At this point butter knives are weapons in London, yet plenty of distrust.. well if your daughters were getting kidnapped, drugged, and whored out.. strange.
He was addressing the U.N. about military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons. Defense is not only a right but regarded as a grave duty in Catholicism (catechism 2265).
Regardless, he said " personal and national security"
Doesn't seem to be a stretch to interpret that as an attack on our rights to keep & bear arms.
I'm not attacking Catholics - most of whom are great ppl (including our new SCOTUS nominee ACB)- or Catholicism. I just think this current SocJus Pope is really bad at being true to Catholicism.
Within the context of military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons, which is evident when you look at the text of the speech and not just a snippet of it on Twitter. Please read the entire speech, especially the paragraphs surrounding those two sentences, it's not long. Again: defense is not only a right but regarded as a grave duty in Catholicism (catechism 2265). It is not in conflict with the 2A.
Ok, fair enough, I didn't know it was a snippet from a larger speech. But in light of that, then it seems fairly irresponsible of him (or likely his staffers) to post an out-of-context snippet of it like that.
I found an article of the larger speech:
Francis, who has made defense of the poor and of the environment a central theme of his papacy, said the world faced a choice between "multilateralism as the expression of a renewed sense of global co-responsibility" or, on the other hand, a path towards nationalism, protectionism and isolation.
I understand that the Pope is a supranational position, but I think it's grossly irresponsible of the sovereign of a nation to denigrate nationalism as such (especially considering the Catholic Church would not have the kind of influence he enjoys without riding on the backs of various nations' armies - the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, was himself a military leader.)
"We must also admit that humanitarian crises have become the status quo," he added, saying that efforts to tackle such global crises, often failed because "individual states shirk their responsibilities and commitments."
Humanitarian crises haven't "become" the status quo, they've always been the status quo for most of human history up until very recently where there is not a very real spectre of plague or famine everywhere in the world. Even the somewhat left-leaning site https://ourworldindata.org/ agrees that we are living in a better time than any era before us in history. More people than ever before have been lifted up out of poverty (by capitalism). More people than ever before have access to food, water, shelter, education, transportation, communication, etc. It is unprecedented that any nation even has any capacity to take in refugees instead of responding "fuck off, we have our own problems" or instantly enslaving the newcomers.
We need to dismantle the perverse logic that links personal and national security to the possession of weaponry.
Again, even if we take it, as you say "Within the context of military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons", then he's not only wrong, but hypocritical as a national sovereign protected by a personal army (don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Swiss Guard, but I'm not in a position of such Papal privilege ;) as to have such a force at my beck & call). Furthermore, he's surrounded by the protection provided by Italy and their own military, which takes part in NATO's nuclear sharing program.
I don't have to like the status of nuclear proliferation to understand that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as well as less-than-nuclear deterrents has kept the peace.
If not the possession of weaponry so terrible that the very idea of war becomes a daunting prospect for potential aggressors, what exactly is personal and national security linked to then?
Another man of power & influence in Italy, Niccolò Machiavelli, had aptly stated:
The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
Considering that Machiavelli was a successful military commander of a citizen-militia as well as a statesman, I tend to trust his experience more than that of a civilian.
You seem to be a devout & well-informed Catholic, so pls don't take my posts out of context. I have nothing against the Catholic ppl (several of whom I count amongst my friends), Catholicism (which I think has many good ideas if perhaps flawed in implementation), the institution of the Catholic church (which greatly shaped Western civilization as we know it) or the fact that the office of the Pope is guarded by his own private army (as a military man myself, I have tremendous respect for the Swiss Guard as one of the oldest military units in continuous operation and for the dedication of the individual members).
My criticism is of the man Pope Francis himself. I used to quite like him when he first became Pope, but as time went on, he started doing things like accepting a sickle & hammer attached to a cross or denigrating America's effort to build a wall - while he himself sits safe inside a walled citadel. I don't think any person alive or dead, no matter how high of position is ever above criticism.
My criticism is of the man Pope Francis himself. I used to quite like him when he first became Pope, but as time went on, he started doing things like accepting a sickle & hammer attached to a cross or denigrating America's effort to build a wall - while he himself sits safe inside a walled citadel. I don't think any person alive or dead, no matter how high of position is ever above criticism.
I can't tell you how many Catholics agree with you, including myself. He seems to delight in making vague statements that do little but sow confusion. I give all due respect to the office but this has been an extraordinarily frustrating papacy.
/nods
I liked him back when he seemed like "good guy people's Pope" - he'd sneak out at night to feed the poor & stuff like that. Then he showed his true colors.
Pretty much all of my Catholic friends I mentioned share your sentiment. To quote Machiavelli once more, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."
To be fair, I do generally agree that too much $$$ is wasted on arms-dealers & other war-profiteers (fookin' mercs like Blackwater), especially on designs that don't work.
But to condemn the notion of an armed state is to condemn the very right of a nation to exist. It's naive to the point of absurdity. Even if all the nations of the world except 1 were to totally disarm, turn their tanks into tractors, that 1 could very quickly ascend to a position of world conquest.
At this point butter knives are weapons in London, yet plenty of distrust.. well if your daughters were getting kidnapped, drugged, and whored out.. strange.
clueless satan lackey speaks. go fuck yourslelf frankie !
Weapons themselves are not evil. It is how one uses them.
No more Swiss Guard?
"#DisarmTheAntiPope" "#OpenBordersForTheVatican"
:P
(Sarcastic, of course)
He was addressing the U.N. about military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons. Defense is not only a right but regarded as a grave duty in Catholicism (catechism 2265).
Regardless, he said " personal and national security"
Doesn't seem to be a stretch to interpret that as an attack on our rights to keep & bear arms.
I'm not attacking Catholics - most of whom are great ppl (including our new SCOTUS nominee ACB)- or Catholicism. I just think this current SocJus Pope is really bad at being true to Catholicism.
Within the context of military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons, which is evident when you look at the text of the speech and not just a snippet of it on Twitter. Please read the entire speech, especially the paragraphs surrounding those two sentences, it's not long. Again: defense is not only a right but regarded as a grave duty in Catholicism (catechism 2265). It is not in conflict with the 2A.
Ok, fair enough, I didn't know it was a snippet from a larger speech. But in light of that, then it seems fairly irresponsible of him (or likely his staffers) to post an out-of-context snippet of it like that.
I found an article of the larger speech:
I understand that the Pope is a supranational position, but I think it's grossly irresponsible of the sovereign of a nation to denigrate nationalism as such (especially considering the Catholic Church would not have the kind of influence he enjoys without riding on the backs of various nations' armies - the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, was himself a military leader.)
Humanitarian crises haven't "become" the status quo, they've always been the status quo for most of human history up until very recently where there is not a very real spectre of plague or famine everywhere in the world. Even the somewhat left-leaning site https://ourworldindata.org/ agrees that we are living in a better time than any era before us in history. More people than ever before have been lifted up out of poverty (by capitalism). More people than ever before have access to food, water, shelter, education, transportation, communication, etc. It is unprecedented that any nation even has any capacity to take in refugees instead of responding "fuck off, we have our own problems" or instantly enslaving the newcomers.
Again, even if we take it, as you say "Within the context of military technology, warfare, and nuclear weapons", then he's not only wrong, but hypocritical as a national sovereign protected by a personal army (don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the Swiss Guard, but I'm not in a position of such Papal privilege ;) as to have such a force at my beck & call). Furthermore, he's surrounded by the protection provided by Italy and their own military, which takes part in NATO's nuclear sharing program.
I don't have to like the status of nuclear proliferation to understand that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as well as less-than-nuclear deterrents has kept the peace.
If not the possession of weaponry so terrible that the very idea of war becomes a daunting prospect for potential aggressors, what exactly is personal and national security linked to then?
Another man of power & influence in Italy, Niccolò Machiavelli, had aptly stated:
Considering that Machiavelli was a successful military commander of a citizen-militia as well as a statesman, I tend to trust his experience more than that of a civilian.
Absolutely.
You seem to be a devout & well-informed Catholic, so pls don't take my posts out of context. I have nothing against the Catholic ppl (several of whom I count amongst my friends), Catholicism (which I think has many good ideas if perhaps flawed in implementation), the institution of the Catholic church (which greatly shaped Western civilization as we know it) or the fact that the office of the Pope is guarded by his own private army (as a military man myself, I have tremendous respect for the Swiss Guard as one of the oldest military units in continuous operation and for the dedication of the individual members).
My criticism is of the man Pope Francis himself. I used to quite like him when he first became Pope, but as time went on, he started doing things like accepting a sickle & hammer attached to a cross or denigrating America's effort to build a wall - while he himself sits safe inside a walled citadel. I don't think any person alive or dead, no matter how high of position is ever above criticism.
I can't tell you how many Catholics agree with you, including myself. He seems to delight in making vague statements that do little but sow confusion. I give all due respect to the office but this has been an extraordinarily frustrating papacy.
/nods I liked him back when he seemed like "good guy people's Pope" - he'd sneak out at night to feed the poor & stuff like that. Then he showed his true colors.
Pretty much all of my Catholic friends I mentioned share your sentiment. To quote Machiavelli once more, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."
To be fair, I do generally agree that too much $$$ is wasted on arms-dealers & other war-profiteers (fookin' mercs like Blackwater), especially on designs that don't work.
But to condemn the notion of an armed state is to condemn the very right of a nation to exist. It's naive to the point of absurdity. Even if all the nations of the world except 1 were to totally disarm, turn their tanks into tractors, that 1 could very quickly ascend to a position of world conquest.