http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-encourage-redistribution-wealth-pope-says-130756804.html he supports the redistribution of wealth to help the poor.
It does seem rather ironic that the evangelical christians can't reconcile the teachings of christ with social services and wealth redistribution.
Another attempt to belittle a religious leader. Pope Francis is simply voicing Christian principles. The same ones Jesus voiced during his ministry. He preached that if God gave you the ability to amass wealth and power, you should use those gains to help the "least among thee." That does NOT mean free handouts. It means helping the meek to rise above their circumstances.
And do you have a problem with that? You didn't give much of an opinion here. So just what are you trying to say? Also, this is in the polls section. Are we supposed to be voting on something?
Some espouse a severely restricted 'christianity' that limits the essential gospel message of charity to personal whim. They protest against the concept of a societal dedication to embodying the virtue, despite no scriptural injunction against doing so. Rather, their apocryphal notion fits their primary ideological agenda: Tolerate persons practicing it, but not a government of, by, and for the People doing so, and rage against the People doing so.
"Pope Francis told U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday that the world body must do more to help the poor and should encourage the "legitimate redistribution" of wealth." Legitimate redistribution of wealth is a pretty vague statement IMO. It is, however, in line with Judeo-Christian philosophy to help the least among us. Later he says: "both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State ...," How's that gonna work in Boko Haram for example? Are they gonna 'redistribute' the 'wealth' gotten from selling those girls for 12 bucks each? I think the Holy See needs a reality check.
When a State takes wealth from one person and then claims to redistribute it to another, most of the money goes to government operations. In some places around the world NONE of the redistributed wealth reaches those truly in need.
That plan is a way to cause something else. Sounds like a pope with a political or ideological agenda (not good, even if his plan sounds good or bad), and labeled as 'communist' or 'nazi' (negative label) (the former pope was a former 'nazi' jugend, and in the media this was discussed more than once, to nail this negative info into millions of viewers, many christian) can lead to an exodus (masses of christians in motion) from the Vatican. What will happen if millions of christians loose their faith in the Vatican and pope and have no more solid foundation? (they are disconnected, fractioned) What the world witness (without realizing it?) is the re-organisation of millions of christians. This process cannot lead to something good in the end, only when enough of them realize what process is going on something positive can happen (very small chance, because we are still primitive in our bahaviour, watch Egypt and Ukraine, and you see the same old primitive human behaviour, people can't help it, because emotion and human psyche is very old, so very powerful and very fragile at the same time, and television/youtube and politics (and now this pope too) have clearly very strong influence over people's emotion and psyche. From a solid foundation to a fractioned and chaotic situation to a new foundation? A three step process, which looks remarkable the same as going from a two party system to a new two party system via a thirth party.
A government of, by, and for the People can only be as good as the People, but it is the mechanism by which the People together can achieve more good than they can achieve alone. All advanced democratic nations grasp that. Their ethical heritage being Christian undoubtedly imbues them with that sense of community and recognition of responsibility for one another.
I think he means that wealth should be redistributed only when the wealthy are in the mood to redistribute it.
Calling for redistribution of wealth is not equivalent to communism. I didn't see the pope call for banning all parties except those affiliated with communism and ending basic democratic principles upheld in western civilization. 'Redistribution' is a very vague term, so I would be reluctant to even call him a democratic socialist or social democrat based on the evidence provided. Though based on past statements, he does seem to have a general left of center position on economics.
The world of thought is not divided into Capitalism and Communism. Just because the Pope proposes something that Capitalists don't approve of doesn't throw him into some kind of Cold War Communist antithesis.
Really? Its called socialism, but Americans can hardly tell the difference anymore. Except the average keynesian is partial to the words redistribute.
Why not the other way round? I could even infer that Communism was and is a lay and atheist form of Catholicism ... At the end, Communism [in its organized forms] looks like a "universal church" [that is to say a Catholic Church].
This is distributist, not communist. If you are calling the Chesterbelloc communist, how would you call Lenin?
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Pope Francis is NOT a Communist. He supports JUST redistribution of wealth as in welfare. http://www.catholicvote.org/rush-vs-pope-7-quotes-answered/
