Religious lefts says no to Trump

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is a point, I haven't heard that the Vatican City has taken any refugees from Syria. Although the Vatican shouldn't be criticised just for having them, most cities of any antiquity have walls, they became a little pointless with the invention of gunpowder. Possibly he could have a bridge built over it?

FMF (and Startreader) really stated my point succinctly. There have been lengthy arguments on here over the years about what is required of a proclaimed Christian to be a Christian. We have had arguments about the nature of belief, the place of the Biblical texts (and how to read them), the role of faith and works, the nature and message of Christ. And those arguments often have had more than a tinge of rancor, as one Christian denounces another as not a “True Christian™”—explicitly or implicitly—because they believe wrongly about one or more of these subjects, or that their moral views disqualify them.

I am not dismissing any of those topics—just pointing out the hypocrisy of the “How dare he!” response to Pope Francis by anyone who has weighed in on the question of what is and is not Christian.

Nevertheless, I think Jim Wallis’ words in this essay are perhaps closer to the mark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/bridges-or-walls_b_9266400.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion

“Whether Donald Trump is a Christian or not is something between Trump and God. But Donald Trump's vision for America's future and his policies are indeed, contrary to the gospel. Donald Trump is an anti-Christian candidate.

“And that is now our choice--bridges, or walls? I choose to stand with the Pope, building bridges, and all Christians should do the same.”

I think this is what the Pope was trying to say. But the whole article needs to be read, not just those closing lines. But maybe Jim Wallis is not a “True Christian™” either.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is a point, I haven't heard that the Vatican City has taken any refugees from Syria. Although the Vatican shouldn't be criticised just for having them, most cities of any antiquity have walls, they became a little pointless with the invention of gunpowder. Possibly he could have a bridge built over it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the wall was the focal point of his protest than he should have his wall torn down
don't you think? I don't care one way or another if he has a wall or not, but if he does
claiming another who wants to build one should not mean they are not Christian since
it is something he practices.

If I'm not mistaken and I could be, I believe those that enter ...[text shortened]... walls for a visit have
to pay too. If true his walls bring in money too by keeping others out.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, CB. As always, I hope you and yours are well. But I don’t think that this Pope built that wall, and he seems to have been trying to tear down as many walls as one Pope can, thus far.

But I will let those who claim to be “True Christians™” argue over who are the “True Christians™”.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/world/vatican-walls/

"Yes, the Vatican does have walls, and some are quite large. But anyone can stroll through the Pope's front yard -- St. Peter's Square -- at nearly any time." (There are metal detectors.)

Originally posted by vistesd
http://globalnews.ca/news/2205922/vatican-takes-in-refugee-families-pope-francis-asks-faithful-to-offer-shelter-to-migrants/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-pope-refugees-idUSKCN0RI10M20150918

Since Vatican City is only 110 acres, with a regular population of more than 800 persons, I’m not sure how many refugees they can physically ac ...[text shortened]... Vatican City, and each is taking in one refugee family. Will they take in more? I don’t know.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Fair enough. The Vatican isn't really the ideal place, I vaguely feel a tower block could be built somewhere, used for the refugees for the duration and then converted to normal accommodation - or retained for future refugee crises. The difficulty with one family per parish is that they can end up feeling awfully isolated, especially as they are unlikely to speak Italian.

Originally posted by vistesd
I agree with your last sentence. Even with your "vague" idea of a tower block (don't know what can practically be built in the area), how many families could be accommodated? How many is "enough" for the critics--who seem generally to be arguing against taking in any refugees?

And I don't think any strong criticism is warranted (not that your question ...[text shortened]... cis doesn't always get his way within the church, and has been stymied by the right wing before.

I also want to add that the Pope’s contrasting metaphors are walls and bridges—not walls or no walls at all. His message is that the gospel is about building bridges—and a core ideal throughout the gospel is that of welcoming the stranger, who generally represents God. That does not mean being naïve or undiscerning (checkbaiter’s point), to my mind—but it does set the gospel focus.

This Pope seems to not preach a standard of perfection (which I personally always distrust), and does not seem to think that he has achieved perfection. But if perfection is the standard for stating one’s view—about the gospel or anything else—then we all should just shut up.

There is a lovely line from the Talmud that (from memory here) goes something like this: “One is not required to complete the task; but one is also not absolved from beginning it.”

(I wouldn’t doubt that now I will get questions about whether or not I personally behave with sufficient generosity to dare voicing an opinion here—by folks who would like to judge that. I don’t answer questions about my personal life on here, because I have been rather viciously baited before by people pretending to want to build a bridge between us—that’s one of my “walls” in this public space. I don’t ask others to share their personal lives on here either.)

Originally posted by DeepThought
I was thinking of outside the Vatican city. Really they shouldn't put any more buildings inside it, there's a cultural heritage there to consider. The Vatican city itself is too small to do anything more than something symbolic.

I think Britain could be doing more to alleviate the refugee crisis.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Some of the Vatican buildings are attached to the wall so it might not be the best idea. There is a break in the wall to allow the railway line through though.

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah. Well, outside Vatican City is Rome, and they are two different "body politics" (Vatican City being the bounds of a city-state). Last year, the mayor of Rome said that the city had become too crowded to take in more refugees, but I haven't found a number yet. A lot of stuff seems to go on behind the scenes. aside from the Pope's public statements; I'm sure there are diplomatic channels.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's a bit more than Rome outside the bounds of the Vatican. If one takes the total number of refugees and allocates them to countries based on some formula that takes into account existing population, habitable land area, and infrastructure then I'm guessing that the Vatican's done its bit with the two families.

The reason I brought up the tower ...[text shortened]... pect them to take some, but I wasn't seriously expecting them to start redeveloping the Vatican.

Originally posted by Startreader
What I think the Pope actually said was that Christians build bridges, not walls.