General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPope Francis shows Democrats how to take back America
Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:58 AM - Edit history (2)
I read today that Pope Francis' approval rating among US Catholics is 88%.
88% is an extraordinary number. I grew up in a household where the breadwinner ran a marketing research firm - I learned at the dinner table that polls almost never go above 67%, or below 33%.
Extraordinary.
Francis has earned this approval by preaching that we're all in this together, and we must all work together to make our lives better. He has excoriated "trickle-down" economics, the overarching Republican/Third-Way article of faith, calling it what it is - a total pantload of crap that simply steals from the poor to enricherer the rich (yes, that's a paraphrase).
88%.
Friends, the way forward is clear. Most Americans have been fooled most of the time over the past few decades, but we've woken up and now we want change. Real change. We want help in the streets, not in the boardrooms. We want love for one another, not responsible adult cuts to the social safety net so the wealthiest can pay hyperlow taxes.
We want fairness and justice.
88%
Republicans cannot provide fairness and justice - their philosophy, bankrupt for the last 50 years or so, is no longer even a philosophy, having become merely the yammerings of petulant feral children.
For decades, Democrats were the force of enabling fairness and justice in our country, and we had many good years. And then our party lost its way.
Pope Francis' popularity is a clarion call to our party to get back on track, a call to return to our core principle of helping all Americans to get a fair deal: economic security, dignity, and a place at the table. Americans don't want catfood commissions and speaking tours of Wall Street - we want politicians that will work for all of us, who'll work to rebuild a fair America that's prosperous for all.
If we want to win elections - to really win, to own the Presidency and both houses of Congress - we'll learn the lesson of the 88%.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Pope Francis is swatting down the vocal, but small minority of haters.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Instead of calling them "serious" and negotiating with them.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)A religous doctrine where one sides with the people against the sins of the elite.
nradisic
(1,362 posts)packed to the rafters, like I've never seen before. The flock is hearing the message from Pope Francis like never before. God Bless his soul...and he's just reverting to the true teachings of Jesus.
As a Progressive, I can surely live with that.
Merry Christmas
The Magistrate
(95,266 posts)
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)MannyGoldstein !!!!!! I rec'ed before I saw the author.
It must be the "spirits" of the season. 
Good post and Happy Hoildays. 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm on automatic.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I've been pen pals with Pete since I was 14. I KNEW he wasn't a pedophile when he was accused and even wrote a letter to the court. Best thing I've done outside of raising smart children.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) I have most of Pete's material on vinyl. And The Who, of course. Awesome stuff.Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Thanks for the link!
dflprincess
(28,094 posts)Hi Enthusiast - haven't posted in a while here but I like your comment and the referral to MG who is always a breath of fresh air and truth!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 840high
(17,196 posts)Merry Christmas, jaysunb! 
(But I always, ALWAYS check before recing)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You'll never be the same.
(Thanks!)
Best holiday wishes to you, too.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
But Manny has the right of it on this one. In my opinion (as is obvious from my sigline), inequality is the issue to be on the right side of in 2014. There's going to be a lot of blather about "helping the middle class" and "helping the poor" (as if those are two different things, anymore). Politicians are going to be judged, and likely judged harshly, by the kind of "help" they're offering, and I don't think trickle-down voodoo will get it done this time.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)finance reform and publicly funded elections. This is the only way to get our representative democracy back! Things are reaching critical mass (no pun intended)! Our politicians are bought off by all of the money coming their way.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)still...at some point... we will hit a home run.. I hope so, anyway.
"Keep on Truckin'!"
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There is no economic justice. What there is is very well organized crime.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that people will adore you if you tell them what they want to hear, whether or not it's true and whether or not you really mean it.
The pope and his minions are better at politics and PR than the Democrats, and he has not been in office long enough for people to blame him for the fact he hasn't actually changed anything.
Hekate
(91,006 posts)Or rather, made enemies of some nasty and powerful entities. If you want to know what is entailed in that, you can look it up, because it's out there.
There's a reason why so many common folk, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, appreciate the heck out of Pope Francis.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Of the significant, non-superficial changes he has made. Which of the RCC's bigoted doctrines and teachings has he changed, or said he intends to change?
Hekate
(91,006 posts)You can even find the info at DU.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And yes, I'm sure you've seen lots of things that YOU consider wonderful, but whether they actually are remains to be seen. I continue to reject your claim that there are any that qualify, until you can provide and defend specific examples. That's how a discussion works, not by vague, unspecified claims and telling other people to look up evidence to support your assertion.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)having trouble linking to it. But it's here…you said so yourself.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)experts on doing that when they want our votes. And show me ON who ever had an 88% approval rating in our lifetime.
No, the lesson of the 88% is you have to have the Creds to be able to admonish those who tell people what they want to hear and then once elected, forget most of what they promised.
This Pope has the credibility to say what he is saying. He has lived his life among the poor doing exactly what he is saying everyone should do. Then when elected, he used his position to spread the message he also preached throughout the world, but many believe that message is specifically directed at the US and the hypocrites here who call themseves Christians but preach a different message than any Christ ever preached.
His ratings are not just due to what he is saying or his few months as Pope, those ratings are from his life long record of caring about the poor AND the fact, that unlike our politicians, he didn't forget it when he got elected.
Oh yes, and I know Bush got huge ratings during 9/11 which had little to do with him as they would have been the same no matter who happened to be president at that time. It didn't last long as the shock wore off and people began to wake up. So that doesn't count, those ratings were for the country.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 03:18 AM - Edit history (1)
Not carpetbaggers donning Liberal values for a brief while, until taking office.
Not this time.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Then forgetting it all once elected. It's getting tiresome.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman
You will know them by their WORKS!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Happy holidays!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Had a 90% approval rating in late September 2001. George H.W. Bush had an 89% approval rating in February of 1991. So you have been shown that it happened in our lifetime. Twice. Now feel free to move the goalposts, as we both know you must. None if the times it actually has happened count, right? How convenient.
And the Wonder Pope has the advantage that he doesn't actually have to accomplish anything. He can talk warm and fuzzy, and he's fine, and knows that people will fawn over him. People predisposed to cling to Catholicism desperately need to find him acceptable, and will look for the smallest reason to rationalize that to themselves. Politicians actually have to produce, or their approval ratings go down.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)That is the importance here. Those 88% now have a person of their authority, that they respect, telling them that they've been getting screwed for the past 30 years. They will listen to that authority.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What has he said that people on this site haven't been saying for a long time? Nothing. And does that 88% fawning over him not already realize that they were being screwed? Are you putting them down as that unaware?
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)I'm not fawning over him, just glad that he is speaking out, another voice that's needed.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)Yes, I'm putting them down as being that unaware - for the past 30 years the vast majority has been lead to believe that trickle-down is good for them.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)911 too.
In a disaster, all a public figure has to do is get out there & look like he cares. In a war, all he has to do is talk about our brave soldiers fighting the baddies.
It works, for a while.
The key, though, is that the figure looks like he's trying to help the people.
Imagine how popular they would be if they really did.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If this guy's racking in those numbers, imagine what would happen if someone were enacting policy for everyone.
You know not everything in the world demands being a curmudgeon.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)but Pope Francis has lived his whole life doing what he's saying the church should do, now that he has the ear of the church. Ye shall know them by their works. Wasn't it that Jesus guy who said that?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)should marry same-sex couples. Or accept women as priests. Or treat homosexuals as full and equal human beings. Or allow abortion and artificial contraception. Has he?
What HAS he said? That the church should be nice to people, even if they're poor? Wow. What a radical.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)that trickle-down economics, the cornerstone of Republican financial policy and the backbone of our current economic inequality, is evil and destructive. He also said that taking down this system of trickle-down economics should be a priority for everyone, rather than getting rid of abortion or limiting rights to gays, which were prioritized by the American Church before. Basically, he said, if there's one issue it's imperative you vote based on, it's an equitable economy. That is huge, enormous, gigantic, and could be fatally injurious to the Right.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)have also said that using condoms and birth control pills is sinful. And look how much effect that's had.
In fact, I have it on good authority in this room that the pope has virtually no influence on what Catholics do, and even less on what non-Catholics do.
What was your point, again?
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)For a long time, the vast majority of my friends were Catholic (up until college). I helped to run a Catholic youth group for close to ten years. I've seen the process I talked about first hand, progressive-minded Catholics voting for Republicans because the Bishops said abortion was THE PRIORITY. There was even a time when I was tempted to go in this direction until I had a long talk with my Catholic FDR Democrat parents and they talked me off that ledge. Also, as I said, my Republican grandma was turned off to the Republican noise machine specifically because they insulted the Pope. One of the things you underestimate is this: many, if not the vast majority, of Republican Catholic voters are the biggest die-hard Catholics, the ones who give the Pope the MOST credence. The fact that he has said that the pro-life agenda is no longer THE issue, but instead has made economic equality THE issue WILL have a huge positive impact among Catholics. That is my report from the trenches.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)that can be done overnight. He's making a good start, though.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
And what of tone has he changed, other than for PR reasons? What doctrine and fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church has he changed?
Give us a list of really significant, non-superficial changes he has made.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)over time, because these are the people who will choose future Cardinals, and the next Pope. If you knew who he has promoted and who he has let go, you would realize major changes are ahead.
Or if you just listened to him. He has said that it's wrong for the Church to have spent all its energy focusing on social issues like abortion and gay people. He's determined to have it focus on economic issues, instead.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He's removed people who think abortion and gay marriage should be illegal, who think homosexual sex and artificial contraception are sins, and replaced them with people who....think abortion and gay marriage should be illegal and who think homosexual sex and artificial contraception are sins. Yeppers...major changes there.
And yes, I heard him SAY that it's wrong for the church to spend all of its energy focussing on issues like abortion and gay people, and then I saw the Seattle archdiocese fire an employees for entering into a same-sex marriage. Guess they didn't get the memo. But the pope will be reversing that decision forthwith, right?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Don't confuse the issue with things like logic and facts. 
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)But the Cardinals he appoints will be choosing the new bishops.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)
So he'll be appointing cardinals who think abortion and gay marriage should be legal, and who think homosexual sex and artificial contraception are not sins, and then they will appoint bishops who feel the same way, and everything soon will be hunky dory? Do you even begin to realize how silly what you're arguing is?
And if what the pope says means nothing in an individual diocese, if those people are free to do whatever they please, then why should we be listening to him in the first place? His words are just that..words..empty and without force.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)So he'll be appointing cardinals who think abortion and gay marriage should be legal, and who think homosexual sex and artificial contraception are not sins, and then they will appoint bishops who feel the same way, and everything soon will be hunky dory? Do you even begin to realize how silly what you're arguing is?
You're right, that's not going to happen.
And if what the pope says means nothing in an individual diocese, if those people are free to do whatever they please, then why should we be listening to him in the first place? His words are just that..words..empty and without force.
If the Pope's words mean nothing in a specific diocese, that diocese is soon going to have a new bishop. Popes can and have removed bishops -- indeed, Pope Francis has done it with the so-called "bishop of bling", Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg, Germany.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)will soon be replaced for violating the pope's directive? And the fired principal will be reinstated?
Do let us know when that happens, won't you?
Response to skepticscott (Reply #113)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you were agreeing with a sneer and not a legitimate point of discussion? Okey doke, then.
And if you're calling me out and trying to transplant an argument from another thread (a thread you were booted from, btw) into this one (what, did you get banned from Religion again, and have to wait until I posted somewhere else to get this in?), then feel free to link to the thread where this alleged false accusation occurred, so that everyone can see your true colors. I suspect, however, that no one here is interested in your unfounded gripes and personal vendettas from another group.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,356 posts) skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm waiting with great anticipation. 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)dying to know who alerted on them. Why, it's rather dismaying to imagine, but it seems his curiosity will remain unsatisfied.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Not a fan of this Pope but I admit at least he gets people talking even if I question the motivations and ultimate end goals.
Merry xmas Manny.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And seeing a religious leader saying those things gives me hope...and I hope other religious leaders will speak up too...because the right wingers have had a megaphone for far too long now.
But I expect some to jump in and trash the pope...because he is attacking the status quo.
Democrats should jump all over the pope's lead on this, and if they did we would win the next election...because this is a populace message that will ring true to the majority.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Not even from us non Catholics. I've been knocked on my ass with surprise. I had a list a mile high and a mile wide to complain about Pope Rattie. I wouldn't even honor him with his taken name. This one, though, I'm about to declare, he's a good un.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I have seen posts which call him a "homophobic, misogynous bigot", apparently because he won't recognize gay marriage and won't ordain women.
The Catholic doctrine on marriage from time immemorial is that it is between a man and a woman. Period. This is not going to change, given that it would entail a radical change in sacramental theology -- i.e., a core doctrine of the Church.
There are those who say that Francis is no different from Fred Phelps. No, there is a difference in kind, not just in degree. Can anyone see Phelps saying "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill?"
The ordination of women is more problematical. I have written in http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=1155 and a following post on the crap which is the Vatican position paper on the ordination of women, Inter Insigniores. I should also have gone into Pope John Paul II's exercise in sexismMulieris Dignitatem
One of the major problems of the Catholic Church is that it is very slow to change doctrine. The Church proclaims that it is in the business of teaching absolute, eternal truth. So then, how can the teachings change? Even a cursory examination of the history of doctrine shows that the teachings do change. For example, as late as1745, Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical, Vix Pervenit, taught that the taking of interest on loans was usury and therefore sinful. The teaching has never been rescinded, but has been quietly dropped.
When I was in graduate school, I wrote a paper on how the Church went from the Council of Trent's "Biblical translations must be based on the Latin Vulgate" to Vatican II's "Biblical teachings must be based on the original languages" without ever contradicting (indeed, quoting from) the previous position papers.
Unfortunately, the quoting from previous position papers is obviously highly selective. Cherry picking quotes is really dishonest. I'm sure that when Pope Benedict was a theology professor, he would have slapped down any student who ignored evidence which did not support his thesis. (If you read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, he starts each article by citing evidence against his thesis; he then answers each one.) However, ignoring contrary evidence is expected in Vatican position papers. The most egregious recent case I can think of was Pope Paul VI's encyclical defending priestly celibacy, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which wholly ignores 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which the Apostle Paul is saying that he has a right to be married. That he chose not to exercise that right is immaterial.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is, as I said, expected in Vatican position papers. For example, Inter Insigniores:
• Admits that one of the main reasons for denying ordination to women has been the attitude that women were inferior to men (see, for example, Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Supplement, question 39 article 1) and says that this argument should be abandoned but then resurrects it without saying it is doing so.
• Relies on the extremely dubious argument that Christ ordained only men to the priesthood. First, even if you grant this argument, one can just as reasonably say that since Christ ordained only Jews to the priesthood, gentiles should not be priests. But the fact is that Christ did not "ordain" anyone. And since the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, and the Seder is a celebration for the family ("You shall tell your children on that day..." -- Exodus 13:8), there were undoubtedly women present.
• Makes the really silly argument that since the priest is supposed to "mirror Christ", the laity would not be able to see Christ in a woman. I daresay that the laity would be far less likely to see Christ in a pedophile. This argument also shows the Vatican's basic contempt for the laity.
Finally, Pope John Paul II attempted to quell discussion in his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis -- "On Priestly Ordination", which can be summed up as "Women cannot be ordained because I say so. Now sit down and shut up!" This argument may work with very small children (but don't count on it), but it only convinces those who believe that every burp which issues from a papal throat is the word of God. They shouldn't expect any adults to buy it.
That is the problem with much of Vatican teachings: Cherry-picked evidence, contrary evidence ignored, sloppy reasoning, dubious (at best) history, and shutting down discussion by fiat.
So, do not expect any swift changes in doctrine.
One final comment on Pope Francis. He comes across as authentic. He does what he does because of who he is. As that old windbag, Polonius said in Hamlet, "This above all: to thine own self be true, thus it must follow, as does the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And an interesting read...thanks for sharing that with us.
But I note that Jesus never established any of the doctrines the church now has...and in fact the only thing he did establish was the breaking of bread and sharing of wine at the last supper, which was turned into a stylized ritual.
All that is now was established by men that never knew him like Paul, and was done more to make Christianity acceptable to the Romans than anything.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)I am hopeful that Pope Francis will become more inclusive of women in the Church. Long live Pope Francis.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)on DU. They do not want to hear it.
Trying to explain to them that ANY sex act outside of marriage is viewed most negatively by the Catechism, be it gay or straight is also met with a barrage of insults.
And then there are those who ask "How can people believe that the Pope is infallible and speaks for God".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)know perfectly well that the pope will not be changing anything that matters in church doctrine, teaching, law or policy as they pertain to same-sex marriage or homosexuals in general. But people crow about how much the pope has changed, and when they are challenged to show exactly what he's changed that really matters, they backpedal wildly, saying "well…but…but…the pope CAN'T change THAT!", or "He hasn't had TIME to change that!"
We also understand that the church has conveniently arranged that homosexuals cannot have sex inside of a marriage, no matter how committed to each other they are, while they continue cluck-clucking over premarital sex by heterosexual couples, but going ahead with those marriages anyway, with a wink and a nod. It's the double standard, backed up by what the RCC claims to be the infallible and unquestionable word of "god" that warrants the barrage of criticism.
Hekate
(91,006 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We want fairness and justice. Just like the founders did. That's all.
peoli
(3,111 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)And the most effective way to do that is to *practice* those qualities in our own day to day. That's how I look at it, anyway. Practice again and again and again.
That's what I find great about DU. Most of us really are trying our best to live this way. We're a good influence on each other.
Welllllll...ok, we're not sanctified or anything, but we're not a bad lot
By and large.....
tavalon
(27,985 posts)But I've stuck it out here for over a decade because I see the goodness and try not to jump in to the stupidity, when I see it clearly.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Pffft! [URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)88% is an extraordinary number.
It's the only number we need to know. This gives me hope.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So is 88% extraordinary but 87% is not? That one point makes this bigot's bigotry extraordinary? In what way? Is he one percentage point less hateful, or is it more hateful?
What's extraordinary is the amount of folks willing to stab others in the back to praise a homophobic sexist old superstition salesman.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And this is one Unitarian who likes Pope Francis' social viewpoint. Thank you, Manny Goldstein. Thank you, Pope Francis.
You are showing the way toward a better future for America.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Let's be honest, too many Democrats would have to peel their lips off the asses of Wall Street, military contractors, oil companies, etc to get anywhere near 88%.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But, maybe the Pope can change the trajectory. Just imagine, a truly holy Pope! He would have a tremendous following.
The common people are being exploited all over the earth. This is clear. Something must be done. We need real patriots. The righties might take him out! They have done far worse. I fear for his life. He appears to be fearless. I am in awe.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)New to me.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Always love to hear ya!
-p
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It must be Christmas!
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)...a trojan horse of sorts to the conservatives, in that it's being delivered in a method that was all but thought to be an in-the-bag medium of conservatives: Religion. Far-right firebrands may Tsk Tsk the pope's words but I assure you there is a lot of cognitive dissonance churning and burning conservative catholic's insides.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)several years ago when he said something condescending about Pope Benedict. She turned off Fox News and never turned it back on. We're pretty sure she voted for Obama at least once. Fox isn't doing themselves any favors by "tsk tsk"ing this Pope. Also, the Catholic vote is majority Democratic in this country (I believe Obama carried it by something like 54%), but if we can break into that last 46% in a big way, it would be a major victory.
As I said up-thread, there are SOOOOOO many Catholics who are one-issue voters (abortion) because the US Bishops have been hammering at that issue for so long. It's their priority, whether for honest moral concerns, or because of political bias. The argument has been: suffer economic disparity as a sacrifice and end abortion. As a Catholic, I have seen several of my peers from youth group go from progressives to voting Republican based on this one issue, and they hold their noses as they do it. Pope Francis is taking that card away from the Right Wing, he's saying that economic disparity is the priority, not abortion. That one PUSH could, and probably will in many cases, give these young Catholics the excuse they've been looking for to vote Democratic once more.
Very big! Very exciting!
DallasNE
(7,404 posts)By age group and further broken down by sex. Also by practicing and non-practicing Catholics. With numbers this high it has to be somewhat across the board but it would still be interesting to see these further breakdowns.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)We've always known that economic populism was the way to go but the people that own this party are the same that own the Republicans.
There's not a whole lot we can do. The bastards won't cross their paymasters.
madokie
(51,076 posts)This is one of those times.
Peace
Merry Christmas to you
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)and his support is in the dumpster. It is more than talk. The public has gotten weary that Obama doesn't have any bottom line most of the time. Everything is negotiable, so when he takes a position, even his supporters don't trust him. Look at the Keystone pipeline, for example.
The Pope has the advantage that e doesn't actually have to *DO* anything. He isn't really held acocuntable for any results. When you aren't accountable, it is easier to stake out positions and stick to them.
It seems to me there are certain bedrock principles that most Democrats should be able to agree on without compromise, and this is what they should be standing for. I think Kos did a good job with their proposal.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1263930/-A-Democratic-contract-with-America-How-to-retake-the-House-and-combat-economic-inequality
1) Increase the federal minimum hourly wage to $12.50 and index it to inflation.
2) Create jobs through federally funded infrastructure spending.
3) Improve education—and save money in the long run—by funding universal pre-kindergarten.
4) Increase the earned income tax credit and make more middle-income families eligible.
5) Increase the personal exemption on federal income taxes by $500.
6) Shore up Social Security by subjecting income over $300,000 to the payroll tax.
7) Implement the Warren Buffett Rule to ensure that people earning over $1 million are paying at least an effective tax rate of 30 percent.
8) Eliminate "Mitt Romney's favorite tax break" to ensure hedge fund managers pay regular income tax rates on their incomes.
9) Eliminate subsidies that go to millionaire farmers.
10) Close other corporate tax loopholes, including ones that reward corporations for moving jobs overseas.
If the Dems all got behind this, we would sweep the elections. But the problem is that most of them aren't actually on our side.
bucolic_frolic
(43,478 posts)concern for humanity the way Pope Francis is doing!
Someone to express concern for the poor, desire to help.
Could it be the Papacy has awaited opportunity for a very very
long time? That with communism kaput, economies recovering,
environment in distress, greed rampant, that the time is now
for Christendom to bring humanity to the world?
They talk on Wall Street about analysts "Pounding the Table"
for a stock.
This Pope is ringing a clarion call for peace and justice that hasn't
been heard in a long time, perhaps ever (me being no student of the
Papacy).
The internet has made the whole world aware of everything. Pope
Francis is seizing the moment for humanity.
This is a Big Thing in the history of the world. It may even help
ward off environmental disaster.
"There's a new breeze blowing." - President George H. W. Bush
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I heard this morning that Catholic support for Francis is over 90%, with the main objections being the church's continued stance against women.
The church has been pretty f%%%ed up for a long time. The relief/joy felt by Catholics today is palpable.
jsr
(7,712 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Gotta wonder what Jim Jones' polls looked like.
Some religious leaders could shit in a bucket to applause
And yeah, despite that, you're right. The pope is rockin it
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)According to a CNN poll, Fancis' approval rating among Americans in general is nearly 75%. That, I think is the more pertinent number here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/popes-approval-rating-poll_n_4497813.html
tavalon
(27,985 posts)and I would give the new Pope high marks. The last Pope horrified me. Pope Rattie, I called him. I just figured when they picked a new Pope, it would be like American politics - meet the new Pope, same as the old Pope. I wonder if the pickers thought the same thing. If so, I think we were all wrong.
Petulant feral children is the most accurate description of the Republican party I have ever heard. Kudos on a great turn of phrase.
It would be nice if Democrats would listen to the populists, of which there are more than they think. But with the Third Way cancer destroying them from the inside, I hold little hope for the current incarnation of the "Democratic Party". But, we've gotten a few firebrands in there and maybe, just maybe, their outstanding numbers will convince others who aren't terminally cancerous, to change their ways.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)and pseudo-Christians everywhere.
Jesus never had one word to say about gay people, but he talked about our obligations to help the poor over and over and over. Finally. A pope who is really spreading the Word.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,478 posts)I've doubted the centrists in the Democratic Party for a long time.
DLC was too moderate, too far to the right. They hoped to maintain
influence and dialogue with the governing Right Wing majority, especially
in the Bush2 years, and that was a failed journey.
So the Extreme Right became more extreme and the consequences of their
policies more harmful. It's gotten so bad that the average Joe can now
understand what has happened.
Regaining Catholics from the anti-abortion Reagan voting bloc would be a
huge coup. How were all those union household hoodwinked into voting
against their economic interests? Social issues, racial fear, Right-to-Life,
LGBT angst.
Times they are a changin'.
I doubt Hillary Clinton is the candidate that can carry this message. She'd
govern to the right of Bill, just a bit.
We're due for a GOP President and a solidly Democratic Congress.
2016 could be Warren v. Paul or some such.
Or it could be a Liberal Democratic Landslide. Issues are opening up
and turning left. NSA, Fairness, Climate Change, Minimum Wage.
The return to power of Jerry Brown was the canary's cage.
Merry Christmas!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The bottom 26 percent of income earners are eligible for Medicaid under the expanded rules. That's nearly 17 million newly eligible people, and millions more will qualify for subsidies. There is a new tax on high-income earners and the wealthy to help pay for the law.
Reported when the law passed in 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html
It's the law, 2013:
A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. The IRS and the Treasury Department have issued proposed regulations on the Net Investment Income Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Net Investment Income Tax, see our questions and answers.
Additional Medicare Tax
A new Additional Medicare Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s wages, Railroad Retirement Tax Act compensation, and self-employment income that exceeds a threshold amount based on the individual’s filing status. The threshold amounts are $250,000 for married taxpayers who file jointly, $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separately, and $200,000 for all other taxpayers. An employer is responsible for withholding the Additional Medicare Tax from wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations on the Additional Medicare Tax. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. For additional information on the Additional Medicare Tax, see our questions and answers.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions
More than 400,000 Californians have enrolled in health coverage under Obamacare as of Sunday, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The numbers are preliminary. State officials said enrollment had spiked with the approaching Monday deadline for signing up for coverage that starts in January: 27,000 people enrolled Sunday -- more than HealthCare.gov, which is serving 36 states, signed up in all of October.
The Obama administration has repeatedly pledged that enrollment would spike ahead of this week's deadline. President Obama said last week that more than 500,000 people enrolled through HealthCare.gov in the first three weeks of this month alone -- more than doubling the total enrollments that the federal website saw in October and November combined.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/california-obamacare-enrollment-400k
FRANKFORT, KY. — More than 100,000 Kentuckians can mark another item off their shopping lists: medical coverage.
Kentucky’s state-operated online insurance marketplace has had a rush of people signing up for policies over the past month so that they would receive coverage beginning Jan. 1.
Gwenda Bond, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, said officials had geared up for the anticipated surge.
<...>
As of Monday afternoon, 74,054 people had enrolled in Medicaid and 26,042 in private health insurance plans.
- more -
http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20131223/BUSINESS/312230053/100-000-plus-Kentuckians-sign-up-health-insurance
Total ACA Enrollments actually closer to 8 Million.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024216660
Two million people visited HealthCare.gov on Monday, the ostensible deadline to sign up through Obamacare for health coverage that starts in January, according to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The administration announced Monday, though, that anyone who enrolled in coverage by the end of the day Tuesday would still be covered on Jan. 1. After Tuesday, the earliest that one's coverage would start would be Feb. 1.
The high volume forced CMS to deploy the website's queueing system, which asked a total of 129,000 people to come back later to complete their application.
CMS said that traffic remained high Tuesday, though not as high as Monday, and the queueing system had not been activated.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-website-hits-december-deadline
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Bill Clinton had some of the best approval numbers as well, and he enacted terrible policies.
Pope Francis has changed nothing but the focus of the church. He is more personable. He's still a bigot, and he still heads a terrible institution that does great damage to progressive policies. The rules have not changed and will not change. In other words, he's put a friendly face on the status quo.
If anything, Pope Francis is a warning of how easily people are fooled by charismatic leaders. It's amazing to me how anyone could respect a person that thinks the devil is behind gay marriage support or women are second class citizens.
Part of it is the continued privilege of religion, and many on DU don't even see it.
Most Catholics I know are far more moral than the Pope, and smarter and more sophisticated at that.
What we need is someone who is charismatic and progressive, not charismatic and for the status quo. We've had plenty of those over the years. The Pope has a much easier job than a president as well. His followers already believe through childhood indoctrination, or just stay for the tradition. The most his followers expect of him is to not be an asshole. The bar is low. President's work in the real of reality, not the supernatural. Their job is much more real and much more important.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)(especially relevant since we're celebrating the Pope)
By Ian S. Thompson
In the late hours on Thursday evening, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 84-15, passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), sending the measure to President Obama for his signature. Included within the sprawling annual defense authorization is a repeal of the military’s stigmatizing and discriminatory ban on private, consensual intimate conduct – defined in Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as "unnatural carnal copulation."
Removing this prohibition from the books brings military criminal law in line with both Supreme Court and military court precedent recognizing constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy...it is especially significant for gay and lesbian servicemembers. The UCMJ labeled their intimate relationships, including to their same-sex spouse, as a violation of military criminal law. Given that gay men and lesbians now serve openly and with distinction throughout the Armed Forces, this offensive ban stood out like a sore thumb crying out for reform.
A special note of thanks is owed to Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) for both spearheading this reform and ensuring that it was included in the NDAA.
While there is still more work to do to advance the promise of equal treatment for all military personnel, this was a nice legislative victory (in Congress of all places) to close out what has been a remarkable year of progress for the LGBT community.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights-national-security/victory-military-ban-consensual-intimacy-ends
By Zack Ford
2013 will no doubt be remembered as a truly historic year for LGBT equality. Both in terms of visibility and access to government services, people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or any other label under the queer community’s umbrella saw a huge expansion of their freedoms and protection under the law. Here’s a look back at some of this year’s many milestones:
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/24/3061351/2013-lgbt-progress/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)otherwise is agenda driven mendacity. What Francis really says...
"Pope Francis is a conservative who is anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption. He has described same-sex marriage as the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.
In 2010, Francis championed against a bill for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, according to the National Catholic Register.
“[T]he Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family," he wrote to the four monasteries in Argentina. "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
He went on to describe it as a "‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/pope-francis-gay-marriage-anti_n_2869221.html
This piece has quotes from his recent diatribe which blames the liberal media for gay people getting treatment Francis sees too good for us. Blames the liberal media, does that sound familiar to anyone else, blaming liberal films for liberal policy sounds so much like Bill O'Reilly...
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pope-attacks-same-sex-marriage-in-historic-policy-statement/marriage/2013/11/30/79348#.UrrxBfs4IUU
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)From an article you cite.
Do you disagree?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Until he makes actual changes to doctrine and policy, nothing has changed, not even the track.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So your dad's expert advice aside, it does not seem unusual for Catholics to have healthy approval of any person in that seat. Francis is more popular with conservative Catholics than Benedict was, with good reason, Francis has built his career in that organization upon anti gay diatribes and political efforts so heinous that the President of his home country called his words 'Medival and suggestive of the Inquisition.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-gets-high-ratings-from-catholics-according-to-poll/2013/12/10/7b546778-61dc-11e3-8beb-3f9a9942850f_story.html
Very sad to see you post this anti gay, sexist promotional material Manny. If your idea for Democrats is to seeth at gay people that we are from 'the author of all evil' and to women that they are not equal and should have reproductive choices made for them by clerical, celebate men you are insane or a Republican.
It's good to know who not to trust even a bit around here. I don't trust those who coddle hate mongers.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)From the article linked in the OP:
More than 85% of American Catholics say Francis is neither too liberal nor too conservative, and 86% say he's in touch with the modern world. By comparison, more than half of American Catholics said Pope John Paul II was out of step with the times in 2003, near the end of his 26-year-long papacy.
...
For example, three-quarters of American Catholics approved of how John Paul was leading the church in 1994; that number rose to 84% in 1999 and dipped to 64% in 2003, at the height of the church's sexual abuse crisis.
I think the point is that times change. When The Stupid runs rampant in America, we laud Stupid. Right now, Reason is getting a toehold hear, and we want something else.
Can you provide a link for Francis saying that gay people are from "the author of all evil"?
We all have opinions; what counts most, I think, is the ones we "go to war" over. On this count, Francis is unusual for a Pope, don't you agree? He's going to war over exploitation of the 99%, while for the rest it's "Who am I to judge".
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Here is what you ask our Party to engage in:
"“[T]he Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family. At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts. Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage#ixzz2oV28TRKk
But hey, none of that is about YOU, so it's groovy rhetoric, right? Nice to know where you stand, right next to the bigot whom you say is our future. If that is the future of this Party, it will go a future without LGBT people and without anyone who cares for us. Hate speech is unacceptable, and Francis is a gussied up version of Phil the Duck Guy. There is virtually no difference in what they say. If it walks like a bigot, and talks like a bigot, chances are it's a bigot. Or is that 'if it walks like a Duck'?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Now can you tell us the name of the last pro poor, anti disparity pope?
Why do you focus on the negative when so much positive can come from this pope?
Take the word of a former Catholic, this pope is a change for the better.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)too bad you have not bothered to read the context of this 'who am I to judge' diatribe, you clearly skip the attack on the 'gay lobby' which Francis says is 'very bad'. He says if we organize or have a community identity, that's bad. You are falling for Public Relations spin. In doing so, you are standing with a man who libels my family, you are cheering for him. Perhaps one day I can return the favor and see to it that your family gets some ugly treatment in public for Christmas morning.
Hate mongers are unacceptable to many of us. Let me point this out to you, Manny: Uganda is 43% Catholic, RCC is the largest religious group in Uganda. Uganda just passed some horrific anti gay legislation. What did Francis say or do to stop it or to criticize it? Was that law supported by RCC in Uganda? Do you either know or care? Why is Francis silent on this shitty action from folks who claim they did it for Christ?
Are you happy about the Uganda laws, glad that Francis is silent in the face of horrors? Has he no soul, no accountability at all? Any vile thing done is groovy if he does it?
Barf on him, barf on you, exploiting the poor to excuse hate for minority groups is vile, but then you ain't poor, gay, or any of that...so what do you care, right Cardinal Manny?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)which Rick Warren's Saddleback Church milieu had a big hand in...
you know, the guy Obama invited to speak at his inaugural...?
It's not the catholics pushing the kill the gay in Uganda, it's Protestants under the sway of US fundie missionaries.
http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/uganda-passes-law-punishes-homosexuality-life-imprisonment/356365/
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)We're not comparing two sects of Christianity here, regarding their attitudes against LGBT rights. Which is worse is not a point of comparison. Both are vile.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)When in fact it has nothing to do with them, or the growth in such sentiments.
In fact, the Catholic Church has taken a public stand against the bill -- in 2009.
Religious and human rights organizations
Several Christian organizations oppose it, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, Integrity Uganda, Exodus International, Accepting Evangelicals, Changing Attitude, Courage, Ekklesia, Fulcrum, Inclusive Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.
Uganda's Catholic Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian Lwanga stated in December 2009 that the bill was unnecessary and "at odds with the core values" of Christianity, expressing particular concerns at the death penalty provisions. Lwanga argued that instead homosexuals should be encouraged to seek rehabilitation.[79] [81]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
Once hailed by Time magazine as “America’s Pastor,” California mega-church leader and bestselling author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren now finds himself on the defensive. President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer has generated intense scrutiny of the pastor’s beliefs on social issues, from his vocal support for Prop 8, a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in California, to his comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Many of Obama’s supporters have demanded that he withdraw the invitation.
Warren’s defense against charges of intolerance ultimately depends upon his ace card: his heavily publicized crusade against AIDS in Africa...
But since the Warren inauguration controversy erupted, the nature of work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined. Warren has not been particularly forthcoming to those who have attempted to look into it. His website contains scant information about the results of his program. However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda...
Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.
When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.
Joining Ssempa at Warren’s church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president’s newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Ugandan first lady Janet Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country’s numerous church-based abstinence programs.
These Bush officials—Randall Tobias, the Department of State’s Global AIDS coordinator, and Claude Allen, the White House’s chief domestic policy advisor—are closely linked to the Christian right. Tobias, the so-called “global AIDS czar,” declared in 2004 that condoms “really have not been very effective," and crusaded against prostitution, until he resigned in 2007 when he was exposed as a regular client of the D.C. Madam’s escort service. Allen, once an aide to the late Senator Jesse Helms, resigned in 2006 after he was arrested for felony thefts from retail stores...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa.html
Warren & the US Christian right have been pushing this crap in Uganda for years. Ricky refused to take a position on it at all until bad publicity forced him to in effect renounce all the work he's been doing ginning up the hate.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)That will solve a lot of hunger and poverty, and will bring out the vote too.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Politically we will be challenged that a minimum wage increase will result in fewer jobs and higher costs passed to consumers. A friend of mine says Democrats should embrace that challenge, the teabaggers I work with also said sure go ahead and force a minimum wage increase and they state that if the people don't like the results of the increase (in their eyes much like they don't like Obamacare) then they should be told to fire the Democrats for implementing it....
annabanana
(52,791 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Big government is now just as excoriated as big business ..... I agree with everything you said in the OP but how exactly will Democratic policies fix the problem? Many Democrats are just as "in bed" with big business as Repubs. The government is being pronounced as the new enemy of the people. Where are the good paying Jobs? Why are so many on government run subsistence programs? How is increasing the taxes on the MIDDLECLASS going to fix this? For all the fairness arguments that our side puts forth it doesn't seem to trickle down either. So what is the answer? Community yes but without government, How?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They favor Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc. They favor Medicare for all, they favor increasing the minimum wage.
Two thirds. Fairness wins big.
If we can't get passed what two-thirds of Americans want, then we are corrupt, incompetent, or both.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)but they all cost money, nothing is free. My point was on how do we pay for it all, the middleclass is being squeezed into non-existence and the rich certainly don't pay their fair share, so how do you sell that ? The middleclass cannot shoulder this and the rich certainly won't shoulder it... I hear all the yakkity yak about pay their fair share but they don't and no one makes them not a single Repub and very few Democrats speak on this with any clarity. Soon we will all be in the same box and the oligargy will be telling us all how good we have it, I don't want Elysium but sadly that is what is happening to us all, and as far as polling goes here a break down of Gallup from 2012 a majority believe that government does too much already....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-think-government-is-doing-too-much-poll-shows/
DemoTex
(25,407 posts)Extraordinary, indeed!
GoCubsGo
(32,102 posts)That these numbers only represent the Catholics. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of fundamentalist Christians and evangelical types out there, who are constantly being told by their preachers that bad things, like poverty, only happen to bad people. I live in the BuyBull Belt, and it's "red" because it's full of these types, and most of them believe in that "prosperity" shit they're being fed every Sunday. Granted, many of them ARE finally waking up, as we've been seeing with things like the recent elections in Virginia. I really hope that ALL the Dems recognize what's going on in this poll, because you're right. This is the only way we can get this country back from the fascists. I just hope the Manchins, Landrieus, and their ilk will grow spines and finally recognize that this is the way to go, rather than cowering in the imagined safety of being republican-lite. I'm not hopeful in that regard...
On edit: I missed the part about the 75% of non-Catholics. Very encouraging, and more reason for the Dems to head down this path.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)to say who he likes when we pick our candidates for 2016. I already think he would not like a third-way candidate...regardless of their religion.
Will he play the game or say "no way."?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)laws that many nations have condemned as the hate laws that they are. Life in prison for being gay. Francis has not said a word about it, and did not during the disgusting debates, although this law is made by people who claim they do it for Christ. So either Francis agrees with that hate law or he lacks courage to stand up and instruct his people.
Francis on marriage equality:
“Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage#ixzz2oVDcGyQ4
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)friends "The Family" etc.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)A Jesuit cardinal has become the latest Church leader to speak out forcefully against a government’s push towards same-sex marriage, and has called on his nation’s contemplatives to pray fervently to prevent such laws.
According to an article in tomorrow’s L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Primate of Argentina, has said that if a proposed bill giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry and adopt children should be approved, it will “seriously damage the family.”
He made the statement in a letter addressed to each of the four monasteries in Argentina, asking the contemplatives to pray “fervently” that legislators be strengthened to do the right thing.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage#ixzz2oVDcGyQ4
Francis on marriage equality in 2010:
"“Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
To those of you promoting this hateful shit, Merry Christmas and those you seek to harm forgive you for your ignorance.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What specific actions did he take to punish those who disagreed with him?
Did he introduce legislation to slash the lifelines to the poor, sick, and aged?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Exonerating trickle-down economics.
Sounds like a Communist/Socialist plot to me!
Good on him!
I hope all the Cat Licks come around!
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)by the Pope.The more money that the 99% posses,means more money in the collection plate.
If half of Catholics in the US put an extra dollar in the plate each Sunday,34 million bucks a week.
I could give a shit about the Pope,but if the 99% get more/treated fairly due to him wanting to grow the Catholic coffers,more power to him.
randr
(12,418 posts)It is time to take the high ground and challenge the poor disillusioned Republican voters to choose which side they are on.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There was a time, not so long ago,
when the Democratic Party Leadership & the message of Pope Francis were very close:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established [font size=3]for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
--FDR, SOTU, 1944
Please note that FDR specified the above as Fundamental Human Rights,
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
There was a time when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR the above Fundamental Human Rights.
Sadly, this is no longer true.
My Hope is that as Pope Francis is leading a movement in the Catholic Church,
so to, a revival and return to the Traditional Basic Human Rights values of the OLD Democratic Party is in our near future.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)!!
Dem_in_Nebr.
(301 posts)"the yammerings of petulant feral children" :ROFL:
Says it all very well!
Thanks!!
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)1. Total equality for both sexes, including representation at the highest levels of leadership.
2. Recognition that reproductive rights are a matter for individual choice. Period.
3. Support for the full range of human equality, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, age, abilities, or gender.
4. Recognition that belief in a particular religion is not required for anything in society.
While progressives and the Democratic Party openly support all of those things, Pope Francis does not. While he is a good proponent of economic justice, he is not a supporter of social justice in many areas.
In the United States, we have a choice of which party to support in our elections. We need to make the correct choice, regardless of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot hold Pope Francis up as a model for social justice, I'm afraid.
GOTV 2014!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The convocation at the President's first inaugural was given by a man who loudly proclaims that Gays, Jews, and others who don't meet his standards are going to Hell.
Many did not speak out.
Do you agree, in any case, that the popularity of Francis' message bodes well for us who want to reverse accelerating social injustice?
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I think a broader, more inclusive message is what we need to be sending here in this country. Most DUers would not support a candidate, for example, who shared the totality of Pope Francis's social justice beliefs.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Why do you think that rating's so high?
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Obama has said many of the same things and expressed the same sentiments. And the Pope, like Obama, has changed his position on gay marriage among other things. Yet the Pope is applauded and the President is criticized...even by DU.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Nor has Obama decried trickle-down economics - to the contrary, his "stimulus package"was largely reliant on trickle-down economics working. And since then, he's pushed for austerity and job-obliterating "free" trade.
Maybe some people are reacting to these issues, rather than his skin color?
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
NealK
(1,895 posts) ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Nor has Obama decried trickle-down economics "
...he has.
by Ian Reifowitz
Barack Obama knows how to tell a story. One of his great strengths is his ability to craft a narrative of our history that resonates with Americans and advances a progressive understanding of who we are as a people. Obama's telling of that history always features both progress as well as our failure to live up to the ideals of equality we lay down at the country's founding. His American history narratives have long centered on two purposes.
The first is to encourage Americans across every possible group line to recognize one another as being part of a single community of Americans based on our shared membership in the civic nation. The President's placing of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall among the pantheon of the great events in our history is perhaps the best known example of this, among countless other occasions where he has done so throughout his career.
The second, one that featured prominently in yesterday's speech on economic inequality, is to emphasize the long-standing roots—as well as the moral superiority and greater effectiveness—of a common good-centered, progressive economic philosophy. I've never heard President Obama do this better than he did yesterday. He told the story of our country as one in which we moved closer and closer to being a society built around equal opportunity and a notion of the common good that provided a basic safety net for those of us who faced hard times.
Until, that is, we inaugurated President Ronald Reagan. Obama also rightly noted the impact of globalization on our economy, but then specifically highlighted the crucial role of right-wing economic thinking—calling out Reaganite "trickle-down ideology" on taxes and on the lack of commitment to invest in our country's resources—in moving us away from the path on which we'd been traveling for over a century thanks to progressives in both parties.
This is the kind of historical narrative that people can connect with. It is a story that has a clear good guy and a clear villain, the kind of story that, in raw political terms, helps frame the debate in a highly effective way. More broadly, the speech provided an exceptionally strong philosophical and factual underpinning for the progressive ideals we hold dear.
Below the fold is the excerpt of the speech in which the President lays out his narrative of our history.
Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.
It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described “poor man’s son,” who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man’s son could go learn something new.
When farms gave way to factories, a rich man’s son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low.
When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.
When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.
Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society. We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.
Now, we can’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The economy didn’t always work for everyone. Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- or out of opportunity. Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions. And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy.
Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past. And for some, that meant following in your old man’s footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. For others, it meant going to college -- in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college. And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.
Now, it’s true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest: The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income. But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone’s wages and incomes were growing. And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.
But starting in the late ‘70s, this social compact began to unravel. Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.
As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.
And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.
The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.
So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”
But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”
The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.
The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)that?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)pretty good
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)of important social justice issues? Please explain.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Was your hypothesis, so I was pointing out that *something* he's doing is having an affect in the US. I don't know what it would be other than his message.
Did I misunderstand your post.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)example. Were he running in the US for the Presidency, we would be screaming about his positions on all of the points I raised. Economic justice is just one part of social justice. Francis is OK on economic justice, at least from what he says. On the other points his positions align with the far right in this country.
Pope Francis is not an exemplary figure of social justice we should be championing. On women's rights, reproductive rights, and LGBT rights, he might as well be a tea party figure.
If we are going to hold Obama's feet to the fire on all issues, we should also be holding Pope Francis's feet to the fire on all issues. In the social justice area, his statements are fine in one area, but abysmal in the others. Is that our new standard? Is that what we support on DU, now?
I'm having none of it. Until the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy supports the full range of social justice issues, they remain a medieval organization with no sense of human equality.
You may not like that, but I will continue to point that out.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Well said.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)His favorability is at 88% among US Catholics, 75% among all Americans.
because of his message.
Ergo, his message is a popular one.
Despite parts of his social message being non-optimal. He's certainly not a Tea Partier because he doesn't want to shove most of his positions down people's throats, he's OK with disagreeing.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)working in one of the many, many Catholic hospitals in this country. The Pope will oppose your right to obtain contraceptive care. Is that not "shoving it down their throats?"
I'm sorry, but his popularity among Catholics is not my concern in any way. In the United States, we do not base our laws on what the Catholic Church wants, right. Well, sometimes we do. We have done that in the past, and continue to support Church doctrine in some areas, even today.
The Pope not a Tea Partier? Ask women. Ask GLBT folks. See what they think of this Pope.
Ask Catholics if they support the leader of their Church? Well, you'll get the same answer, regardless of who is Pope, and have gotten that answer in the past. It's irrelevant.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Despite part of his message being one that we reject, his popularity is 75% among ALL Americans.
That can only be because the rest of his message is so attractive.
As to other Popes... http://www.gallup.com/poll/127058/Pope-Benedict-Favorable-Rating-Drops.aspx
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I started my own thread. You'll find me over there in it. This one's yours.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You have no standing to make that choice for others.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)their opinion must be. I will state my opinion freely, here on DU and elsewhere. Others' opinions might differ from mine. I have no authority to demand anything from anyone, nor do I want such authority. When I call for something, it is just a call for something. When I criticize some leader, it is just criticism. I do not tell people what to do. I tell them what I think. I assume they can think for themselves. What do you assume?
I will state my opinion. You don't get to decide whether or not I will do that.
How's that?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And I'm telling you that the odds of you holding sway over my opinion are nil. You have no standing, and your reasoning is fatally flawed.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Actually, the party shifted to the right only after the loss of Michael Dukakis.
It was only THEN that we Liberals were told by the "sensible" wing that America had rejected us.
Then we got to watch the rise of Harold Ford.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Makes...sense.
S.A.M
(162 posts)Merry Christmas to the Pope! Happy Holidays to the R
epblican Party!
pa28
(6,145 posts)He's a powerful advocate for the 99%
harun
(11,348 posts)
JHB
(37,166 posts)...more openly get their anti-catholic freak on.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Spot on.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
sarchasm
(1,014 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)in plastic and blankets, big sleeping bag...
My wife asked my heathen ass to take her to Midnight Mass. I don't believe in ghosts, or that we might be comforted by a better life after being screwed over in this one, but I like some of the songs, so we went.
We went early so we could park closer (she has rheumatoid arthritis, so it's a little hard for her to walk long distances) and while sitting in the car noticed a figure on the park bench across the street sitting, looking around. Dark, couldn't see very well, but before we went in I saw the figure lay down, and I realized it wasn't just someone enjoying the night before the service.
So I walked over, and from a few feet away I said "You asleep yet?. Guy's head emerged, said "no". I handed him a few bucks, wished him a Merry Christmas, shook his hand. I told him there was a Mass across the street, he could come in and at least get warm for while, but I suspect he knew that wasn't gonna happen. Their security is used to turning people away down there.
We went inside and I enjoyed the music and the singing. The preacher mentioned that Pope Francis wanted them to take better care of those that were hurting. He told a story about a priest who went to the island of Molokai to minister to the lepers, and how excited the fella became when he himself contracted leprosy. Now he wouldn't just be doing things "for" them, he would be doing things "like" them because he was one of them now. (a desired quality noted by James J. Matles in his book about the UE titled "Them and Us", re-released in 1995).
He went on to say that the most effective shepherds of sheep were said to be those that had the "stink" of the sheep on them, and exhorted the crowd to learn that lesson. (One could think that is an unfortunate metaphor for caring, but given how the Democratic Party has run away from working people, perhaps it's more relevant than some would like to think...).
They handed bowls for donations around twice, first time for the church, second for Catholic Charities and their work. I noted that they didn't tell them the second "ask" was coming before they took their money for the first one. I wonder if people would have contributed more to that one had they had the chance to?
We left, and I saw that the homeless fella was asleep under the bench across the street.
Got home, and the stray dog that has been hanging around the neighbor's house was out there, so I gave him a few bites of food. His "owners" are in a a trailer park a few blocks from here, but they don't care for him at all. Essentially homeless as well, he gets more love and attention from the people in the duplex than he gets from his owners.
The people in the duplex nearly got an eviction notice last week, couldn't pay their rent, but I think they made it, finally. The dad and his kid were homeless 3 years ago, and have struggled back to this. He works a minimum wage service job at the airport, and his father (disabled Vietnam era vet) lives with them. Barely hanging on.
(I think, if I can figure out where to get $300 I might find some t-posts and wire fence and help him put up an enclosure. They have three old dogs that are his dad's friends, but no fence, and that might help them a little.)
Too much need out there. How did we forget that we make a prosperous and safe nation by investing in our people, not making our banks and insurance companies richer? Working people need a party that gives a flying rat's ass about them.
I hope the Holidays bring you all Peace...
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)does that? Did Obama? Did Clinton? Carter?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The two things are not the same, and threads like this one display the wisdom of our founders who placed a wall between government and religious institutions. Confusing the two things is suggestive of a theocratic bent.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)and I never fully agreed with their belief , although I am Lutheran. The anti christ when he comes is supposed to be the Pope and is supposed to be the most popular pope ever. Although at 77 I have a hard time believing it to be this pope.
voteearlyvoteoften
(1,716 posts)That us the word that comes to mind when I hear his words .
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)President Obama abandoned the candidate, the message, and the American people as soon as he took office.
This country, especially the government, is completely detached from humanity. If you gathered all of the politicians in DC who actually represent their voters instead of the lobbyists, you wouldn't have enough for a baseball game.
We are going to have to get dirty to clean the stench out of the government.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)One of your best, and that's saying a lot.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
rustbeltvoice
(432 posts)I have not read the comments. I read what you presented. I am sorry, i was not the first to hit the recommend button. I am new to Democratic Underground, and have not completed socialisation.
I am sure that some of the comments above mine are kneejerk, automatic reflex "I hate the pope, and all his tribe".
I see your point on 88%. I also saw a note that amongst non-Catholics the figure was 75%. [No, i have not gone and confirmed this] What this suggests, is his presentation of recent public views is more popular within his constituency than without. Would you not agree? Now, if this true, would it not suggest that his programme, and by extension, the programme of the Catholic Church is more aligned with common humanity than the political programmes offered in the United States?
Also, on another point. The Catholic Church is very hierarchical, and respectful of authority. Further, i would say that the US Church is extreme in this matter. Now, the Catholic Church is a world wide organisation. Roughly, the voting College of Cardinals is 120. The United States is a small part of the Catholic Church. Raymond Burke is a US cardinal in the curia, Charles Chaput is a cardinal and the archbishop of Philadelphia. Both have criticised publicly Francis. This goes against the aforementioned power structure. Both Burke and Chaput are ultra-conservatives, Burke is off the scale. If one were to compare Catholic priests to the Republican party, they are the Louie Gohmerts and Michelle Bachmanns.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)taken off the Congregation for Bishops council:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/cardinal-raymond-burke-replaced-by-pope-francis-conservatives-out-moderates-in-111039/
rustbeltvoice
(432 posts)I have discussed this with others on Democratic Underground a few times already, and i am new here.
Burke is an ecclesiastical tyrant, who enjoys the theatre of being the center of his own autocratic imperial court. Raymond Burke pegged the meter in several categories. Politically, he was very active in promoting the Republican Party and attacking the Democratic Party. This went outside any pastoral activity. Within the church, he was an "Americaniser", by this i mean, he wanted to control the diocese as a corporate capitalist and tyrant. Not only have we ideological bishops, they have been anti-pastoral. They were the bad shepherds that Ezekiel and Jeremiah prophesied. Burke was such an extremist.
The Congregation, you mention, is heavily involved in bishop selection. It is great news, that Francis has removed Burke. If the pope removes one such character, he gives notice to all the others. With his removal from this curial position, such individuals such as himself, and other tyrants will not become bishops. The problem is these individuals. They act as pharoa of old, they consider themselves the only Catholic in the diocese. I do not how familiar you are with the church in the US, but one of the big struggles here is governance. A basic question of polity is what constitutes the church in an area, what is the unit? Is it the parish, or the diocese? The diocese (a political sub geographic unit borrowed from the Roman empire), or the parish (constituted by Jesus, when he speaks of "two or three gathered together in my name"
.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)Great points and insights! American nationalism and the belief in American exceptionalism are cancers within the US Church. I believe we're very close to some sort of schism, whether large scale or small, I can't say. Needless to say, Americans have always chafed at owing loyalty to Europe. We'll see.
spanone
(135,927 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Perspective to place around this apparent call for anti choice and anti gay rhetoric in our Party. Abject support of clerical leaders by religious adherents is where we got the phrase 'they drank the Kool Aid'. Perspective.
rug
(82,333 posts)H2O Man
(73,692 posts)I really respect & enjoy your contributions to DU. Thank you for what you do.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)