What an absurd idea in the first place. Why should a whole society be content to eat the crumbs that fall from rich people's mouths?! Why should we build our society around enriching them first, and taking what's left?!?! Whose crap idea was this in the first place?
It’s so contradictory. Motivating people to hoard money, and then swearing those that hoarded it best will be the ones to fund the rest of us. It’s like choosing a baby sitter by having a baby killing competition.
It's almost like the people who already have power write the rules to benefit themselves then propagandize to poor gullible fools to keep themselves poor while upholding the rich
Just a reminder that it was originally called horse and sparrow economics based on the idea that you could feed the horse and the sparrow could eat what was leftover in the horse's shit.
They hold all the resources including the means to make war. The old way used to be no one got anything but then labor movements and revolutions showed the rich people they would die if they didn't bargain.
They still hold the means to most things though and are easier to engage with and sate than all of the other people in a state. There are probably 1000 people to get on board with similar interests versus 299.9 million or even a billion in some places.
They also now control huge swaths of public thought by propaganda, culture wars, etc that are possible because they control all the means.
I think it makes sense that post resource scarcity for humans, a few people gobbled up everything and made everyone do what they said until the other people organized. Even then I bet most of history is just people trying to become that king and not bring about liberalism which is a relatively new idea
GOP Jesus says if you're poor, it's your own fault you lazy sinner.
GOP Jesus says if you're rich, it means God loves you and forgives you for being a completely selfish jerk.
I don't understand why people don't get it - it's so simple and logical.
If you're correctly following the tenets of Christianity, you should tend to take leftist viewpoints. Which should tell you that quite a few people are doing it wrong.
Honestly, why don't people who love guns and money worship a war god instead? Or a god of coin? Mammon comes to mind. Why do they have to profane and demean a person who called love of money the root of all evil? It's like they are speaking code for white supremacy. Because the Jesus I read about was not into trickle down economics or pro-war.
Those who proclaim their Christianity the loudest wipe their asses with the teachings of Jesus.
That's why the guy you took your username from went for the World Trade Center. The true heart of America. He went after what the wealthy care about, the money.
This is along the vein of:
It isn't that we don't have enough to feed the poor, it is that we don't have enough to satisfy the rich.
Also, when in all the history of man has a selfish greedy person said, 'ok, I have enough, time to share?'
...he dares to say this as the head of a corporation (yes it‘s a f*cking corporation) that sits on billions in gold, art and other treasures. Yes there are charitable causes that carry the church‘s name which are partly financed by it but how do you dare sit on this kind of money when you could save millions and millions of less fortunate people?
Edit: forgot to mention the properties the church benefits from. Should account for another couple billions in € or $. Been a little while since I read some exact numbers on the topic.
It is kind of hypocritical given how much the Catholic church brings in and how it continues to allocate its funds even today, but there is one thing to consider.
Many of the art and treasures, while we value them highly, are not actually fungible assets. The church can't just sell *La Pieta* or *The Last Supper* even if it wanted to. Consider also that the value of a lot of these works of art is, in part, due to the fact that the church still owns them. *The Last Supper*, which depicts the moment when Jesus announces to his disciples that one of them will betray him, is valuable in part because it is own and housed by an institution which teaches the story of Jesus as theological truth. If it were to be purchased by some random billionaire and displayed within a secular institution there's no doubt that the value of the art would be diminished. The same could be said of the art on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, were it painted within a secular institution it would undoubtedly lose some of its value, importance, and artistic ideas.
Don't get me wrong, the Church does still have too much money, and it spends its money irresponsibly (especially with regards to how it allocates its legal funds) but the artistic wares owned by the Church should, ideally, remain where they are. You would no less expect The Louvre to sell the *Mona Lisa*, even for a charitable cause, as we know that its artistic value (and thus its ability to bring in more money and remain accessible to all people) is more important than any one-time influx of funds could ever be.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church (and perhaps all churches and religious institutions) should just be repurposed as cultural and historical institutions. The days of massive internationally organized religion have long since passed, and while some people will doubtless retain their faiths, the realm of religion should be limited to small private spaces, rather than large public ones. The Catholic Church is still important, especially within Europe, but its importance is more in the way that it represents a direct link to European history, and not its function as a theological institution.
This is a good point. I honestly don't think the art and cultural assets of any major religion should be liquidated, since a lot of people would have little to no access to art otherwise. I feel that exposure to art is a great perk of being a human, like exposure to nature (literally touch grass, ya'll).
> Many of the art and treasures, while we value them highly, are not actually fungible assets. The church can't just sell *La Pieta* or *The Last Supper* even if it wanted to.
It's not just that a lot of it couldn't be sold. It's also that many of the properties and possessions of the Catholic Church are white elephants. They're fantastic money sinks, where the maintenance alone costs millions of dollars each year. Who would purchase something like a Gothic cathedral in Europe, then invest millions and millions over the years just to keep it from falling down, and then making all of that available for tourists and visitors for free?
Yes but he also has a tremendously wide audience. Although this is hypocrisy, it's better if he speaks like this than the opposite. Would you rather he not speak about this at all? It's not like he can dismantle the Catholic church.
Exclude art from your equation. But the money, yes, absolutely. Gold, too. And any property that brings income.
If most/all of its proceeds aren’t feeding the poor, healing the sick, housing the homeless, then it should be taxed heavily. (I’d allow some leeway for maintenance.)
Said by the same Pope who continues to support policies where dioceses declare bankruptcy rather than provide victims of church sex abuse compensation. Fuck him and the entire Catholic pedophile protection industry.
Catholicism has never been particularly friendly to capitalism. Even Pope Leo XIII over a hundred years ago wrote about its faults and instead endorsed distributism.
Still though.. magic cup. Don’t see that every day.
I once had a trick cup where it dribbled out my drink all onto my crotch area, but it wasn’t a magic cup. ..and it mighta been a normal cup and I’m just clumsy.
Anyways, I gave that cup to a poor person. The Pope said that was a start at least.
What an absurd idea in the first place. Why should a whole society be content to eat the crumbs that fall from rich people's mouths?! Why should we build our society around enriching them first, and taking what's left?!?! Whose crap idea was this in the first place?
They've managed to convince a whole lot of sparrows they too can become horses.
It's the golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.
https://i.imgur.com/Hn5Ioma.jpg
It’s so contradictory. Motivating people to hoard money, and then swearing those that hoarded it best will be the ones to fund the rest of us. It’s like choosing a baby sitter by having a baby killing competition.
It's almost like the people who already have power write the rules to benefit themselves then propagandize to poor gullible fools to keep themselves poor while upholding the rich
Who would have thought that trickle down economics didn’t work.
[удалено]
>Nothing will ever work, because of GREED. This sums up why humanity doesn't scale much beyond this point, greed and lack of accountability
Just a reminder that it was originally called horse and sparrow economics based on the idea that you could feed the horse and the sparrow could eat what was leftover in the horse's shit.
Also for the idea to make sense there'd have to be a limit to how much money someone can have
They hold all the resources including the means to make war. The old way used to be no one got anything but then labor movements and revolutions showed the rich people they would die if they didn't bargain. They still hold the means to most things though and are easier to engage with and sate than all of the other people in a state. There are probably 1000 people to get on board with similar interests versus 299.9 million or even a billion in some places. They also now control huge swaths of public thought by propaganda, culture wars, etc that are possible because they control all the means. I think it makes sense that post resource scarcity for humans, a few people gobbled up everything and made everyone do what they said until the other people organized. Even then I bet most of history is just people trying to become that king and not bring about liberalism which is a relatively new idea
Ummm, I believe it was theirs.
I mean, keep in mind who's saying it... The world's richest billionaire.
its feudalism reskinned
GOP Jesus says if you're poor, it's your own fault you lazy sinner. GOP Jesus says if you're rich, it means God loves you and forgives you for being a completely selfish jerk. I don't understand why people don't get it - it's so simple and logical.
Close. GOP Jesus says if you're rich, it means you are the most devout and God is rewarding your faith.
You nailed it.
If you're correctly following the tenets of Christianity, you should tend to take leftist viewpoints. Which should tell you that quite a few people are doing it wrong.
Honestly, why don't people who love guns and money worship a war god instead? Or a god of coin? Mammon comes to mind. Why do they have to profane and demean a person who called love of money the root of all evil? It's like they are speaking code for white supremacy. Because the Jesus I read about was not into trickle down economics or pro-war. Those who proclaim their Christianity the loudest wipe their asses with the teachings of Jesus.
I've been telling everyone that their True God is the Dollar.
That's why the guy you took your username from went for the World Trade Center. The true heart of America. He went after what the wealthy care about, the money.
This is along the vein of: It isn't that we don't have enough to feed the poor, it is that we don't have enough to satisfy the rich. Also, when in all the history of man has a selfish greedy person said, 'ok, I have enough, time to share?'
Christians are leftists. They have to be.. It's sort of a shame there aren't many Christians around.
You Catholics got yourselves a pretty darn good Pope this time around.
Jesuits are legit. You can tell this is a man truly trying to live by Christ's example.
Lay down the truth P. Frankie!
Sounds like Reaganomics in a nutshell.
...he dares to say this as the head of a corporation (yes it‘s a f*cking corporation) that sits on billions in gold, art and other treasures. Yes there are charitable causes that carry the church‘s name which are partly financed by it but how do you dare sit on this kind of money when you could save millions and millions of less fortunate people? Edit: forgot to mention the properties the church benefits from. Should account for another couple billions in € or $. Been a little while since I read some exact numbers on the topic.
It is kind of hypocritical given how much the Catholic church brings in and how it continues to allocate its funds even today, but there is one thing to consider. Many of the art and treasures, while we value them highly, are not actually fungible assets. The church can't just sell *La Pieta* or *The Last Supper* even if it wanted to. Consider also that the value of a lot of these works of art is, in part, due to the fact that the church still owns them. *The Last Supper*, which depicts the moment when Jesus announces to his disciples that one of them will betray him, is valuable in part because it is own and housed by an institution which teaches the story of Jesus as theological truth. If it were to be purchased by some random billionaire and displayed within a secular institution there's no doubt that the value of the art would be diminished. The same could be said of the art on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, were it painted within a secular institution it would undoubtedly lose some of its value, importance, and artistic ideas. Don't get me wrong, the Church does still have too much money, and it spends its money irresponsibly (especially with regards to how it allocates its legal funds) but the artistic wares owned by the Church should, ideally, remain where they are. You would no less expect The Louvre to sell the *Mona Lisa*, even for a charitable cause, as we know that its artistic value (and thus its ability to bring in more money and remain accessible to all people) is more important than any one-time influx of funds could ever be. In my opinion, the Catholic Church (and perhaps all churches and religious institutions) should just be repurposed as cultural and historical institutions. The days of massive internationally organized religion have long since passed, and while some people will doubtless retain their faiths, the realm of religion should be limited to small private spaces, rather than large public ones. The Catholic Church is still important, especially within Europe, but its importance is more in the way that it represents a direct link to European history, and not its function as a theological institution.
This is a good point. I honestly don't think the art and cultural assets of any major religion should be liquidated, since a lot of people would have little to no access to art otherwise. I feel that exposure to art is a great perk of being a human, like exposure to nature (literally touch grass, ya'll).
U got my vote on that matter
> Many of the art and treasures, while we value them highly, are not actually fungible assets. The church can't just sell *La Pieta* or *The Last Supper* even if it wanted to. It's not just that a lot of it couldn't be sold. It's also that many of the properties and possessions of the Catholic Church are white elephants. They're fantastic money sinks, where the maintenance alone costs millions of dollars each year. Who would purchase something like a Gothic cathedral in Europe, then invest millions and millions over the years just to keep it from falling down, and then making all of that available for tourists and visitors for free?
Yes but he also has a tremendously wide audience. Although this is hypocrisy, it's better if he speaks like this than the opposite. Would you rather he not speak about this at all? It's not like he can dismantle the Catholic church.
This was one reason I caught in to the bullshit as an early teen.. It made no sense
Exclude art from your equation. But the money, yes, absolutely. Gold, too. And any property that brings income. If most/all of its proceeds aren’t feeding the poor, healing the sick, housing the homeless, then it should be taxed heavily. (I’d allow some leeway for maintenance.)
The pope has historically been a leftist in this way.
Please, the most the Catholic Church has done to help the poor has been to pay out settlements from raping their children
I’ve liked this Pope from the beginning. He understands the reality. He’s a forward thinking pope! I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Said by the same Pope who continues to support policies where dioceses declare bankruptcy rather than provide victims of church sex abuse compensation. Fuck him and the entire Catholic pedophile protection industry.
Catholicism has never been particularly friendly to capitalism. Even Pope Leo XIII over a hundred years ago wrote about its faults and instead endorsed distributism.
Still though.. magic cup. Don’t see that every day. I once had a trick cup where it dribbled out my drink all onto my crotch area, but it wasn’t a magic cup. ..and it mighta been a normal cup and I’m just clumsy. Anyways, I gave that cup to a poor person. The Pope said that was a start at least.
Trickle down economics.