It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rush Limbaugh says Pope is preaching Marxism

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:01 PM


I dunno ... don't forget major organized religions.
It's very possible that they have caused more suffering, death and wars than anything.

I don't know where that rumor originates from, but it always bandied about by the religion hater crowd, and it's historically inaccurate as heck...

The only people who seem to make their wars about religion are the Muslims, but they make EVERYTHING about religion.

Please tell me how the big wars, such as WWI & II, or Korea and Vietnam were about religion? How about Napoleon? The American civil war? The American Revolutionary war? How about the Falklands?

I'm having a hard time thinking of a major war that was religion based going back to the 30 Year War.
The majority of wars have been fought over land, which in essence goes back to resources, wealth, and greed...

So you're saying that the white wars listed were over resources but every armed conflict featuring brown people was over religion? Iran vs. Iraq? Iraq vs. the world?

Typically religion causes terrorist acts as there are few true theocracies. Irish Catholics were awesome terrorists, they weren't Muslim. Abortion clinic bombings in America weren't done by Muslims either.

Just clarifying.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:13 PM
Rush Limbaugh is so unmagical i bet his favorite movie is Top Gun
and that he wishes he was Tom Cruise's bottom holster.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:39 PM


reply to post by LDragonFire

Great...the spokesperson for the conservative GOP has now alienated another huge voting segment of the electorate.

He has mostly already alienated women, the disabled, minorities. His base of conservative white men is solid but Rush's strategy to win elections might as well be thought up by a hillbilly heroin addicted ....

oh wait....
edit on 2-12-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

So let's not tell it how it is in the name of votes, huh!

Let's all cower in the presence of voting blocs!

That's the problem with the GOP. As a life-long republican, I'm very dissatisfied with my party because they are doing exactly what you suggest...let's keep our mouths shut so as not to offend any voting blocs. Yeah, that seems to be working lately, huh?

You got it bassakwards there amigo. The reason the GOP is doing so poorly is precisely because they alienated women with the right to choose debacle. Minorities don't trust the GOP because of their "illegal Mexican" stance,
poor working people see the Republicans as a bunch of Rich old white men and rightly so. And now Rush has pissed off the Catholics who usually vote for conservatives. Image is very important in national politics!!!

Pretty stupid way to run a political party; don't ya think? Do you think the majority of moderate voters are going to flock to the conservative side with the nasty hateful attitudes the GOP prides itself in ala Rush/Beck and the rest of the AM radio cowboys?

I agree the Republicans put up almost laughable candidates in the last two presidential elections. Think they're gonna change?

You're welcome to join us Libertarians if you quit whining....

edit on 2-12-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by olaru12

I think I'd rather stick with a party that wins (if being upset with my party is whining, then so be it)

And wrong. The republicans need to stick to their core values rather than surrendering and appeasing. You think that we'll ever get the Mexican vote? This is a perfect democratic ploy...get us to join your side on the immigration issue in the hopes we could get some of those votes when democrats know good and well that if these illegals are allowed to vote, the republicans can kiss any future presidency adios amigos!

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Rezlooper

The Republicans need to stop saying stupid things like Rosa Parks ended slavery, or pregnancy can't occur during rape, or the Pope is Marxist, or the Mexican vote....

What values?
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer?
Drug tests for all but authority?
Only the rich deserve healthcare?
2.4 million slave prisoner workforce?

edit on 2-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by olaru12


I thought 65-75% of RC's voted for abortionist O.


And it's been documented that the liberal Dems etc. are bankrolled and include more super wealthy than the GOP. That's been so, now, for 10-20 years, IIRC.

They just do a good job of keeping that fact out of the public awareness and discussion.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

If the "Pope" wants to enter the field of politics, then getting a response that places his "vision" in the appropriate cubby hole is expected.

Marx was a "socialist". That's what he expounded. The Catholic Church has a fortune-as another poster has stated, from donations from the largely "poor"-invested in that capitalism that he decries.

There was a movie back in the day with Anthony Quinn acting as the Pope where he was asked to back up his vision as "Peter" and did so. He donated every asset the church had to a starving China. Let's see if this "compassionate" Pope will move from hypocrite to "Peter"...

Let's see, maybe now Obama won't close the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican...

P.S. I loved the Rush bashers. Who listens to him? A non-factor? 30 million a week. Much more than all the left media combined.

The man is outright brilliant. He enjoys the left's reaction to his deliberate jabs and as an entertainer, he doesn't have to pander to any group....unlike politicians, especially the vote buying left....

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:15 PM
Marx tried to reduce religion to something that is not religion - economics.

The Pope is not a reductionist, afaik.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:24 PM
Limbaugh is an idiot. Capitalism and Communism aren't the ONLY financial systems in existence.

The system the Pope is advocating is called Distributism and is based on the ownership of private property being distributed as widely as possible instead of being focused in the hands of the state or the extremely rich.


Distributism (also known as distributionim or distributivism) is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or of accomplished individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership and, according to co-operative economist Race Mathews, maintains that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative. Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".


This isn't just some artifact from the last century, there are still people advocating for such a system today.

Distributist Review

In fact Douglas McArthur used distributist economics to revive the economy of Taiwan after WW II.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

It's Marxism if the Pope is calling for it to be forced by government decree. Notice that Jesus did not call for you to share what you had by getting Ceasar to come in, take it all from you and your neighbor by force, sort it out and redistribute it to everyone else according to Ceasar's idea of what was "fair."

I'm fairly sure that what Jesus wanted for us to do was to take what we had that was ours, fairly earned by our own efforts, and to give of it what we could to our neighbors who had less and were in need. There is also a part of scripture where it points out that we do not have to share to those who will not work themselves. Note this does not say who cannot work, but will not. There is a huge difference between the two concepts, or at least that's what my dictionary tells me.

When you advocate for the government to do it by force, you are really only trying to absolve yourself of the personal responsibility of having to do charity. You can bask in the false morality of having "done something" by being generous with everyone else's money rather than with your own time and money which is where the real hard work of charity comes in. All that really happens when you do that is that you rob others of the choice to be charitable for themselves by letting the government take more from them, and thus, they have to either work harder just to have enough to take care of themselves, leaving less time to help others, or they have less money to give to others or both. So, you essentially rob the poor of steadily increasing amounts of charity because the government enriches itself before any of the resources it robs from Peter ever find their way to needy Paul.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

Jesus said render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, render unto God that which belongs to God.

Jesus whipped the money changers at the temple and said it would be easier for you to put a camel through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man entering heaven.

Jesus didn't stay with the elite of society he stayed with the poor and the people provided food water and shelter. Socialism

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:18 PM
The current pope is a Jesuit.

Ignatius De Loyola - founded the Jesuits & was accused by the Inquisition of being sympathetic to the Alumbrados - the Spanish version of the Illuminati.

Adam Weishaupt founder of the Bavarian Illuminati - was raised by Jesuits & went to a Jesuit School. Does that make him a Jesuit?

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

Pope Francis if u studied his past, helped created Marxist dictatorships in south America. The CIA is known to do this as well. It's much easier to control a Marxist Dictatorship government than a democracy because there is too much people with opposing views in a democracy to control.

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:01 PM
Quotes about the Jesuits:

"My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities,[and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Orders] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII]is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death.  I do not like the appearance of theJesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de]Loyola."-
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)

"The Jesuitsare a secret society  a sort of Masonic order  with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous." 
Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor

Like you, I disapprove of the restoration of the Jesuits, for it means a step backwards from light into darkness....
Thomas Jefferson

edit on 2-12-2013 by BABYBULL24 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by amfirst1

Oh really? Name us the Marxist gov't that the CIA put in power due it's controllability.....

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Hmm, I guess that makes Robin Hood a redistributionist.

I guess Marx was smarter than the crowd that invented this idea. At least he knew that it would take gov't enforcement and control to ram it down the collective throats.

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 06:24 AM

The concept of living a unselfish, unworldly, sharing life may seem like “communism” or “socialism” to American conservatives, but in reality they are Christian concepts. Unfortunately most Christian conservatives are so caught up in a lifestyle of selfish greed, that they don't even realize its the wrong attitude from a biblical perspective. Christ certainly was not a capitalist, and he never had anything good to say about people engaged in that “worldly” lifestyle. In fact Christ lived in a communist fashion, out of a “common purse”, and off the “socialist” charity of his followers.

Somewhere along the line it has become accepted by most US Christians that capitalism is somehow supported by God. When the truth is that capitalist greed has caused the majority of the worlds pain, suffering, death, wars, exploitation of the environment, depletion of natural resources, etc...

You deserve all the stars you got here...

Silently nodding....

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:26 AM
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot the reason his upset of this pope is that the fact that the pope is standing with the people and since has Rush Limbaugh ever stood with the American people on any occasion?

If Romney was the one in Charge and the one arming the Rebels Rush Limbaugh would be the one in line defending his presidency.

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:32 PM
Just a quick drive-by to drop off the following:

Forget, for the moment, that he is the pope, and that Holy Father Francis’ apostolic exhortation last week was addressed “to the bishops, clergy, consecrated persons and the lay faithful.” Even if, like me, you don’t fall into one of those categories and also take issue with the Catholic Church’s teachings on a number of contested social issues, it is difficult to deny the inherent wisdom and clarity of the pontiff’s critique of the modern capitalist economy. No one else has put it as powerfully and succinctly.

It is an appraisal based not on “just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope,” as Rush Limbaugh sneered, but rather the words of Jesus telling the tale of the Good Samaritan found in Luke, not in “Das Kapital.” As opposed to Karl Marx’s emphasis on the growing misery of a much needed but exploited working class, Francis condemns today’s economy of “exclusion” leaving the “other” as the roadkill of modern capitalism: “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.”

from: Robert Sheer at:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:38 PM

reply to post by ketsuko

Jesus said render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, render unto God that which belongs to God.

Jesus whipped the money changers at the temple and said it would be easier for you to put a camel through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man entering heaven.

Jesus didn't stay with the elite of society he stayed with the poor and the people provided food water and shelter. Socialism

Yes, He did not stay with the elite of society, you know, the government. He stayed with the regular people and told them to do it themselves, you know, free choice. Had he wanted some powerful elites to do it, he would not have kicked out the money lenders and the Pharisees would not have crucified him, it would have been the people because they would have gotten tired of Him taking all their stuff by force to give to some "more deserving" other people.

I won't argue that a true Christian society would look very socialist, but it isn't socialism because the people in it are sharing of their own free will, not because they are compelled by any law or system of governance.
edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in