Unholy Smoke: Pope Condemns Legalization of Pot

The church has protected and shelter millions of children from State abuse, neglect, child soldiers, child labor and child prostitution. What is moral in your book? Never heard of Mr. Emery then you should listen to the Pope about the hidden dangers of pot.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks to crusades modern western civilization prosper to what it is now. Do you prefer the saber-crescent or the red star?

 

O please. The crusades happened so the catholic church could remain a temporal power. They whipped up the peasants, and offered all the loot and rape victims the noblemen could handle along with a get out of hell free card for all parties involved. Charles Martel had more to do with us not all speaking arabic right now than the crusades ever did. All the crusades did was (*)(*)(*)(*) them off for the foreseeable future.
FFS the catholic church turned the caliphate down when they brought lost knowledge to us as a no strings gift. Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, texts that had been lost to the West for HUNDREDS of years since rome was sacked and alexandria burned, things that had actually put the caliphate at a technological edge. They gave it to the pope as a diplomatic gift. You know what he did with it? He had it BURNED.
The catholic church stifled our technological development and intentionally played nation against nation, fomenting war.
Know what I'd prefer to live under? Neither communism (red star, which the catholics had nothing to do with by the way), Islamic theocracy, or Christian theocracy, nor any other theocracy or totalitarian regime. I prefer rule of law, and individual liberty.

 

Don't thank me thank the church for stepping up to protect humanity and help advance this world into modernization in science, technology, philosophy, politics, laws and most of all medicine.
We all desire to live under a good rule of law not civil totalitarianism or state control in which your every day to day life is control and dictated by the State this why the church is the guardian of the State to make sure that civil authorities do not abuse their temporal powers.

 

the (*)(*)(*)(*) is this, opposite day? I'm not thanking you, and I'm damn sure not thanking the catholic church that BURNED works of science and mathematics the west could've used to propel itself quite literally HUNDREDS of years ahead technologically. I'm damn sure not thanking them for attacking scientists for not towing their ridiculous theocratic lines either. They STYMIED our growth, fomented war between nations, killed thousands directly and tortured still more, and engaged proxies to kill yet more people. All in the pursuit of temporal power. The catholic church ARE the money changers in the temple.


And the catholic church stops temporal powers from going totalitarian eh? Like they did during ww1 and 2? Or in any of the various wars and conflicts before that?

 

Gift with due respect because I understand your point, I want to debate it a bit but please bare with me because I get where you are coming from.

If you want to smoke dope or do a tab of acid or destroy your brains on crack or sniff glue at one level yes its your decision.

However it becomes a problem for the rest of society if you drive a car or as a result of your decision to use what you do, you become mentally incapacitated or physically incapacitated and demand the state look after you.

See its nice to say oh well its your decision. Well it starts that way, but then your decisions to use certain drugs may impact negatively on society or your loved ones or dependents. So what you do with our body begins with you but where it ends is another story.

Now in regards to the Pope or anyone else pontificating about drugs I would personally argue its their freedom of speech right to do so. Oh sure its hard to stomach when we know in reality so many of the people in the church drink and have molested children or engaged in sex, etc., but those are distinct issues.One deals with people who do not live up to the values they advocate of course. The other has to do with whether you should have total freedom to do whatever you want with your body.

In theory, if you are willing to sign a waiver that says if you get a disease related to your taking drugs society can just let you die and not spend a penny on you, you might have a better argument, but you can see how absurd that is. However if I regulate your use of drugs and charge a tax on it, then I can use that tax to look after you when you get sick. So me, I argue drug use should be regulated and taxed.

On the other hand should I suggest you are immoral because you do drugs> Me personally no, I don't judge you or anyone else. I have no right. I believe I have a right to hold you responsible for negative consequences on others because of your drug choices yes, but to suggest you are immoral, no. Last time I looked I was imperfect as hell. I am in no position to dare criticize your morality. More to the point I agree with your point on one level.

I also personally believe marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated like liquor the same way I do prostitution and heroin. I think methadone clinics and.or regulating heroin as they do in Holland is more effective. I think calling drug addicts criminals and putting them in jail where they get access to every drug possible is absurd.

Its crazy but if you look at the prisoners in both Canada and the US the vast majority of these convicts are in there for petty crimes associated with drug and alcohol abuse. The drug syndicates of course are untouchable. They launder their billions through banks and countries and get the best lawyers and accountants to shelter them from any legal consequence.

So I probably agree with you that its nobody's business what you do, but I had to debate the point with you for the reasons I did.

I do think once you cross the line with drug use that impacts on others negatively, yes the state should intervene and I believe it should regulate drug use not prohibit it to better control its misuse.

All said with respect to your point.

As for the Pope maybe he does not know what a doobie is but come on he's Latino. Don't tell me the Argentinian in him never touched any of their fine wines.It is impossible to be Argentinian and not be a wino. They have fantastic wines. You want wine try them and those Chileans next door.Excellent soil for their grapes...but on the other hand, he's got a responsibility to tell his followers don't destroy your life on drug and alcohol addiction.

How can he not? He has a responsibility to acknowledge the millions who have self destructed on booze and drugs and for many of them there is a spiritual imbalance if you excuse the pun behind their drinking.

I respect his role and agree with it. On the other hand I respect your right as an adult to make decisions for yourself.I think he's in a role where he has to err on the side of caution in what he preaches.

 

The Church didn't grab the reins of state power, Constantine grabbed the Church to prop up his collapsing imperial authority.However, I do agree with your implication that the consolidation was bad for Christianity.

Your paraphrase of Matt 22:21 is inaccurate. Jesus did not claim to be the recipient of temple money: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The issue was not church-state separation an Enlightenment idea that neither Romans nor Jews advocated back then, but a more technical issue about the issue of Caesar on coinage.

The "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is (and was) a truism about interpersonal relations. Whether a religious practice should be forced on non-believers is an idea that varies from one religion to another. Christians have practiced forced conversion from time to time as have Muslims. Jesus was not a Christian.

 

You realize that DWI is already illegal right? As is public intoxication? Etc? A simple solution for druggies on welfare is testing hair follicles on them randomly, or an even easier solution if you make it legal you simply track their purchases or tag their ID with a "if you sell me drugs its a crime because I'm on state assistance". Have I allayed your concerns?

 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26038300/no-colorado-marijuana-stores-found-selling-minors-police

Even with stings operating they couldn't get 1 clerk to sell to an underage person. Dealers don't card. If you want it out of the reach of children as much as it can be, legalization is the answer.

 

You miss the point.

 

I think we are mostly in agreement. As far as driving while under the influence, this is illegal. The argument "more will drive impaired" as justification for making a law doesn't hold water. This is similar to the "if it saves one life" argument.

As far as the Pope is concerned I think he should be free to speak his thoughts on substance abuse. That is one thing.

It is quite another to condone State legislation.

 

The Church did grab the reigns of power after Constantine.

The passage does not relate only to taxes. Caesar also demanded that people make sacrifices to him.

http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm

Your part 3 I generally agree with. One comment is that the Golden Rule does extends to a basis for law and this is what Jesus implies it to mean. Matt 7

This is not just any rule. This is the basis for the entire Law and the teachings of the prophets.

So If one does not want others (groups, the State, King and so on) forcing their religious beliefs on them then they have a moral obligation not to force their beliefs on others.

This is the basis for the Rule of Law and Social Contract theory which forms the basis of almost every civilized legal system on the planet.

 

You don't need to and don't have to I can hate or not thank us or the church for saving western Europe and in modernizing science, medicine, politics, law, philosophy and civilization. It is clear that you have your history and facts all wrong and twisted the crusade was instrumental in saving western civilization and the church has been for centuries in the fore front facing all sorts of dangers taming the wild and barbaric world the Vikings that were once the scourged of Europe would become today's leading economic and modern nation thanks to the church while other civilizations were not so lucky because the church failed to protect them and we see that evidence today with a strong presence of terrorism and lawlessness in those regions. The church assisted the temporal power to get established with enactment of civilized and democratic laws laws that would become part of many nation's constitution. Just like any good parents guiding their children to adult stability and slowly stepping back the church is doing the same slowly stepping back because the State that were once barbaric is now civilized and moral.

 

Tell that to galieo. Tell that to the cultures that sat in the dark ages because the pope didn't want to accept a simply diplo gift from the islamics. ETC.
The church hasn't stopped any abuse of temporal power, and in fact history is positively replete with popes abusing their power and grasping more and more of it.

 

Galileo was a devout Christian and it was his Christian faith that prevented him from being persecuted by his rivals because the church protected Galileo and in the end the church will be the first to recognize his achievements. Islamic nations were and are still living in the dark ages. The church was right not to accept Islamic diplomatic gift of surrendering under their rule and because of that western civilization expanded and progresses to what it is now the Vikings that were once scourged of Europe became Europe's most financial stable and rich nation because of their acceptance of Christ. Church history do not deny nor blocked out any of its history this include bad popes and bad Christians at the same time the church have acknowledge the many good and saintly Christians that made what the church is now the same saints and good Christians that enemies of the church have chose to ignored just like how they ignored Galileo.

 

Only a pot smoker would be in favor of legalizing pot.

 

The Council of Nicea didn't actually solve the issue with Arianism. Yes, Constantine did exile the Arian priests or Bishops, but he soon went back on his harsh decision on exiling them. His sons ruled the empire afterword, and for a time being, the whole Christian world bowed to an Arian emperor. Also, the last Pagan emperor of the Roman Empire, Julian allowed exiled Christian Bishops back into the empire in the hopes that the competing camps of Arianism and Catholicism may wipe each other out.

Arianism continued to play a prominent role. Many of the Barbarians such as the Goths in Spain and Italy had Arianism as their religion, not Christianity. So, it's unlikely the Church would have controlled anything. The emperor had the power, but the west was cut off from the rest of the empire. This is probably why the Popes eventually turned to the Franks for support. Unlike so many of the other barbarians, the Franks believed in Christianity.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2005/issue85/howarianismalmostwon.html?start=1

 

True. It's not like its a huge moral imperative that it needs to be legalized. I recently got out the navy. I also happen to live in Washington state. I could smoke pot if I wanted to. I just don't have the motivation to kill off my brain cells.

 

It is true that with the Vikings accepting Christianity, things calmed down a bit. However, the Viking invasions lasted a couple hundred years. After the great struggle, Europe was filled with trained killers upset that there were no wars to fight, these medieval knights terrorized the countryside. The crusades seemed like a better way of redirecting the energies of the knights. When the knights invaded Muslim controlled land, the Muslims thought of them as Arrogant, smelly barbarians. The Muslims were actually pretty well cultured. They gave us coffee you know, and still presented a significant threat to Europe until the end of the 17th century.

 

Good point. Some historians have claimed though that we gained lost knowledge from "interactions" with Islam during the crusades. In reality though, we had a better time with regaining this lost knowledge through Muslim Spain or Jewish intermediators. The collapse of Constantinople which the crusades can be partly blamed for brought a lot of that lost knowledge back.

Which pope are you speaking of by the way?

 

Well, you seem to think very highly of Mr. Goldwater. It seems like you would like to use him as the standard in which all conservatives are judged. Conservatives, like liberals do not have a checklist to go by that tells them what their political beliefs should be. People have their own mind on things. He is not the godfather of conservatism by the way. That title goes to Sir Edmund Burke. A quote from him can be found in my sig.

 

only someone that has never tried pot would be against legalizing pot.

 

Did you just figure that out?

 

It is a shame he did it. By banning drugs we just sponsor mafia who sells them illegally.

 

"Religion is the opium of the masses" said the Marxists when it was artists and dilettantes who were on dope. Now opium is the religion of the masses, when the wealth distribution of late-stage capitalism is alienating the middle classes. The pope is objecting to recreational drug use because it impedes reform and social justice. His position on dope is revolutionary, not in the sense that it is new, but in the sense that getting people stoned is a technique for keeping them oppressed. Interesting

 

Someone has never heard of LEAP law enforcement against prohibition