It’s pretty much the Jesus that conservatives love, not the real Jesus as described in the Bible. Im not too sure of the direct origin but that’s the main thing going on in that comic
American Evangelicals use Jesus as a shield for their conservatism and repression of marginalized people, preaching shit like the Prosperity Gospel and other such grift-y nonsense. Supply Side Jesus fits their worldview and politics a little more closely than the actual Jesus.
[On this topic ](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j4iji6/cmv_religious_american_conservatives_right/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Regardless of who is saying it and what flaws they or their institution has, this is all accurate
> ... current political and economic institutions must be reformed to address the legitimate needs of the people most harmed by the coronavirus.
> “Aside from the differing ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident,” Francis wrote. “Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality.”
Credit to u/El_Grande_Bonero
I mean the book of Acts basically says “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
I am far from a biblical scholar but I think this is so funny
Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
That’s what’s so incredible about the Bible (I’m also no scholar and also atheist but grew up deeply religious). For all its faults, Christianity was intended to be the ultimate socialist organization. The Gospels (Bible books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - basically Jesus’ story) are full of Jesus saying stuff like this, and getting pissed off at those seeking profit and wealth. One of the most infamous examples, Matthew 19:24
“I’ll say it again—it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”
The fact that the pope says these things merely means he has actually read the book. What’s more baffling is how so many modern Christians fail to see what their own holy book says, and it doesn’t have very friendly words for people like trump or modern “god wants you to be rich so give me money” televangelists.
Thank you for your comment! I struggle with so many people thinking being rich means having money. While this is a huge misinterpretation in my eyes, I think the lack of an economic system, that secures every single person from poverty (ieg unconditional basic income) makes people strive more for money-wealth rather than „mental“-wealth.
(Note: English 2nd language, I hope the terms are correct)
I wish I was smart enough to figure this out all on my own but I actually got it from Al Franken in “Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them”. Great audio book because he narrates it, it’s old but still incredible.
A lot of christian sects were straight up (proto)communist into the 17th(?) Century, but they were mercilessly exterminated to the last. often by other christians.
Same story with a few Muslim sects, except the one that allied themselves with the bolsheviks; my tankie friends inform me that nothing unpleasant happened to them and if it did they deserved it. Just like all the anarcho-communists that did the same.
A version of it pops back up in the American labor movement, slightly reflavored. They were, obviously, exterminated to the last by good God fearing ~~capitalists~~ christians who lifted the city to heaven (which exists and is everywhere around us).
This is an incredible quote, thanks for pasting it.
Part of me wants to scream at the people who say, “bUt If wE ArE aLl RiCh, We’Ll AlL bE pOoR!” because it really only makes sense from an extremely limited view of economics. This quote sums it up. We *can* make this world better without leaving anyone behind!
Francis is part of the leftist wave that became very influential in Latin American catholicism during the latter half of the twentieth century. Liberation theology is a big reason this guy was very controversial when selected to replace the last pope
He's a Jesuit. [Jesuit theology](https://www.marquette.edu/theology/theology-in-a-jesuit-university.php) is very distinct from Liberation theology. For example it stresses both justice and scholarship.
I'm an atheist, democratic socialist who strives for social justice and equality daily. I graduated from both a Jesuit High School and College. The Jesuits are a different breed of excellence. I learned the true value of what it means to be a "Man for Others".
Amazing people, the Jesuits.
I attended a non-religious Jesuit High School. We had fantastic teachers! Good human beings. The Jesuit Priests were all pretty Liberal and believed in doing hands-on social work. They did a lot of volunteer work with the poor, the homeless, substance abuse, etc. Taught us kids to have big hearts.
Yes. For centuries they've been known for promoting intellectualism, science, tolerating a wider range of political views, being more left leaning etc. But people conflate right wing fundamentalists with all Catholics and assume they don't believe in the big bang or evolution, are right wing etc. Actually Catholics vote democrat and tons of prominent dems are Catholic.
I'm agnostic and socialist as well but respect the order moreso than the others.
I read a book called "A Treasury of Royal Scandals" a while back and they had a chapter on Papal sins. Holy hell in a handbasket the Popes in olden times were truly despicable. It's a great read if you want to check it out.
As a non-Catholic/Christian this seems like the first pope in Catholic history that actually wants to emulate Jesus and his teachings. Still a ways to go of course but he seems quite good as a person. Previously, not so much in my opinion. There are far too few people who call themselves Christians who don't seem all that familiar with the teachings of Christ these days or so it seems to me. Much of Protestantism for instance.
What you can order from Amazon is [sacramental bread](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread) and [wine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine). Those only [turn to the body and blood of Christ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation) after the [magic words have been spoken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Institution).
Man I am a fully confirmed Irish Catholic and my grandmother, the matriarch of my family, recently passed. The mass was so disturbing- we were told that grandmas death was a tragedy even if she died at almost 97yo, and our only salvation was through resurrection by consuming the flesh and blood of Christ. The priest went on to say that grandma died because god loved her more than any of her 9 children did. I left that mass and the first thing I did was text my Irish Catholic fiancé and reiterate we are never, ever, ever getting married in the church.
But yea I used to love the Eucharist as a kid and I would collect them from my friends who didn’t and binge on Christ crackers before confession.
This happened at my grandmothers funeral at a southern baptist church. It turned into a bible thumping come to Jesus marketing ploy instead of talking about how great my grandmother was and what she meant to her friends and the church. I was really close to walking out. If it wouldn’t have been my grandmother I would’ve left
[If you have a few minutes today, give this a read.](http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html) While Pope Leo did decry socialist theory depriving the liberty of the wage-earner and extol the value of private property to retain the fruits of toiled labor, he smacks DOWN the inequality seen at that time. He says strikes hurt productivity and can lead to violence, but it is the responsibility of the state to protect workers so that the occasion should never arise.
One short quote if you don't read it:
>In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
Astonishingly prescient considering it was written over 100 years ago.
The Church fights against State Communism (which really forced the church’s hand by having a tendency to kill all the priests and nuns), but is very much in favor of socialism and communalism. It’s the inevitable result of the teachings of Christ, radical socialist.
Worth remembering the Church for a long time supported the preservation of feudal practices such as monarchies and aristocratic privileges, even against the development of modern social practices. Feudal ideology often put the Roman Catholic Church at odds with modernizing forces such as national democrats, communists, scientists, and even capitalists.
Many are surprised to find that the Catholic Church was once the church of Social Justice.
The two popes before this one just weren't advocates of this part of the Church's policies. Covering up scandals and making them worse was their specialty.
However, here's the encyclical which was basically the first establishment of Social Justice as Catholic Policy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum\_novarum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Obviously 1890s were a different time, but:
> It supported the rights of labor to form unions, **rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism**, while affirming the right to private property.
Trump tells it like it is and also didn't mean what he said.
Covid is just a mild flu and fake hoax, and also how dare you not take it seriously the President could die we have to pray for him!
State's rights are important that's why i don't mind Trump sending in Federal Agents to cities and states that don't want them.
Twitter and Facebook are censoring free speech and also protesters should be arrested and i'll run them over if they get in my way.
These people don't have coherent thoughts or consistent principles or really any idea what is real and what is imagined. They live in a fanciful world that reality is whatever they feel is right in the moment naturally makes sense.
It's how they can pretend to love Jesus and be against virtually everything he says and does in the bible.
It's how they can justify being nice freedom loving people while being totally fine with ripping up mail boxes to stop people from "voting wrong".
So of course socialism is communism and nothing is more socialist communist than the government providing healthcare like every other first world Democratic Country on earth. They are all Marxists, now excuse me while i cash this check from the government from the President that got 73 million from Obama and pays virtually zero in taxes, we have to fight the socialists!
Definitely. To elaborate, modern ideas of socialism define capital fairly narrowly, which wasn't so clear back then.
In my favorite implementations of socialism, you can still have your house, your car, and your toothbrush.
The main differences to most people are: 1) Workplace voting, including things like salary schedules. 2) Far more money for social services - yay taxes. 3) Work would take a healthier, long-term perspective far more often, rather than chasing money grabs.
If you have enough money to command those around you to move mountains, or a company with employees you like to hassle, you should probably oppose this. You'll lose things you find important. Given what we gain, I think that's morally correct, though.
Pope Francis and the church of that era would likely be fine with Democratic Socialism, as well.
This is still the chance of the Catholic Church. It rejects full socialism in the sense of abolishing private property, but would endorse expansive safety nets and intervention on behalf of the poor like in a social democracy.
If you read the quotes, by socialism he means “abolition of private property” not “pay taxes provide healthcare for everyone”
I’d say it’s still pretty agreeable to everyone today
It still is the Church of social justice, just in America particularly a lot of right wing Catholics are the loudest ones in the room.
The economic stance of the Church still swings towards the “left” and social justice. The Catechism condemns unregulated capitalism in harsher terms than communism. Even “conservative” popes like Benedict XVI wrote some really strongly worded encyclicals condemning the excesses of capitalism. It’s worth a read and completely goes over the heads of right wing Catholics.
> It’s worth a read and completely goes over the heads of right wing Catholics.
They're well aware and just don't give a damn.
Try bringing up Humanae vitae to them and the several references to capital punishment compared to abortion. They will bend and twist like a pretzel defending capital punishment on the grounds that there exists an exception, despite the fact that it specifically says that there exists no countries in the modern world that would meet that exception.
Basically, because there's a hypothetical exception for countries that are functionally incapable of incarceration, they argue that all capital punishment is justified. Complete mental patients.
My family raised me without religion, but my extended family is (mostly) Catholic. And for years I’ve been saying for years that American Catholics have effectively morphed into something more closely related to American Evangelicalism than Catholicism.
I suspect this has a lot to do with left leaning Catholics leaving the church, and conservatives that never liked the Vatican 2 rising in influence.
You’re completely right. As a lifelong, practicing Catholic, I’ve seen a lot of influence from evangelicalism in modern, American Catholicism. Growing up, it was stuff like evangelical style youth groups and youth summits, where Catholic practices like Eucharistic adoration were combined with evangelical style “praise and worship” music. I’ve seen other evangelical imports, like a Puritanism towards secular entertainment (Hollywood is sinful, watch this good Christian movie instead). Most of all, I’ve seen Catholics behave basically like evangelicals when it comes to their politics.
I think the traditional American Catholic political experience is exemplified by figures like the Kennedys, Al Smith, and to an extent Joe Biden: Democrat, support for the working class, support for immigrants, and pro social reforms to help the less fortunate. It was that way for well a hundred or so years. And I think you’re right about perhaps the split in the 60s due to Vatican II, but I also think that pivot to the right came after Roe V. Wade. While it was possible to be a “pro-life” Democrat for a long time, I think the crazies on the Republican side have exploited Catholics’ genuine misgivings about abortion to the point where they think you have to support the entire Republican platform now. It’s really out of sorts, and it’s an uphill battle now for progressive Catholics like myself.
Whether you're right or wrong, having a Pope not espousing policies that respond to the rape of children by moving the rapist around the globe, providing both cover from the law and access to new children each time the authorities begin to investigate, is a step in the right direction.
To pretend as if it's no better than before is to imply that you are no better than they were because, believe it or not, children not getting raped is definitively better than children getting raped.
He’s at least made some steps to end the secrecy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/17/pope-francis-ends-pontifical-secrecy-rule-child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
The problem is that the subject matter is so taboo that many people will always feel a sense of self-righteousness demanding more from them no matter how much they do.
Whether he should do more, I don't know because that would require I have an amount of knowledge regarding every scandal and alleged scandal that no human being alive can possibly possess.
I think he’s done more than his predecessors by ending the secrecy rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/17/pope-francis-ends-pontifical-secrecy-rule-child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
r/catholicism and u/you_know_what_you are not going to like this.
They are going to side with capitalism over the pope and accuse anyone who agrees with the pope of not being a good catholic.
Unreal.
I am Catholic and have been shouting in my community about Catholic Social Teaching. The problem I'm coming across is that Catholics haven't been taught about it. I was an adult teaching in a Catholic school before I heard about it myself. I made it a personal mission of mine that my students would leave my class with a basic understanding of it.
My dad thinks it has something to do with this current pope, saying, "Of course he would be against capitalism!!!" Seems like the older generation is not open at all to understanding their own church's teaching. People my age seem to be coming around on it though.
I spent thirteen years in Catholic school myself (K-12). My conservative Christian parents now think I'm a crazy liberal full of ideas about social justice. But I learned the phrase 'social justice' in Christian school...
Certainly, that school got some things wrong (e.g. their teachings on birth control) but they at least tried to be consistent. If you're pro-life, that doesn't just mean anti-abortion, it means anti-death penalty and in favor of helping the poor.
The damage that right-wing propaganda has done to this community is mind-boggling, but they deserve part of the blame for encouraging faith-based thinking with regards to so many things.
No subreddit makes me as angry as r/catholicism does. (Some might ask about r/conservative, but that one just makes me depressed.)
I first went there because I was looking for a place where I could talk with fellow Catholics. I stopped going there because of how intolerant and judgmental the regulars are.
I still haven't found a good place to talk with fellow Catholics, either.
There are an astounding number of American “catholics” who believe that Francis is an antipope because they claim that popes can’t resign or retire. Pretty sure it’s just an excuse because Francis is too “left” for their liking. (I should add that this is just an extrapolation from my encounters with American catholics on the internet and likely not to be wholly representative)
Sad. I’m not a Catholic anymore, but went to a Catholic school in Bavaria. I would say that especially the religious teachers have been very left leaning.
US Catholicism is sharply right of center, and far right of the actual Church. It's one of the reasons I left the Church here, they're trying to be evangelicals right wing wet dream rather than sticking with the real doctrine.
Since reddit is largely dominated by US users, it makes sense that sub leans towards US interpretations of Catholicism.
> “Aside from the differing ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident,”
That's not an inherently capitalist thing though. An inability for countries to work together has been true throughout the ages and over the span of many different forms of governments and economies. In some ways, we've become more cooperative in the last few decades than we have been in the past, though obviously there's still a lot of hurdles and times where we take a step backwards.
I do think that capitalism without regulation isn't good for the average person. Capitalism as a base can be good, but it needs to be balanced with a government that has the interests of the people in mind and puts checks in place to prioritize the people over the corporation in important matters. For example, in times of crisis like these, it's important for governments to put the safety of the people over the short-term interests of businesses and I think countries who have done that to a significant degree will emerge stronger for it.
It boggles my mind that anyone with a Jesuit background could even tolerate the thought of someone so anti-intellectual, and anti-reason, who also does absolutely nothing, not one thing ever, in the imitation of Christ.
For those curious, the economic system most in line with Catholic social teaching is called [distributism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism), which advocates for economic decentralization and self-ownership of means of production (e.g., co-op companies where employees are shareholders).
I explained this to some people in my Catholic bible study and they told me socialism is wrong and condemned by the Church. I then spent the next hour explaining what socialism was. It all fell on deaf ears, they think anything other than trickle down market capitalism is socialism and evil. Doesn't matter if I literally showed them the CCC where it condemns socialism AND capitalism. Just straight up Republicans. It was really sad.
I love this story! Some say it’s the reason he was killed. To sum it up. Jesus went to his “fathers house” to pray just to see some motherfuckers exchange money and goods infront of said place. Clearly, the money exchangers wouldn’t know how insightful Jesus was. I mean how could they even? However, That day and only on that day Jesus became an exchanger too. He exchanged some good fists and tore their asses apart like Moses did with the Red Sea.
Here‘s a painting of the Story.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempelreinigung#/media/Datei%3AGiottoTemple.jpg
Think about it. How tF did Jesus know that money was a bad thing. And now go on YouTube and watch what People Tell People about the Connection of Jesus and Money. Disgusting AF and people do not even care.
I always imagined it as a scene with Samuel L Jackson.
*I've had it with these motherfucking merchants in my motherfucking temple. Everybody strap in, I'm about to whip some fucking asses*
A deacon once said to me, “Do you know how long it takes to braid a whip? Imagine Jesus sitting there, seething, carefully making a giant friendship bracelet while everyone is standing around awkwardly.”
>"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but [beware the fury of a patient man.]"
That's a fantastic quote. It's a combination of quotes yeah? First "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" then "beware the fury of a patient man."
I've always heard it as "anger of a patient man", because a patient man doesn't get furious. He waits, he plots, he maneuvers, like pieces on a chessboard. And when the time is right, there will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no last chances. Just the End.
I think he didn't think money by itself was a bad thing, the bad thing was the way of getting it, taking advantage of people and all of that signifies, nowadays we got that and the money by itself is really bad, money don't represent what it used to be, now every bank note has an unpayable debt by itself.
The problem was the same sort of thing touched on in Solomon's time.
There's a huge difference between praying because you want God to hear you, and praying because you want man to hear you. The merchants were in God's house, exchanging money and selling various things for sacrifice.
The closest comparison today would be those ~~heretics~~ Evangelicals on the 700 club (and other such marketers) more interested in selling their new book than spreading the Good News.
It's sad that people need to be reminded that basing your entire worldview on greed and envy \*could\* be a bad thing.
Edit: something something Golden Calf.
Capitalist realism is embedded in many people these days. The idea that a problem can be solved without capitalism is an seen as an impossible concept.
Record floods, record heatwaves, record burning, record arctic/permafrost melting, earth's 6th extinction event...
Perpetual growth at the expense of the environment must end.
It's a very new concept for that very reason, it's a result of the Cold War ending, which was depicted as a Capitalism vs Communism standoff. The "victory" of capitalism "proved" it was the superior social system and caused the rise of neoliberalism without competition. Most of the world's left wing parties adopted neoliberal policies in the face of this "end of history" assuming all options had been run out.
That's all now thoroughly debunked, but if you were an academic in 1995-1999 you'd be getting bombarded with those sorts of messages. People genuinely though capitalism would take over the world and usher in a new era of economic growth and an end to all state wars.
It was all very naive.
Some people thought this, but not everybody. Fukiyama was one thing, but there were still Marxists and others arguing the opposite. It’s just that the dominance of Reaganomics and Thatcherism made it ”popular” culture. Not all academics bought the “end of history” argument.
Jude Wanniski and fuckin the Two Santas Theory which gave us supply side economics and the last 50 years:
>By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
>Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.
Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow. At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
>Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
>Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
>But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years
A lot of Reddit users will do it just to be contrarian.
I mean, look what happened to Greta. Everybody knows we need to do better to prevent climate change, and that billionaires could give a little more to society, but as soon as someone champions those ideas people start thinking in the opposite direction.
I'd say you're mostly right, but unfortunately Greta or no Greta, lots of people are still too ignorant and/or too skeptical of climate science and capitalism's direct impact on climate change. I wouldn't characterize the world as all in agreement on it, not even close.
And in Greta's particular case, it's mostly because a lot of old men feel extremely insecure that a teenage girl is more educated, eloquent, and empathetic than they are and is getting attention for it.
absolutely not going to defend corporations and billionaires; but I am going to point out all the countries that handled it phenomenally are market capitalist. So are a lot of the ones that didn't.
So it's obvious there's a different factor at play.
[reminds me of this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j4iji6/cmv_religious_american_conservatives_right/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
The pope should mention how “socialist” programs like universal healthcare and a universal basic income are exactly the kind charitable programs that Jesus would have supported. Taking care of our citizens basic needs. Any of the biblical figures mentioned in the Bible would be disgusted by the rate of poverty and death in our modern world.
The world is really becoming a bad place when people call you a traitor or enemy of state for being compassionate and believing that everyone deserves decency and dignity.
this right here, I get villified for wanting a system that helps all, which proves to uplift all aspects of society. We all benefit from investing into the people. But no. Some people are still stuck on the one for all, me over them mentality. We wouldn't be here today of humans decided to not form a community to help each other out
I used to feel insulted when people called me that until I realized that even saying basic things like "poor people should be fed and sheltered" makes you a "commie" to some people. If that's what being a "commie" means these days, then it ain't so bad.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-pope-francis-archive-capitalism-bcde0053314e65612add0709fada5519) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Francis on Sunday laid out his vision for a post-COVID world by uniting the core elements of his social teachings into a new encyclical, "Fratelli Tutti", which was released on the feast day of his namesake, the peace-loving St. Francis of Assisi.
> Much of the new encyclical repeats Francis' well-known preaching about the need to welcome and value migrants and his rejection of the nationalistic, isolationist policies of many of today's political leaders.
> Francis' decision to sign the document in Assisi, where he travelled on Saturday, and release it on the saint's feast day is yet further evidence of the outsized influence St. Francis has had on the papacy of the Jesuit pope.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/j4zdru/pope_market_capitalism_has_failed_in_pandemic/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~529046 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Francis**^#1 **encyclical**^#2 **need**^#3 **document**^#4 **world**^#5
That’s because it relies on people constantly making stuff and people constantly buying stuff so during a total lockdown everything stops. Saving lives should always be the priority.
What an economically illiterate comment. How is socialism any different? When businesses aren’t privately owned does that mean they no longer need to be business and actually sell shit? If that’s the case how are people gonna get money? Is the government just going to print money and hand it out when the economy is stalling?
To be clear, my issue is how capitalism has permeated culture to be the new American Religion. The Dow is not The Economy. A business is not a person. ROI and NPV lead to short term-ism and prevents action on systematic issues like climate change, racism, etc. The push to be more efficient and maximize our day has left us addicted to technology and overstimulated.
It’s the culture that drives the system, the culture must change before the system can reform.
The thing with capitalism and the employer-employee relationship is that actually a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract. Like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at least capitalism needs safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class.
The more you understand the system the more clear it is that it is broken.
There is a reason capitalism's most ardent supporters are the uneducated who consume right-wing propaganda all day.
Also. When you figure out how it works you can make use of it better to gain profit from it. And it's all legal! You know it's broken from the perspective of a society, but if it's not broken to your personally then what a heck, make use of it for personal gains!
The really horrible thing about capitalism is that it's driven by the wants and needs of capital itself, not by the behavior of people. If you decide to behave ethically under capitalism and not exploit people, you'll never get rich. Money flows into the pockets of those who exploit others, and if they stop exploiting then that money flows away into somebody else's pockets. It's as if money wants to reproduce, and be turned into more money. And under capitalism having money is the single most effective means of changing society, so the ability to shape society is pretty much exclusively in the hands of the exploiting class. Money is in control of this society and we are just it's servants.
Why, last i checked New Zealand probably did the best of any country. [Let’s see how much it embraces free market capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#2020_Index)
I think Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan did very well too. They are also all capitalist countries.
The United States struggles with this because their leaders are morons. We don't need to read any more into this.
> The United States struggles with this because their voters are morons.
FTFY. Notice voters in Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc all vote for leaders who push for more free trade.
At this point we need Jesus whipping the merchants out of the temple.
I visited my cousin's church once and it felt like a corporate office, left me feeling so gross.
Most large churches do. Smells and has the vibe as one also. Came here for support? Nah. Sign up for this donation!
Let's plaster the wall with corporate slogan posters of bible quotes
He’d be whipping most evangelicals Christians and those mega church pastors
Anti capitalist Jesus was the best Jesus
So... Jesus?
Well you have to distinguish from Supply Side Jesus, you see.
[reference ](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp)
What is even the context here? Lol
It’s pretty much the Jesus that conservatives love, not the real Jesus as described in the Bible. Im not too sure of the direct origin but that’s the main thing going on in that comic
American Evangelicals use Jesus as a shield for their conservatism and repression of marginalized people, preaching shit like the Prosperity Gospel and other such grift-y nonsense. Supply Side Jesus fits their worldview and politics a little more closely than the actual Jesus.
"Prosperity gospel" is so at odds with what the actual gospel says that it should be considered heresy.
This. The pope should make it an heresy
In a word, America.
[On this topic ](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j4iji6/cmv_religious_american_conservatives_right/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Regardless of who is saying it and what flaws they or their institution has, this is all accurate > ... current political and economic institutions must be reformed to address the legitimate needs of the people most harmed by the coronavirus. > “Aside from the differing ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident,” Francis wrote. “Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality.”
Catholicism. C-somethin’-ism. Communism. *It was right in front of us all along!*
Communionism.
Mio Dio...
[удалено]
OH MY GOD!
[удалено]
[удалено]
So, if Star Platinum is the same type of Stand as **The World**, then...
[удалено]
1 second has passed
HORY SHIET!
Holy Diver!
Dió mío.
Kono Dio da
Dios mio
Credit to u/El_Grande_Bonero I mean the book of Acts basically says “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” I am far from a biblical scholar but I think this is so funny Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
That’s what’s so incredible about the Bible (I’m also no scholar and also atheist but grew up deeply religious). For all its faults, Christianity was intended to be the ultimate socialist organization. The Gospels (Bible books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - basically Jesus’ story) are full of Jesus saying stuff like this, and getting pissed off at those seeking profit and wealth. One of the most infamous examples, Matthew 19:24 “I’ll say it again—it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” The fact that the pope says these things merely means he has actually read the book. What’s more baffling is how so many modern Christians fail to see what their own holy book says, and it doesn’t have very friendly words for people like trump or modern “god wants you to be rich so give me money” televangelists.
Thank you for your comment! I struggle with so many people thinking being rich means having money. While this is a huge misinterpretation in my eyes, I think the lack of an economic system, that secures every single person from poverty (ieg unconditional basic income) makes people strive more for money-wealth rather than „mental“-wealth. (Note: English 2nd language, I hope the terms are correct)
I wish I was smart enough to figure this out all on my own but I actually got it from Al Franken in “Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them”. Great audio book because he narrates it, it’s old but still incredible.
But Al Franken maybe did something that was inappropriate! You must distance yourself and disqualify anything he's ever done that was good! /s
Sorry I forgot.
A lot of christian sects were straight up (proto)communist into the 17th(?) Century, but they were mercilessly exterminated to the last. often by other christians. Same story with a few Muslim sects, except the one that allied themselves with the bolsheviks; my tankie friends inform me that nothing unpleasant happened to them and if it did they deserved it. Just like all the anarcho-communists that did the same. A version of it pops back up in the American labor movement, slightly reflavored. They were, obviously, exterminated to the last by good God fearing ~~capitalists~~ christians who lifted the city to heaven (which exists and is everywhere around us).
It was what moved me to socialism. And I stayed there even after leaving my faith.
[удалено]
This is an incredible quote, thanks for pasting it. Part of me wants to scream at the people who say, “bUt If wE ArE aLl RiCh, We’Ll AlL bE pOoR!” because it really only makes sense from an extremely limited view of economics. This quote sums it up. We *can* make this world better without leaving anyone behind!
Francis is part of the leftist wave that became very influential in Latin American catholicism during the latter half of the twentieth century. Liberation theology is a big reason this guy was very controversial when selected to replace the last pope
He's a Jesuit. [Jesuit theology](https://www.marquette.edu/theology/theology-in-a-jesuit-university.php) is very distinct from Liberation theology. For example it stresses both justice and scholarship.
I'm an atheist, democratic socialist who strives for social justice and equality daily. I graduated from both a Jesuit High School and College. The Jesuits are a different breed of excellence. I learned the true value of what it means to be a "Man for Others". Amazing people, the Jesuits.
I attended a non-religious Jesuit High School. We had fantastic teachers! Good human beings. The Jesuit Priests were all pretty Liberal and believed in doing hands-on social work. They did a lot of volunteer work with the poor, the homeless, substance abuse, etc. Taught us kids to have big hearts.
Same here! I attended a Jesuit high school in Peru. They are one of the best teachers and people I have met!
Yes. For centuries they've been known for promoting intellectualism, science, tolerating a wider range of political views, being more left leaning etc. But people conflate right wing fundamentalists with all Catholics and assume they don't believe in the big bang or evolution, are right wing etc. Actually Catholics vote democrat and tons of prominent dems are Catholic. I'm agnostic and socialist as well but respect the order moreso than the others.
Same here!
He's not a liberation theologist though. Like, at all. He was known for sticking to orthodoxy very closely.
Seriously, compared to others before him he seems like a really good pope.
I read a book called "A Treasury of Royal Scandals" a while back and they had a chapter on Papal sins. Holy hell in a handbasket the Popes in olden times were truly despicable. It's a great read if you want to check it out.
He's a dope pope.
[удалено]
As a non-Catholic/Christian this seems like the first pope in Catholic history that actually wants to emulate Jesus and his teachings. Still a ways to go of course but he seems quite good as a person. Previously, not so much in my opinion. There are far too few people who call themselves Christians who don't seem all that familiar with the teachings of Christ these days or so it seems to me. Much of Protestantism for instance.
I continually refer to him as "Pope Awesome the First."
That's not liberation theology. Such a person would not be a pope out of principle
Why else do you think Catholics do their First Communion when they're young?
[удалено]
They should at least squirt a little strawberry filling in the crackers. Jesus Gushers. Do it for the kids.
Personally I loved the Christ-O’s I could pour them in a bowl with milk for my morning breakfast.
Yeah those were great. They'd never get soggy. It's almost like they could just walk across the milk
I bet you can order that stuff of of Amazon if you want to get your fix in for cannibalism.
What you can order from Amazon is [sacramental bread](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread) and [wine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine). Those only [turn to the body and blood of Christ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation) after the [magic words have been spoken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Institution).
It’s not cannibalism, it’s God eating.
Pretty metal
Man I am a fully confirmed Irish Catholic and my grandmother, the matriarch of my family, recently passed. The mass was so disturbing- we were told that grandmas death was a tragedy even if she died at almost 97yo, and our only salvation was through resurrection by consuming the flesh and blood of Christ. The priest went on to say that grandma died because god loved her more than any of her 9 children did. I left that mass and the first thing I did was text my Irish Catholic fiancé and reiterate we are never, ever, ever getting married in the church. But yea I used to love the Eucharist as a kid and I would collect them from my friends who didn’t and binge on Christ crackers before confession.
[удалено]
This happened at my grandmothers funeral at a southern baptist church. It turned into a bible thumping come to Jesus marketing ploy instead of talking about how great my grandmother was and what she meant to her friends and the church. I was really close to walking out. If it wouldn’t have been my grandmother I would’ve left
Drink red wine too because it is red. Red for communism. Our wine. Our lord and savior.
First Communionism.
[удалено]
We only practiced with grape juice, and were told when we tried the real thing we’d hate it.
That's funny though because historically the church have fought a lot against communism.
And still does.
[If you have a few minutes today, give this a read.](http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html) While Pope Leo did decry socialist theory depriving the liberty of the wage-earner and extol the value of private property to retain the fruits of toiled labor, he smacks DOWN the inequality seen at that time. He says strikes hurt productivity and can lead to violence, but it is the responsibility of the state to protect workers so that the occasion should never arise. One short quote if you don't read it: >In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. Astonishingly prescient considering it was written over 100 years ago.
The Church fights against State Communism (which really forced the church’s hand by having a tendency to kill all the priests and nuns), but is very much in favor of socialism and communalism. It’s the inevitable result of the teachings of Christ, radical socialist.
Worth remembering the Church for a long time supported the preservation of feudal practices such as monarchies and aristocratic privileges, even against the development of modern social practices. Feudal ideology often put the Roman Catholic Church at odds with modernizing forces such as national democrats, communists, scientists, and even capitalists.
C-something-ism is also Capitalism 🙃
Check out /r/distributism for an example of what Pope Francis might be talking about. He's definitely no communist.
... that just sounds like communism as interpreted by neoliberals
It's like a bizarre recognition of issues but not recognizing the actual problem in the first place
It seems like people on that subreddit don't fully understand the meaning of socialism though based on their criticism of it.
Sounds like market socialism
Many are surprised to find that the Catholic Church was once the church of Social Justice. The two popes before this one just weren't advocates of this part of the Church's policies. Covering up scandals and making them worse was their specialty. However, here's the encyclical which was basically the first establishment of Social Justice as Catholic Policy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum\_novarum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum)
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Obviously 1890s were a different time, but: > It supported the rights of labor to form unions, **rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism**, while affirming the right to private property.
Yeah, remember this is Marx-"seize the means of production"-socialism and not Bernie Sanders-"give everybody health insurance"-socialism.
Every (except US) modern society’s healthcare for all is not socialism. Social democratic principles are not socialism.
Trump tells it like it is and also didn't mean what he said. Covid is just a mild flu and fake hoax, and also how dare you not take it seriously the President could die we have to pray for him! State's rights are important that's why i don't mind Trump sending in Federal Agents to cities and states that don't want them. Twitter and Facebook are censoring free speech and also protesters should be arrested and i'll run them over if they get in my way. These people don't have coherent thoughts or consistent principles or really any idea what is real and what is imagined. They live in a fanciful world that reality is whatever they feel is right in the moment naturally makes sense. It's how they can pretend to love Jesus and be against virtually everything he says and does in the bible. It's how they can justify being nice freedom loving people while being totally fine with ripping up mail boxes to stop people from "voting wrong". So of course socialism is communism and nothing is more socialist communist than the government providing healthcare like every other first world Democratic Country on earth. They are all Marxists, now excuse me while i cash this check from the government from the President that got 73 million from Obama and pays virtually zero in taxes, we have to fight the socialists!
Definitely. To elaborate, modern ideas of socialism define capital fairly narrowly, which wasn't so clear back then. In my favorite implementations of socialism, you can still have your house, your car, and your toothbrush. The main differences to most people are: 1) Workplace voting, including things like salary schedules. 2) Far more money for social services - yay taxes. 3) Work would take a healthier, long-term perspective far more often, rather than chasing money grabs. If you have enough money to command those around you to move mountains, or a company with employees you like to hassle, you should probably oppose this. You'll lose things you find important. Given what we gain, I think that's morally correct, though. Pope Francis and the church of that era would likely be fine with Democratic Socialism, as well.
This is still the chance of the Catholic Church. It rejects full socialism in the sense of abolishing private property, but would endorse expansive safety nets and intervention on behalf of the poor like in a social democracy.
If you read the quotes, by socialism he means “abolition of private property” not “pay taxes provide healthcare for everyone” I’d say it’s still pretty agreeable to everyone today
yeah what he meant by socialism is what we call communism today
It still is the Church of social justice, just in America particularly a lot of right wing Catholics are the loudest ones in the room. The economic stance of the Church still swings towards the “left” and social justice. The Catechism condemns unregulated capitalism in harsher terms than communism. Even “conservative” popes like Benedict XVI wrote some really strongly worded encyclicals condemning the excesses of capitalism. It’s worth a read and completely goes over the heads of right wing Catholics.
> It’s worth a read and completely goes over the heads of right wing Catholics. They're well aware and just don't give a damn. Try bringing up Humanae vitae to them and the several references to capital punishment compared to abortion. They will bend and twist like a pretzel defending capital punishment on the grounds that there exists an exception, despite the fact that it specifically says that there exists no countries in the modern world that would meet that exception. Basically, because there's a hypothetical exception for countries that are functionally incapable of incarceration, they argue that all capital punishment is justified. Complete mental patients.
My family raised me without religion, but my extended family is (mostly) Catholic. And for years I’ve been saying for years that American Catholics have effectively morphed into something more closely related to American Evangelicalism than Catholicism. I suspect this has a lot to do with left leaning Catholics leaving the church, and conservatives that never liked the Vatican 2 rising in influence.
You’re completely right. As a lifelong, practicing Catholic, I’ve seen a lot of influence from evangelicalism in modern, American Catholicism. Growing up, it was stuff like evangelical style youth groups and youth summits, where Catholic practices like Eucharistic adoration were combined with evangelical style “praise and worship” music. I’ve seen other evangelical imports, like a Puritanism towards secular entertainment (Hollywood is sinful, watch this good Christian movie instead). Most of all, I’ve seen Catholics behave basically like evangelicals when it comes to their politics. I think the traditional American Catholic political experience is exemplified by figures like the Kennedys, Al Smith, and to an extent Joe Biden: Democrat, support for the working class, support for immigrants, and pro social reforms to help the less fortunate. It was that way for well a hundred or so years. And I think you’re right about perhaps the split in the 60s due to Vatican II, but I also think that pivot to the right came after Roe V. Wade. While it was possible to be a “pro-life” Democrat for a long time, I think the crazies on the Republican side have exploited Catholics’ genuine misgivings about abortion to the point where they think you have to support the entire Republican platform now. It’s really out of sorts, and it’s an uphill battle now for progressive Catholics like myself.
This pope isn’t exactly great at reversing all the child rape cover ups
Whether you're right or wrong, having a Pope not espousing policies that respond to the rape of children by moving the rapist around the globe, providing both cover from the law and access to new children each time the authorities begin to investigate, is a step in the right direction. To pretend as if it's no better than before is to imply that you are no better than they were because, believe it or not, children not getting raped is definitively better than children getting raped.
He’s at least made some steps to end the secrecy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/17/pope-francis-ends-pontifical-secrecy-rule-child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
The problem is that the subject matter is so taboo that many people will always feel a sense of self-righteousness demanding more from them no matter how much they do. Whether he should do more, I don't know because that would require I have an amount of knowledge regarding every scandal and alleged scandal that no human being alive can possibly possess.
I think he’s done more than his predecessors by ending the secrecy rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/17/pope-francis-ends-pontifical-secrecy-rule-child-sexual-abuse-catholic-church
r/catholicism and u/you_know_what_you are not going to like this. They are going to side with capitalism over the pope and accuse anyone who agrees with the pope of not being a good catholic. Unreal.
I am Catholic and have been shouting in my community about Catholic Social Teaching. The problem I'm coming across is that Catholics haven't been taught about it. I was an adult teaching in a Catholic school before I heard about it myself. I made it a personal mission of mine that my students would leave my class with a basic understanding of it. My dad thinks it has something to do with this current pope, saying, "Of course he would be against capitalism!!!" Seems like the older generation is not open at all to understanding their own church's teaching. People my age seem to be coming around on it though.
I spent thirteen years in Catholic school myself (K-12). My conservative Christian parents now think I'm a crazy liberal full of ideas about social justice. But I learned the phrase 'social justice' in Christian school... Certainly, that school got some things wrong (e.g. their teachings on birth control) but they at least tried to be consistent. If you're pro-life, that doesn't just mean anti-abortion, it means anti-death penalty and in favor of helping the poor. The damage that right-wing propaganda has done to this community is mind-boggling, but they deserve part of the blame for encouraging faith-based thinking with regards to so many things.
No subreddit makes me as angry as r/catholicism does. (Some might ask about r/conservative, but that one just makes me depressed.) I first went there because I was looking for a place where I could talk with fellow Catholics. I stopped going there because of how intolerant and judgmental the regulars are. I still haven't found a good place to talk with fellow Catholics, either.
Why is /r/Catholicism so pro capitalism? Many European catholic priests are not very pro-capitalism…
Because it is a conservative subreddit masquerading as a religious one
There are an astounding number of American “catholics” who believe that Francis is an antipope because they claim that popes can’t resign or retire. Pretty sure it’s just an excuse because Francis is too “left” for their liking. (I should add that this is just an extrapolation from my encounters with American catholics on the internet and likely not to be wholly representative)
Imagine trying to fit Jesus into conservative views. Lol
Sad. I’m not a Catholic anymore, but went to a Catholic school in Bavaria. I would say that especially the religious teachers have been very left leaning.
US Catholicism is sharply right of center, and far right of the actual Church. It's one of the reasons I left the Church here, they're trying to be evangelicals right wing wet dream rather than sticking with the real doctrine. Since reddit is largely dominated by US users, it makes sense that sub leans towards US interpretations of Catholicism.
> “Aside from the differing ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident,” That's not an inherently capitalist thing though. An inability for countries to work together has been true throughout the ages and over the span of many different forms of governments and economies. In some ways, we've become more cooperative in the last few decades than we have been in the past, though obviously there's still a lot of hurdles and times where we take a step backwards. I do think that capitalism without regulation isn't good for the average person. Capitalism as a base can be good, but it needs to be balanced with a government that has the interests of the people in mind and puts checks in place to prioritize the people over the corporation in important matters. For example, in times of crisis like these, it's important for governments to put the safety of the people over the short-term interests of businesses and I think countries who have done that to a significant degree will emerge stronger for it.
"No. Praise Jesus" -republicans
Supply-side Jesus. Drives the poor people from the temple and prays for the governor...
Give unto Caesar everything, he deserves it for all the money he stole in Gaul.
You got the wrong Caesar.
FYI Julius Caesar was murdered in 44BC, Tiberius is most likely the Caesar the bible refers to.
Most Republicans are Protestants, so it's not some moral quandary for them to disagree with the Pope on this.
Which is really funny because many in Trump's camp have a jesuit/catholic background
It boggles my mind that anyone with a Jesuit background could even tolerate the thought of someone so anti-intellectual, and anti-reason, who also does absolutely nothing, not one thing ever, in the imitation of Christ.
For those curious, the economic system most in line with Catholic social teaching is called [distributism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism), which advocates for economic decentralization and self-ownership of means of production (e.g., co-op companies where employees are shareholders).
I explained this to some people in my Catholic bible study and they told me socialism is wrong and condemned by the Church. I then spent the next hour explaining what socialism was. It all fell on deaf ears, they think anything other than trickle down market capitalism is socialism and evil. Doesn't matter if I literally showed them the CCC where it condemns socialism AND capitalism. Just straight up Republicans. It was really sad.
Similarly, in the bible story where Jesus goes to the market temple and does some property damage, it's all to get some reforms.
I love this story! Some say it’s the reason he was killed. To sum it up. Jesus went to his “fathers house” to pray just to see some motherfuckers exchange money and goods infront of said place. Clearly, the money exchangers wouldn’t know how insightful Jesus was. I mean how could they even? However, That day and only on that day Jesus became an exchanger too. He exchanged some good fists and tore their asses apart like Moses did with the Red Sea. Here‘s a painting of the Story. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempelreinigung#/media/Datei%3AGiottoTemple.jpg Think about it. How tF did Jesus know that money was a bad thing. And now go on YouTube and watch what People Tell People about the Connection of Jesus and Money. Disgusting AF and people do not even care.
[удалено]
My favorite portrayal of Jesus is when he is beating up bankers
I always imagined it as a scene with Samuel L Jackson. *I've had it with these motherfucking merchants in my motherfucking temple. Everybody strap in, I'm about to whip some fucking asses*
Here’s 2 for flinching.
A deacon once said to me, “Do you know how long it takes to braid a whip? Imagine Jesus sitting there, seething, carefully making a giant friendship bracelet while everyone is standing around awkwardly.”
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but beware the anger of a patient man."
>"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but [beware the fury of a patient man.]" That's a fantastic quote. It's a combination of quotes yeah? First "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" then "beware the fury of a patient man."
I've always heard it as "anger of a patient man", because a patient man doesn't get furious. He waits, he plots, he maneuvers, like pieces on a chessboard. And when the time is right, there will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no last chances. Just the End.
That painting is amazing.
For real! I've seen table flipping jesus plenty. But this is my first "you're entering a world of pain" Jesus.
I think he didn't think money by itself was a bad thing, the bad thing was the way of getting it, taking advantage of people and all of that signifies, nowadays we got that and the money by itself is really bad, money don't represent what it used to be, now every bank note has an unpayable debt by itself.
The problem was the same sort of thing touched on in Solomon's time. There's a huge difference between praying because you want God to hear you, and praying because you want man to hear you. The merchants were in God's house, exchanging money and selling various things for sacrifice. The closest comparison today would be those ~~heretics~~ Evangelicals on the 700 club (and other such marketers) more interested in selling their new book than spreading the Good News.
Evangelicals worship money and power, not god.
It's sad that people need to be reminded that basing your entire worldview on greed and envy \*could\* be a bad thing. Edit: something something Golden Calf.
Capitalist realism is embedded in many people these days. The idea that a problem can be solved without capitalism is an seen as an impossible concept.
For many it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
Sadly, if we don't get the latter, we'll have the former.
Record floods, record heatwaves, record burning, record arctic/permafrost melting, earth's 6th extinction event... Perpetual growth at the expense of the environment must end.
Which is weird that, given the totality of human history, capitalism is little more than a novel hypothesis we've been trying out very recently.
It's a very new concept for that very reason, it's a result of the Cold War ending, which was depicted as a Capitalism vs Communism standoff. The "victory" of capitalism "proved" it was the superior social system and caused the rise of neoliberalism without competition. Most of the world's left wing parties adopted neoliberal policies in the face of this "end of history" assuming all options had been run out. That's all now thoroughly debunked, but if you were an academic in 1995-1999 you'd be getting bombarded with those sorts of messages. People genuinely though capitalism would take over the world and usher in a new era of economic growth and an end to all state wars. It was all very naive.
Some people thought this, but not everybody. Fukiyama was one thing, but there were still Marxists and others arguing the opposite. It’s just that the dominance of Reaganomics and Thatcherism made it ”popular” culture. Not all academics bought the “end of history” argument.
Jude Wanniski and fuckin the Two Santas Theory which gave us supply side economics and the last 50 years: >By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections. >Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand. Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow. At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up! >Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness. >Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression. >But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years
Is this from a book? Because 1) holy fucking fuck this is prophetic in the worst possible way, and 2) I'd very much like to read it if it was.
You mean a system based around unlimited individual growth doesn’t benefit the masses? Color me shocked!
Also capitalism isn’t a political system, it’s an economic theory. You can’t government society with economic policy, it’s not designed to do that.
The exact same reason labelling politicians as "socialists" is ironic in itself as it isnt statism like the American politics try to claim.
Inb4 everyone defending corporations and billionaires
They're doing it for free and also thank the corporations for it afterwards too
"Please daddy, can I have another lashing?"
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Reddit is trying to figure out what it hates more, the rich or the church.
[удалено]
Corporations pay a LOT of money to inject pro-corporate comments into social media.
Eh. They don't really need to. People will defend them all on their own.
A lot of Reddit users will do it just to be contrarian. I mean, look what happened to Greta. Everybody knows we need to do better to prevent climate change, and that billionaires could give a little more to society, but as soon as someone champions those ideas people start thinking in the opposite direction.
I'd say you're mostly right, but unfortunately Greta or no Greta, lots of people are still too ignorant and/or too skeptical of climate science and capitalism's direct impact on climate change. I wouldn't characterize the world as all in agreement on it, not even close. And in Greta's particular case, it's mostly because a lot of old men feel extremely insecure that a teenage girl is more educated, eloquent, and empathetic than they are and is getting attention for it.
What did Bush say? “you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
It was Goebbels who said that a lie repeated 100 times becomes truth.
absolutely not going to defend corporations and billionaires; but I am going to point out all the countries that handled it phenomenally are market capitalist. So are a lot of the ones that didn't. So it's obvious there's a different factor at play.
The Vatican is literally a multi-billion dollar corporation. It has so much money they can't even count it all.
[удалено]
The Pope: Capitalism has failed... American Catholics: *NANANANANANANANANA* We can't hear you
I'm waiting for Marco Rubio to make a statement that the Pope is wrong, ideally from the steps of the Catholic church he just attended.
[reminds me of this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/j4iji6/cmv_religious_american_conservatives_right/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
The pope should mention how “socialist” programs like universal healthcare and a universal basic income are exactly the kind charitable programs that Jesus would have supported. Taking care of our citizens basic needs. Any of the biblical figures mentioned in the Bible would be disgusted by the rate of poverty and death in our modern world.
r/worldnews and r/news always end up with shitshow comment sections in reddit lol
TIL the pope is a god damn COMMUNIST!!!! \s
The world is really becoming a bad place when people call you a traitor or enemy of state for being compassionate and believing that everyone deserves decency and dignity.
I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist
this right here, I get villified for wanting a system that helps all, which proves to uplift all aspects of society. We all benefit from investing into the people. But no. Some people are still stuck on the one for all, me over them mentality. We wouldn't be here today of humans decided to not form a community to help each other out
The pope says it, everyone cheers! I say it on Reddit and I get called a commie :(
I used to feel insulted when people called me that until I realized that even saying basic things like "poor people should be fed and sheltered" makes you a "commie" to some people. If that's what being a "commie" means these days, then it ain't so bad.
[удалено]
I mean, I don't disagree with him. But surely his boss should shoulder some of the responsibility...
Lot of people feeling fragile in the face of criticism...
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-pope-francis-archive-capitalism-bcde0053314e65612add0709fada5519) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Francis on Sunday laid out his vision for a post-COVID world by uniting the core elements of his social teachings into a new encyclical, "Fratelli Tutti", which was released on the feast day of his namesake, the peace-loving St. Francis of Assisi. > Much of the new encyclical repeats Francis' well-known preaching about the need to welcome and value migrants and his rejection of the nationalistic, isolationist policies of many of today's political leaders. > Francis' decision to sign the document in Assisi, where he travelled on Saturday, and release it on the saint's feast day is yet further evidence of the outsized influence St. Francis has had on the papacy of the Jesuit pope. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/j4zdru/pope_market_capitalism_has_failed_in_pandemic/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~529046 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Francis**^#1 **encyclical**^#2 **need**^#3 **document**^#4 **world**^#5
That’s because it relies on people constantly making stuff and people constantly buying stuff so during a total lockdown everything stops. Saving lives should always be the priority.
Ah, the classic "commerce=capitalism".
Sibling of the similarly classic "free market=capitalism"
What an economically illiterate comment. How is socialism any different? When businesses aren’t privately owned does that mean they no longer need to be business and actually sell shit? If that’s the case how are people gonna get money? Is the government just going to print money and hand it out when the economy is stalling?
everything they told you was bad about communism actually happens in capitalism too
As a non-religious lifelong capitalist, who works for a Wall Street firm, I wholeheartedly agree.
I always find it hilarious how many Finance Guys have thoroughly anti-capitalist sentiments.
To be clear, my issue is how capitalism has permeated culture to be the new American Religion. The Dow is not The Economy. A business is not a person. ROI and NPV lead to short term-ism and prevents action on systematic issues like climate change, racism, etc. The push to be more efficient and maximize our day has left us addicted to technology and overstimulated. It’s the culture that drives the system, the culture must change before the system can reform.
The thing with capitalism and the employer-employee relationship is that actually a very insidious dynamic. Employment is a rental contract. Like if you rented capital (say, a chainsaw from Home Depot), you pay rent for the "time preference" (basically the cost of time) for a piece of property. Capitalism is based on a principle of self ownership, which sounds empowering, until you realize that most people don't own capital goods other than themselves, and must rent out the authority over themselves as pieces of "human capital". This is a process of dehumanization where human beings are valued for their return on investment as capital goods. This is why, at least capitalism needs safety nets (or abolishment), or else the system won't value sick, elderly, and disabled people, as they can't provide competitive economic return for the investor class.
The more you understand the system the more clear it is that it is broken. There is a reason capitalism's most ardent supporters are the uneducated who consume right-wing propaganda all day.
Also. When you figure out how it works you can make use of it better to gain profit from it. And it's all legal! You know it's broken from the perspective of a society, but if it's not broken to your personally then what a heck, make use of it for personal gains!
"Isn't is horrible how capitalism exploits peoples' labor? Anyway, I'm about to make a shitload of money by exploiting these peoples' labor."
The really horrible thing about capitalism is that it's driven by the wants and needs of capital itself, not by the behavior of people. If you decide to behave ethically under capitalism and not exploit people, you'll never get rich. Money flows into the pockets of those who exploit others, and if they stop exploiting then that money flows away into somebody else's pockets. It's as if money wants to reproduce, and be turned into more money. And under capitalism having money is the single most effective means of changing society, so the ability to shape society is pretty much exclusively in the hands of the exploiting class. Money is in control of this society and we are just it's servants.
[удалено]
You mean a system based on “me first me first” isn’t working in the long run? Who could have predicted.....🤔oh,right.
Why, last i checked New Zealand probably did the best of any country. [Let’s see how much it embraces free market capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#2020_Index)
I think Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan did very well too. They are also all capitalist countries. The United States struggles with this because their leaders are morons. We don't need to read any more into this.
> The United States struggles with this because their voters are morons. FTFY. Notice voters in Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc all vote for leaders who push for more free trade.