Is Freedom of Religion next?

[Thursday]

So now it's "O.K., there's open entry to the Vatican; the wall doesn't stop anyone, but they don't let people go everywhere, so...(insert your argument as it applies to Trump's wall here)."



So, like the United States, the Vatican allows free access to public areas, and the wall does not keep people out. Thank you. Was it really necessary to resist admitting it right away?

Your implication that the Vatican allows everyone to just walk right in is false. Even for the public areas you have to go through a metal detector.


Most of the Vatican is walled off from the public, which makes perfect sense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your implication that the Vatican allows everyone to just walk right in is false.

As you learned, it's true.

Even for the public areas you have to go through a metal detector.

How does that keep you from walking in? C'mon. It was a dumb claim, although it's clear to me that you didn't realize that the "wall" has big avenues though it for free entry.

Most of the Vatican is walled off from the public, which makes perfect sense.

So now, it's "most?" Doesn't sound like much of a wall to me, if people can just walk in. As you just learned, the walls are hundreds of years old, and now penetrated by wide avenues through which you can just walk freely.

 

[Fish and Bread]

--- And then retreated behind his 70 feet high wall surrounding the Vatican.

We've talked about this before in other threads, so I won't do my 25 paragraph defense of the Vatican. Besides, my hands are tired.

Rather, I'm just going to use common sense with you here and hope that's enough. You realize the Vatican is only a small portion of the city of Rome, surrounded by all sides by the nation of Italy, which in turn is part of the European Union, right? The Vatican by treaty is an independent nation, but walls are not keeping anyone out, realistically speaking. At least as of the World War 2 era, the Vatican didn't even have it's own power plant, and there was fear that Mussolini would cut the power lines and leave them in the dark (Literally speaking- figuratively speaking, the Word is still the light in the darkness, cf Gospel of St. John, just start at the beginning, it's in the first chapter or two).

The Vatican has been invaded by the French, the Italians, and others. At one point, invading armies set off fireworks in St. Peter's Square, inches from the Pope's window. The only thing that preserves the Pope is that it's known that he is the leader of an international religion, and perhaps the grace of God.

These walls aren't keeping anyone out.

In fact, the Vatican has specifically welcomed in Muslim refugees in recent years. In World War 2, they brought in Jews and disguised them as Catholic seminarians (Christians studying for the priesthood) to protect them from the fascists.

Trump is standing up for freedom of religion, unlike the Democrats.

That's almost Orwellian "war is peace" type of material. Trump doesn't stand for anyone's freedom- except maybe billionaire oil executives and shareholders. He's hoodwinked working class voters into participating in their own disenfranchisement.

The Church has many leftists in the position of Bishop.

Not enough!

Leftism is what created most of this poverty in the first place.

No, it hasn't. "Leftism" is the only thing that saved us from the Great Depression and Great Recession. Those two economic downturns are what happens when you don't regulate enough to control the excesses of capitalism. The right's religion is the dollar- or the Euro, or the Yen, or whatever will make the 1% the most money on the backs of the 99%.

Speaking out for the poor is not the same as actually helping the poor.

We agree there.

Trump's policies will help the poor

ROFLOL. His propaganda has really gotten to you, huh? Well, he's President now, let's see what happens.

 

[Martinius]

Thanks, F&B, for responding with clarity. The only statement of Biblewriter that I can agree with is that the Church has many liberal bishops. And as you say, not enough of them. But I am encouraged by what I am seeing and hearing. I don't know when I have heard from so many strong voices in the Church regarding human rights.

 

[Biblewriter]

ALL walls have gates. And the fact that the gates are currently open has zero bearing on the unquestionable fact that the walls were built high and strong to keep out Moslem armies, and still have gates that can be closed at will.

And you are also ignoring the fact that Trump's wall will also have gates designed to admit any one who has legal permission to enter.

 

[The Barbarian]

ALL walls have gates.

Or did, as in the case of those old walls by the Vatican.

And the fact that the gates are currently open

Missing.

has zero bearing on the unquestionable fact that the walls were built high and strong to keep out Moslem armies,

No. Muslim armies never attacked Rome. Lombards and Goths, mostly. Both were Christians at that time.

and still have gates that can be closed at will.

Take a look... And more to the point, the pontiff has asked every church in the city to take in a Muslim refugee family. How many would we take in, if we followed his example?

 

[Biblewriter]

The walls were built in the ninth century, centuries after the time of the attacks from the Lombards and the Goths. And blocking the portals would only require a few hours, even if the original gates might actually no longer be available.

 

[The Barbarian]

The walls were built in the ninth century, centuries after the time of the attacks from the Lombards and the Goths. And blocking the portals would only require a few hours, even if the original gates might actually no longer be available.

So the Pope didn't build it, and it's not really keeping anyone out, but you think with a few hours work, it could be made to do so.

Looks like our work is done here, except someone dodged my question:

Barbarian asks:
And more to the point, the pontiff has asked every church in the city to take in a Muslim refugee family. How many would we take in, if we followed his example?

But we all knew that was going to happen, didn't we?

 

[Biblewriter]

So the Pope didn't build it, and it's not really keeping anyone out, but you think with a few hours work, it could be made to do so.

Looks like our work is done here, except someone dodged my question:

Barbarian asks:
And more to the point, the pontiff has asked every church in the city to take in a Muslim refugee family. How many would we take in, if we followed his example?

But we all knew that was going to happen, didn't we?

Actually, the wall around the Vatican is called the Leonine wall because, and specifically because, it was built at the order of Pope Leo IV, in response to attacks from the Saracens, and was finished in 852, a century and a half after the conversion of the Lombards to Christianity was basically complete, and around five centuries after the last Gothic attack on Rome.

And how many Muslims have been received to live inside the Vatican?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Thanks, F&B, for responding with clarity. The only statement of Biblewriter that I can agree with is that the Church has many liberal bishops. And as you say, not enough of them. But I am encouraged by what I am seeing and hearing. I don't know when I have heard from so many strong voices in the Church regarding human rights.

I think there is a dire need for many more strong voices in the Christian Church regarding human rights and there should be no more cruel mockery or contempt shown toward the people who are willing to stand up for human rights and social justice.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, the wall around the Vatican is called the Leonine wall because, and specifically because, it was built at the order of Pope Leo IV, in response to attacks from the Saracens, and was finished in 852, a century and a half after the conversion of the Lombards to Christianity was basically complete, and around five centuries after the last Gothic attack on Rome.

So Francis didn't build the wall, and in fact, removed gates to make it more accessible? How embarrassing for those guys who were criticizing him because of the walls.

And how many Muslims have been received to live inside the Vatican?

Not sure at this point. One family per church, and the Pope has brought at least one family into his official residence. (he actually lives in small apartment, away from the official residence)

If America did that, how many refugees would we take in?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Trump's policies will help the poor

Draft of first Trump budget would cut legal aid for millions of poor Americans

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Draft of first Trump budget would cut legal aid for millions of poor Americans

You should know by now that any news which is unfavorable to Trump and criticizes him will be referred to as "fake news". But any news that is favorable and praises Trump (as if he was some supreme leader) will be accepted as truth and admonished.

 

[Thursday]

Draft of first Trump budget would cut legal aid for millions of poor Americans

What do you mean by legal aid?

 

[Fish and Bread]

What do you mean by legal aid?

Details are in the article.

I'll quote an excerpt below, but for more than that you'll have to click on the link, because we can't copy *full* articles on here for copyright reasons, just excerpts:

A Trump draft budget circulated over the weekend called for the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which has a $375m annual budget and provides free legal assistance to low-income people and others in need of help, with cases involving disability benefits, disaster relief, elder abuse, fair pay, wheelchair access, low-income tax credits, unlawful eviction, child support, consumer scams, school lunch, predatory lending and much more.

The legal aid program, which represents a miniscule portion of the government’s projected $4tn budget, is one of many small but mighty programs flagged for elimination in Trump’s draft budget. Others include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Americorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Critics of the cuts point out that they won’t budge the deficit but would erode quality of life and threaten the most vulnerable.

The possible legal aid cuts would come at a time when potentially softer enforcement by the Trump administration of laws to punish domestic violence, protect Americans with disabilities and combat discriminatory housing practices could create a spike in demand, said Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, a fellow at the Center for American Progress who has written on the issue.

“We’ve already gotten an indication that they’re probably going to cut grants for domestic violence cases, VAWA-related grants, and that’s one of the biggest categories that legal aid grantees use,” Buckwalter-Poza said, referring to the Violence Against Women Act. “This is a huge blow to women in particular, and that’s devastating.

“And what’s so disturbing about the potential for the administration to eliminate LSC altogether is that at the same time, you have a Department of Justice that’s probably not going to enforce the types of legislation on the government’s side that supplements private action, like the Fair Housing Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act. And at the same time that they’re going to stop doing that, people are going to have fewer options for seeking out free legal assistance.”

Source: Draft of first Trump budget would cut legal aid for millions of poor Americans

 

[Thursday]

Details are in the article.

I'll quote an excerpt below, but for more than that you'll have to click on the link, because we can't copy *full* articles on here for copyright reasons, just excerpts:



Source: Draft of first Trump budget would cut legal aid for millions of poor Americans

Maybe the rich lawyers should fund this, not the poor auto mechanics.

Doctors Without Borders, for example, don't demand government payments.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Maybe the rich lawyers should fund this, not the poor auto mechanics.

The rich lawyers are funding this. Poor auto mechanics only pay FICA and sales tax. If they're truly poor, they can claim enough deductions to not be paying any actual income tax (Other than FICA- which only goes to Social Security and Medicare).

I get your point that it'd be nice if more lawyer volunteered their time to people who need their help and can't afford it- and in fact lawyers usually do do some pro bono work (i.e. free work for clients who have no money), but what they do is not enough to meet demand. Should they do more? Sure. Can we make them? No. This program helps fill the gaps a bit, and is a very very small part of the overall budget.

Doctors Without Borders, for example, don't demand government payments.

Doctors Without Borders is great, but they also don't completely fulfill all the health care needs in third world countries. They help, but I'm sure they'd appreciate it if there was more government spending on health care in those areas so that more patients could get treated, alongside their charitable endeavors.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not surprising. Trump had figured that most if not all of the people he defrauded in his fake university scheme would lack the resources to sue him to get their money back. Legal aid allowed many of them to do so, and this lead to a multimillion dollar loss for Trump as he had to pay a huge settlement to avoid being hauled into court.

From the perspective of a repeat offender, legal aid to the poor represents a serious threat to his money.

 

[FireDragon76]

My pastor would probably say that Obama did not do a great job respecting freedom of religion. Particularly trying to force nuns to pay for birth control. The pastor is a former lawyer and thinks religion is more than "where you worship on Sunday", which is what the Obama administration seemed to default to in their definitions of what was and was not legitimate use of governmental power.

 

[The Barbarian]

In fact the Obama administration offered to make it so that no company objecting to birth control had to pay for it; it would be funded another way.

That wasn't satisfactory; the argument was "no, we're not concerned about the money, our objective is to prevent our employees from having access to birth control."

Forcing an organization to pay for birth control is going too far in granting rights to employees. Forcing employees to forego birth control is going too far in granting rights to employers.