I used to note 'artistic inspiration' in conversation as a plus-side to Religion, but then grew to understand that the majority of great artists actually painted religious themes for exactly the same reason they painted important people of the times... money. So now, that plus-side is just 'funding some great artists'.

One look at the Pope and you can see religion has money to burn on ornamentation, and so great artists sought to be on great terms with that major patron.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>>
To be fair, there is a cultural debt to Christianity. Religion has inspired many great works of art,

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

Thanks for saving my Pope Colbert from the slush pile....

You don't care on a personal level whether someone believes in a god/gods or not, but does it matter to you whether your elected officials do, and whether they base the laws they create on their religious beliefs? Like, what's your stance on teaching Intelligent Design as science?>> ^Yogi:

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.
So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.

So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

Fuck what the pope says. We need contraception now more than ever.

This. Monetary unions need to follow political unions, not the other way around. The problem in europe is that they can't just print the currency of the nations that were irresponsible. If they could do that, there would be very little problem (just localized inflation). Instead, since responsible countries in Europe don't want to suffer because of the Mediterranean profligacy, they need to go with the often counter-productive austerity measures and debt renegotiation (declaring insolvency). With a global bank the problem would be worse. I'm okay with a concept like the SDR (a basket of currencies) for currency reserves and commodity pricing, but sovereign nations need the power to print their own paper. It seems clear however that the global economy needs to be decoupled from the dollar. It would be better for everybody.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

>> ^marinara:

You miss the entire point.
Why would you concentrate on my characterization of the church, and ignore the fact that the elites in charge of this proposed bank would have unlimited money.
And the church is no stranger to power.
Yes, I love Ron Paul, Yes the Church is chasing power, Yes the Church will not care to use the proposed world bank to eliminate poverty.
Tell me how the Church is working to eliminate poverty now?
Tell me when the Church has given away power?
Tell me why I shouldn't love Ron?


Not really missing the point, just focusing on the part of your comment I find interesting.

Basically my read on all right-wing thought is that it's almost entirely motivated by fear. The modern, highly distilled version we have here in the American right is a particularly insane bunch who believe that every institution with any kind of power is evil. Not just too wrapped up in its own self-serving goals to meet the needs of ordinary people, but actually out to maliciously do harm to everyone else because they're all apparently inhuman monsters bent on our destruction.

That's what Ron Paul is a spokesman for.

The Catholic church is a lot of things, and it's made up of a lot of people. It's had a particularly awful history, but I do believe that in large part the modern Catholic Church believes what it preaches when it comes to social justice. I don't really see how or why they'd bother teaching social justice if their true goal was to abolish social justice. Take a look at right-wing churches in America for an example of how they could be twisting the teachings of Christ into some grand justification for Ayn Rand-style market fundamentalism, as well as hate and intolerance.

I also find the whole "fear the Fed" thing to be tiresome and quite misguided. If you think it's physically impossible for Central Banks to ever do any good, you simply need to go out and educate yourself on modern monetary theory. Read Milton Friedman if you think Keynes was some demon summoned straight from the bowels of hell. If you just think the institution is just being run by corrupt people, then presumably you're in the "fire Bernanke, and put a liberal conservative in his place" club. Or maybe you're like me and just want to modify the Fed's charter so there's more democratic accountability, and a clearer mandate.

Or we should just put the Pope in charge.

Mostly though I just find the very idea of a conspiracy amusing. The Pope isn't saying "the Catholic Church should be the Global Central Bank", he's saying "there should be a Global Central Bank whose mandate is to cure poverty". I like that idea! But, I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

But like I said originally, this seems tailor-made to get Ron Paul-style conspiracy theorists all in a tizzy, and apparently I was right!

O RLY, Pat Robertson? Methinks The Pope believes otherwise.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iAhjVj2Uh-wzWQQx9YZrodvKmVkQ?docId=14b9f8e16b19419f8c06d0cea6971dec

http://www.zimguardian.com/?p=4872

Shut up pope. Go away. You screwed our children. The banks screwed everyone.

>> ^marinara:

my head didn't explode. I can spot a Red herring.
Money = power. Unlimited banking = unlimited power.


Aha! So you're a Ron Paul supporter?

Also, you believe the Catholic church is bent on world domination by hook or by crook? And that their interest in poverty is just a red herring?

And thanks for the (hidden) quality!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I need analysis.
(yes, I need analysis--but here I mean of this issue)