social issues are all rooted in religious doctrine.

Quote from: red_dirt on September 16, 2015, 10:23:36 AM
It is a serious conundrum.

(1) You want to keep religion out of politics, yet, you also want to keep the people with no morals out of government. Otherwise, you wind up with, well, the current US Supreme Court.

What you fail to understand, is the agenda of this forum of promoting TEA ideals, where social issues are like a cancer to the movement.
Lets steal the GOP first based on small Govt Founding principles, social issues will naturally follow when we start gutting govt.

The two are essentially incompatible at this moment in time, in that they divide the movements support across party lines.
In truth, they are essentially inseparable to the Conservative, but not when you have a goal of taking back the nation first.
Lets steal the GOP first, once that's achieved we can once again meld the two.