Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Pope's Legacy

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in hearing what some of you think will be the Pope's legacy. Yes, he was a Catholic and I do not support any form of Christianity, but I consider this a flaw on an overall positive record, much like that of Thomas Aquinas. I've read some other positive comments about him on this board and was just wondering if this is the general consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

His "legacy" will be that he hurt as many people as he could, as often as he could, with nothing but lies and false hope. He'll eventually be remembered for the truly terrible but complete non-entity things that he did (okay, said). He was "the banality of evil" incarnate. A totally reactionary destroyer of the human mind and human spirit. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand that assessment. He was instrumental in the downfall of Soviet Russia and he was a pretty consistent supporter of philosophy and science. He certainly had flaws, but I think you're being a tad too harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "legacy" will be that he hurt as many people as he could, as often as he could, with nothing but lies and false hope.  He'll eventually be remembered for the truly terrible but complete non-entity things that he did (okay, said). He was "the banality of evil" incarnate. A totally reactionary destroyer of the human mind and human spirit.  :D

Why do you say this about him, but deny the exact same attributes and actions in Jimmy Carter? Both are based on following altruistic principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His legacy will be the hordes of mindless people that had let him flock them. It is as Ariana said. All he ever gave was lies and false hope.

Moose, you say that Ariana is too harsh, but I don't think so. What do you mean by "consistent supporter of philosophy and science?" You must be in error, because consistent is not what he was. How does banning stem cell research make him a consistent supporter of science? How does prophesizing blind faith in an imaginary being make him a consistent supporter of philosophy? The only thing he was ever consistent at, if at all this fits into the definition of consistent, was in undermining all of man's means to a good life on Earth.

Rational_One, this thread is about the former pope, not about Jimmy Carter. There are many people in the world and when judging one of them, it is not necessary to list everyone else who is guilty of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rational_One, this thread is about the former pope, not about Jimmy Carter. There are many people in the world and when judging one of them, it is not necessary to list everyone else who is guilty of the same.

Yeah I agree, but in this thread she properly criticizes the pope for the same things she defended Carter on in another thread. In other words, I was pointing out that she was being inconsistent. These threads aren't mutually inconsistent with each one in a vacuum on it's own. A persons words in one thread should be consistent in another, if there is apparent contradictions then they should be pointed out. Sometimes it's easier for another person to notice inconsistent coments than the person themself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't that a different pope? Even so, she died in the very early years of his papacy, just like she died in the very early years of Reagan's presidency. She was very critical of Reagan, and rightly so, but I think that if she had lived long enough to see the effects of his pro-Capitalist policies and anti-Russian policies, she would have regarded him in an overall positive light, despite his faults.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What positive thing did the pope do though, all I ever saw him doing was push altruistic self-sacrifice on hundreds of millions of reality-evading people. Is mass delution(sp?) a positive thing? He actually supposedly liked that he has been suffering and his subordinates bring that fact up as if it is a virtue. That sickens me. But I will not talk down about a man who has just died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, in past years he has been repeatedly pissing me off. But the fact of the matter is that he is one of the 3 people most responsible for the downfall of Soviet Russia. To me, this outweighs his other faults. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite and a Nazi sympathizer, but he is remembered as a great industrialist. MLK Jr. was a Communist sympathizer but he is remembered as the father of the Civil Rights movement. Like the Pope, some of their ideas were wrong, but their actions of greatest influence produced positive results. The Pope's preaching of altruism didn't make anything worse; it just upheld the status quo that has existed within the Catholic church for centuries. His anti-Sovietism actually had very positive results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what was the reason behind the pope's stand?

The pope linked communism with atheism, in order to discredit atheism.

I was going to say the same thing, but wasn't 100% sure if it was true or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I found interesting was how sad the Pope's death seemed to make everyone. If they really believed in their nonsense, shouldn't they be happy? He is after all, enjoying eternal life in heaven, right? :D

I do have sympathy for his suffering due to his illness. I have no love for the Church or any religion for that matter, but I have better things to do than to spit on the memory of a sick old man. I'm not trying to defend Catholicism or anything. All I'm saying is that I don't hold the Pope responsible for the irrationality of the Catholic faith, and in the end, just saw him as a man who thought he was right.

I'm not really concerned with his legacy. Religion will continue to annoy me. In fact, if the new Pope declares that Atheism is moral and that we should all support stem cell research, I would probably be more annoyed. At least if the Church rejects science, it will be consistent, and less likely to lure independent thinkers. I think the more moral the Church gets, the closer we will get to *libertarians of religion.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers!  The ghost is dead!  My only thanks to the fucker is that when he came to Toronto he made some wonderful shirts, that today, 20 years later, I still wear because of the comfortability, to sleep in.  But "Stitches" the Canadian garment store has come out with the same type of shirt, though, very expensive: $20.00 for a simple "G.I. Joe" shirt. 

He did nothing ... have you never connected Catholicism to Communism?

Good Riddance.

I just hope that the next pope dies in a year ... and the next pope ... and the next pope ... and the next pope ... on and on ... and on ... until Islam overcomes Catholicism ... and then we nuke them.

Oh ... fantasy ... I must stop ... because fantasy is just ridiculous ... But I love N.G.

And so, Catholicism means "shit" ... and I speak in quotation marks so as to not offend anyone.

Long live the Pope ... Objectivism will obliterate the "fucker" (it is true that Rand may not use my words ... but we will share the same sentiment .... maybe --maybe not.

Americo.

Your sense of life does not appear very bright. I really wonder if this is the way you wish to portray yourself. Remember what Ayn Rand has taught us, and try to discover the root of these emotions you are having. You appear to have a very personal response to Catholcism, and to the pope in general which goes well beyond the Objectivist's stance on mysticism.

Keith

P.S. Ayn Rand didn't "approve" of homosexuals either.

Edited by KeithP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in hearing what some of you think will be the Pope's legacy. ...

Just a selection:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...-ethics_it.html

....an unbridled capitalism which puts the quest for power and profit and

the cult of an often soulless efficiency above all other

considerations..

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...estonia_en.html

But today a great danger must also be acknowledged: the socalled

"idolatry" of the market. This occurs whenever an economic system

based on unbridled capitalism dictates policies which plunder natural

resources, disregard the dignity of workers, undermine the family as

society's basic unit and foster a consumer culture in which "having"

is more important than "being".

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...can-rep_en.html

We must ... keep clear of the evils that derive from capitalism that

sets money before people and makes people the victims of so many

injustices.

etc., etc.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree, but in this thread she properly criticizes the pope for the same things she defended Carter on in another thread. In other words, I was pointing out that she was being inconsistent. These threads aren't mutually inconsistent with each one in a vacuum on it's own. A persons words in one thread should be consistent in another, if there is apparent contradictions then they should be pointed out. Sometimes it's easier for another person to notice inconsistent coments than the person themself.

I didn't see the other thread. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source, you are incorrect in stating that the pope banned stem cell research. First, he didn't; secondly, the Catholic Church is not against all stem-cell research, but against embryonic stem-cell research because it kills the living embryo.

Hugh Akston, you are incorrect in stating that the pope "linked communism with atheism, in order to discredit atheism": the Catholic Church rejects communism because it subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production, those rights including the right to property and the right to economic initiative. That communist regimes have tended to embrace atheism is true, but the Church rejects communism primarily for other reasons (separating them, not linking them).

Alex, if your intention is to show the pope's rejection of capitalism, you are incorrect---he does not reject capitalism outright but rather some forms of it (though it is certainly true that the Objectivist concept of capitalism is rejected).

I would suggest you do more research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Catholic Church rejects communism  because it subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production, those rights including the right to property and the right to economic initiative.

I find it hard to imagine the phrases "right to property" and "right to economic initiative" coming from the Catholic Church, but if they did I'd be interested to know about it. What is the evidence for this statement (i.e. quotes from official Church documents or transcription of a Church representative saying these things)?

Alex, if your intention is to show the pope's rejection of capitalism, you are incorrect---he does not reject capitalism outright but rather some forms of it (though it is certainly true that the Objectivist concept of capitalism is rejected).

AlexL's examples are clear condemnations of capitalism as defined by Objectivism (based on individual rights and backed by rational selfishness). The other "forms" of capitalism are, in my experience, a confused mess of ideas that have little to do with capitalism (for example, the idea that a business being granted unfair favors by government is an example of capitalism at work). As far as I can see, AlexL's point stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your sense of life does not appear very bright. I really wonder if this is the way you wish to portray yourself. Remember what Ayn Rand has taught us, and try to discover the root of these emotions you are having. You appear to have a very personal response to Catholcism, and to the pope in general which goes well beyond the Objectivist's stance on mysticism.

Keith

P.S. Ayn Rand didn't "approve" of homosexuals either.

Yes, when it comes to the Pope this IS how I want to portray myself. Maybe one day I will write a paper on how evil the guy actually is. I hate the Pope. Yes, of course I know that Rand did not approve of homosexuals ... but their premises are very divergent. I am actually surprised that I was sent to the trash can.

Any Pope will always be evil and worth strong condemnation.

This is very interesting, I must say.

I will repeat, again, that I am actually glad that he is dead. Maybe I'll be sent to the trash again for this. The leader of the Catholic church deserves to die as soon as he dreams of aspiring to such a position ... because he is in the power to change so much ... And thus I must say, that Jesus is evil.

I'm glad he's dead!

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is one of the 3 people most responsible for the downfall of Soviet Russia.

This makes me curious: Who do you think are the other two?

In my opinion, the credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union belongs entirely to----the Soviet Union. Communism was an edifice of irrationality that was by design bound to collapse; the only reason it didn't collapse sooner was the continual appeasement by the West. As soon as America elected a President who refused to help prop up the tottery structure, its downfall was inevitable. That was ALL that was needed; I don't think the Pope played any role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I found interesting was how sad the Pope's death seemed to make everyone. If they really believed in their nonsense, shouldn't they be happy? He is after all, enjoying eternal life in heaven, right?  :dough:

Yes, but the living have to be sad, because that is required for their salvation. :rolleyes:;)

I wasn't affected by the Pope's death one way or the other. First, he was in an age where it is natural for this to happen--and second, I didn't know him. My plans for how to conduct my marriage have a couple things in common and a couple of things at odds with how the Pope thought I should act--but since the only person whose agreement I need in this matter will be my future wife, this has no relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source, you are incorrect in stating that the pope banned stem cell research. First, he didn't; secondly, the Catholic Church is not against all stem-cell research, but against embryonic stem-cell research because it kills the living embryo.

You are wrong in saying that an embryo is alive. According to the definition, life is a self-sustained and self-generated action. An embryo is incapable of such action, thus it is not alive.

Either way, was your statement intended to discredit my argument that the pope was inconsistent, or was it simply a correction to my argument? If it was the former, I don't see how it accomplishes that. If it was the latter, then thanks.

... the Catholic Church rejects communism  because it subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production, those rights including the right to property and the right to economic initiative...
What rights of groups are you talking about?

IMO, the church would never have given a thought about the things in Russia, had there not been for communist atheism. Except perhaps to send food and clothing to those who are walking the streets of Russian cities barefoot.

Alex, if your intention is to show the pope's rejection of capitalism, you are incorrect---he does not reject capitalism outright but rather some forms of it (though it is certainly true that the Objectivist concept of capitalism is rejected).

I would suggest you do more research.

The first Capitalism that comes to my mind when someone mentions it, is Laissez-Faire. When someone calls some mixed economy or half-communism half-socialism that we have in Croatia by the name of Capitalism, I don't pass a chance to give him a piece of my mind. And I will not pass this one.

The pope needs not explicitly to reject Capitalism, for it to be known without doubt that he rejects the principles which make possible the Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Today, many political systems which are destroying themselves are deliberately called Capitalist when that is exactly what they are not (recently I saw the title in the newspaper that declared China a Capitalist country!? :rolleyes: ). Such severely crippled form of "Capitalism" is not difficult for the pope to embrace. But do not be fooled: welcoming a "Capitalism" of this kind as good is the direct opposite to welcoming the real Capitalism. Laissez-Faire Capitalism comes with certain principles which define it - the kind of "Capitalism" the pope accepted as good did not. In fact, such "Capitalism" violated these principles indiscriminately. I resent every notion that such a system can be called by the same name as the true Laissez-Faire Capitalism, especially by an Objectivist (or are you?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...