AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: One World Bank?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Here is a great example of why politics and religion have no business being in bed together. And all from a Kraut, who is obviously enamoured with Euro-Statism.

Quote:The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

And just what is this 'so called' Global Public Authority, if not an all loving, all powerful, all encroaching, United Nations?

Is it possible for enough Catholics to demand, and get, this genius to step down? And is senility a cause for stepping down?

He's not a bad guy, this is just a stupid idea, we all have them.

As you point out, it is a typical mixing of a religious idea into secular governance, always an error and always dangerous. Hint to Pope, non Christians don't accept Christian guidance! 2cd hint to Pope, it's meaningless to believers as well since you're discussing a secular governance of our cabbage!

This is where I depart from many Christians. They want to apply Divine concepts to secular rule. Ron wants it on moral questions such as drinking liquor or drugs or strip clubs, several "dominionists" among the right Christians do (Bachmann and Perry are strong dominionists, IMO).

On the Christian left, they want to apply Divine concepts by force on social issues using the state as the catalyst for example as this Pope describes.

We Christians would do real well to emulate Christ's conduct. Pretty much ignored the entire government issue with the exception of telling us to give to the state what is theirs and to God what is His and that's that.

Jesus never asserted His people had any responsibility or authority to try and force others to accept His ideas or Him. That's our individual role to play only. To do otherwise, IMO, is blasphemy.

We're assuming or arrogating to ourselves authority even God Himself does not utilize on humanity. Hard to figure out we Christians at times, no wonder the unbelievers think the faith is full of crap looking at us operating totally different from the God we claim to worship who gave us excellent examples to live by.

Old Testament verse to Israel reminds me of us today collectively, "The Gentiles curse My name, because of YOU". IMO, the Church and ancient Israel always have some considerable comparisons. Good and bad.
I don't think it's that religious. It's only calling for more morality in the market.

The Idolatry of the Market makes poeple insane (See YouTube Audio below)
This priest has a point. It's just irrealist to think we can make anything about it.

In this time of trouble and uncertainties, poeple come with all sorts of ideas, in good faith, but few will come through.

The Occupy movement is significative: I like them. But... they dream if they think their protest are going to change anything.


Non Christian secularists( and many Christians) don't see money accumulation as idolatry, so again, this is an intrusion of a specific religious ethical way of thinking into a public policy initiative.

IF the Pope had called on Catholics to watch out for their own personal greedy lifestyle, THAT would be appropriate. He should do that as my preacher should at times teach me that over emphasis on money accumulation at the expense of other things I am supposed to be about as a Christian can lead to my destruction.

For him or an Ayatollah or Hindu preacher to maintain the secular state should govern as if it were a Hindu, Islamic or Christian entity is stupid and causes a loss of respect for the faith and person, it doesn't help one thing.

If the Pope can dictate to you a social policy, why can he not do so simply for you to believe the core beliefs of the Church as well? Why would you accept his leadership on economy and not other ideas? I like this Pope honestly, just disagree with any intervention of religious ideas into secular governance is all.

Perhaps we should return to the "Bonfire of Vanities" as practiced in the middle ages. People would put all sorts of material goods in a big pile and make a fire of them.

The left as appropriated Judaeo-Christian morals in their code of morality. So it does not matter so much whether the church or the left preaches morality, it all turns out the same.

However, Palladin has it right: Jesus said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's". Too much moralistic meddling by the state will come to no good.

Palladin, quickely:
The story of the Golden Calf demonstrate the idolatry of money. (IMO)
Agreed, now, which non Christian gives a flip about that story? You cannot rule a secular society with Christian thinking. Only if the society is like 99% believing Christians, I think then we could convince the 1% to accept our leadership.
I agree. Our society has gone too far away from religion (or its dominance thereof) to seriousely think of a come back of religious rule.

But that's precisely because of this disconnection (disconnection between God and the chief of state, between temporal power and clergy etc) that poeple don't think agout money greed as idolatry.
They know it's bad, but they don't link it to a sin.

The very notion of sin versus "moraly unacceptable" or "socialy wrong" etc is slowly disapearing even among practicing christians.

By wanting to separate at 100% every asect of religion from every aspect of social/public life we are losing a guide.

I again agree with you, Europe and the USA are heading into uncharted territory detached from most morality or governing principles of our past.

That still doesn't mean the solution is a secular governance with allegedly Divine principles ( actually this idea is based on unsound logic) guiding the state.

That's kind of what the Marxists tried in a bizarre way. Trying to achieve a Godly goal w/o God or through the devil sucks, check out the 20th century Marxist social experiments globally.

The solution is in the hearts of mankind, not the state's desires.
Before the Marxist, the French Revolution did it.

They separated moral from the divine. Morality has no divine origine anymore and as such may have less weight.

When poeple think that something is not only wrong, but it's also an forbidden by God, they tend to follow it more.

The opposite is wrong too, like in muslim countries where anything not specificaly forbiden by God has no reason to be immoral and everything that is demanded or forbidden by God (or interpretated as such) is forcibly moral. There, you have a disconect between God's teaching and real-life morality.

In the West we have a disconnect between real-life morality and God.

That's why non-muslim populations in muslim countries like Copts are interresting: Where do they stand?
Before the 20th century, the "fear of God" meant something in the West. So Fredle... is accurate on this point: Morality has less weight if it has no divine origin, in the minds of the populace. This is obvious in the culture of the West.

What is lacking in the Muslim countries is the Golden rule or "love thy neighbor" concept which extends tolerance and hope to "sinners". In addition, the mullahs can amend the Koran by their fatwas at any time. Given the fear of being accused apostasy (and therefore death), the public follows along like sheep. There has been no Reformation nor 30 years war to sort out religious freedoms. Nor is there a Bill of Rights in any Muslim country.