Pope warns against undermining U.N.- nice speech

Even as a catholic i have at times been critical even against my own religion as far as its religious leaders but this time, i gotta give props to the pope on this one. A big high 5 goes out to pope benedict for telling the truth on this one
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/ts_nm/pope_usa_dc

and this is why i give him props.

He said the notion of multilateral consensus was "in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world's problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community."
While Benedict did not mention any country, this appeared to refer to the United States, which led the 2003 invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it.
The Vatican strongly opposed the recourse to war.
Benedict called for "a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation."

 

I applaud the Pope's comments. I couldn't agree more. This administration's "damn 'em all" attitude has no place in the modern world, it seems to me.

That said, Ping, I have to say I'm confused, and I ask in sincerity: I don't know that I have seen anyone supporting your candidate who is anything other than completely opposed to the U.N. and the collective agency it embraces, precisely over the issue at hand in the Pope's speech; an issue of ceding at least some measure of national sovereignty to a collective international body; or, from the Pope's speech,

How do these two philosophies come together? I am sincerely puzzled how you support the Pope's views, given what we've seen of your candidate's philosophy on this issue:

From what I can tell, at least many RP supporters feel the same. Please see the discussion here, for example).

 

America was created as it is - UNDER STATE OF WAR SINCE 1933 to deploy the zionist conquer of the world of which the POPE IS THE LEADER.
UNITED NATIONS is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION THAT HELPED TO FAMINE THE WORLD AND DEPLOY THE NWO UNDER THE POPE AND THE BANKERS OF THE CITY OF LONON (READ OLYMPIC LOGO AS ZION)
GUYS THEY TALK BLABLABLA.. you loose yourself in chats... MEDIA IS THEIR ARMY.

 

Ah - I better understand now why you believe evolution is a conspiracy against us all. Zionists.

Can I make at least one gentle suggestion? That ALL CAPS don't make your argument more compelling?

 

What color is the sky in your world?

 

Northpoint , here is my take on this. Years ago i had a fierce debate
about hiv in africa with some fundamentalist relatives of mine. They said they supported pope john pauls response that we shouldnt educate the african people on condom use. I said i strongly disagree with it on the basis that these people are gonna catch hiv and die if they arent educated on condoms. Years later Pope benedict reiterated my view on the basis that its the compassionate thing to do. The lesser of 2 evils if you will. Right now im sure pope benedict knows that the UN will never be dismantled and is probably taking the "lesser of the 2 evils" road . Hes probably thinking " if we are going to live with the un, i might as well make people aware of who is ruling the UN and who also has no regard for the UN when its decisions dont fall in its favor

 

OK , folks remember when it comes to drugs just say no

 

OK, but that's precisely the point - he is hammering those who would take unilateral action in contravention to U.N. decision. I also personally think he supports something like the U.N., because his is by definition a catholic (small "c"), universal, global agency.

And this stands in direct contradiction to your candidate's views, and the views of his supporters, at least as I have seen on this thread.

I agree with the Pope here, and I applaud your thoughts supporting his views as well. I would simply say these are not compatible in any way with what I have seen of RP's platform. Are they?

 

Northpoint , how do u miss my entire first part of the post? I just said i believe that hes taking the lesser of the 2 evils . It doesnt change my support for Ron Paul .

 

it does seem slightly contradictory to support the popes view that the UN should be the decider on who goes to war, With who and when while at the same time supporting a candidate who wants complete autonomy.

 

The catholic church doctrine is totally against even educating people on condom use, yet the pope said we as catholics should take the lesser of 2 evils(in direct contradiction to what john paul said and did) . The popes stance here on the UN is no different then jesus's stance on rome when it ruled the hebrews in isreal. Render onto ceasar what is ceasars and give to god what is rightfully his. The pope could be looking at the UN through the eyes of how a global community should be, not what the UN has morphed into. The pope is for the common man first and foremost . He must be because that is what jesus taught us, and also as u can see i disagreed with the last pope on the condom education

 

So should the UN be the decider (popes view) or should the US have complete autonomy (pauls view)? Surely you can't hold both views symultaneously.

 

I support RP's views completely, but realistically as of right now the UN is here so if i am to support a UN i say we make it the best UN possible (meaning one that isnt controlled by a few countries manipulatively), but i will keep believeing that we should also be in full control of our destiny, and if the time comes that the UN is no longer with us, i would be the first one supporting that we never needed it in the first place.
Jesus said render onto ceasar , but does that mean he actually supports
rome is the ruler of the universe? I dont think so.

 

Keyword here is " the popes view". This isnt a law from the chair of peter

 

So you support ron pauls opinion that the US should have autonomy AND the popes view that the security council should approve any military action before its started? I don't see how you can hold both views.

If you think about it you will see that pauls views and the popes views are not only contradictory, They are the exact opposite of each other. The pope is criticising those who don't wait for UN approval of military action and paul wants complete autonomy. You can't agree with both, It's impossible.

edit: yes, The popes view, A view that you call "the truth" and a view that you agree with. While at the same time supporting a presidential candidate who wants the exact opposite.

 

I didn't miss it at all, which is why I said:

Supports it - in other words, not the lesser of 2 evils.

Bottom line:

and

and

and

is completely opposed to:

and, for instance:

It is impossible to misconstrue the Pope's support for international consensus and the multinational organizations to reach it.

It is equally impossible to misconstrue Ron Paul's position, or, indeed, that of at least most of his supporters in this respect, as anything other than completely antithetical to support for the U.N. or international governing bodies generally.

It raises a legitimate question; these two worlds do not go together. Not in any way, shape or form.

I'd also ask - you've said the Pope sees the U.N. as the "lesser of 2 evils." The words above fairly strongly suggest to me that he sees the U.N., and, by extension, international bodies and consensus generally, as a definitive good. Did you have something supporting your point of view that the Pope really isn't a fan of the U.N.?

 

The Pope and the Catholic Church ought to stick to what they're good at: hanging on to outdated beliefs and telling people what they "can't" do if they want to get in Heaven.

 

I also said that i hjave a right even as a catholic to not support all of teh popes personal views and if he supports the un here i dont agree on this one.
GO RP

Wait a minute, i never said i supported the popes view that the security council should approve any military action before its started. I supported the part of his view that one country shouldnt be powerful enough or have more clout then another to get us into a BS WAR. So as that is i dont stand in contradiction to anything.

When did i call his whole view on this THE TRUTH? I do recall calling the iraq war a LIE OF A WAR and i stand by that statement

 

That isn't the point, Ping. You specifically lauded the Pope on this very point:

Which I applaud as well. But it is absolutely contradictory to your candidate's stance.

And now that this has been pointed out, you abandon your position because it isn't what RP stands for.

This suggests to me that you either (1) don't know your candidate's position well; (2) disagree with your candidate on the issue of globalism; or (3) don't care about the disconnect - you will follow RP of what he does or doesn't stand for.

Respectfully, I cannot see any other alternative, unless it's to reverse your praise of the Pope's efforts.

Do you know say the Pope is wrong, and that it is right for the U.S. to unilaterally pursue what it will, the world community be damned?

 

You said; "A big high 5 goes out to pope benedict for telling the truth on this one" regarding his warning "against undermining [the] U.N.", While at the same time you support a political candidate who specifically wants to undermine the UN, leave the UN and give the UN no power in American decisions and policy.

Is this the bit where you try to weasel out of standing by things you have said? You should probably have had a think to see if your support of the popes views can fit in with your political views, because in this case they are in direct conflict with each other.