The anger toward the Pope is somewhat amazing to witness. I didn't know there is that level of anger toward him from today Christians. Not agreeing while respecting would be what I expected. But outright calling him names and such...
The 'anger' is fomented by the same propaganda machines that run the astro-turf, er, tea party. It's in their financial interest to stamp down wealth equality. They own the printing presses. It's an old idea that if you control the definitions in the public narrative, you can control the people.
i used to participate in discussions like that here...nothing comes of them but higher blood pressure. :grin:
American conservative Christians are largely a toxic bunch. They'll rip anyone that doesn't tap dance to their music, even the Pope.
You do realize that the only people on the planet that care at all about the Pope is Catholics right? There are allegedly 247 million people in the US that identify as "Christian" of some type and less than 70 million of them are Catholics. To the rest, the Pope means nothing at all. In fact, the only reason people on the left are pretending the Pope matters to them is because there is a left leaning Pope at the moment. If he started to go on about banning abortion they'd go back to not caring. If a right leaning Pope had been elected, they wouldn't have cared from the start.
The Pope has much greater influence than just Catholics considering how large the church is. John Paul II played a role in ending Communism in Eastern Europe and he and Benedict also played a role in the culture wars of both the US and many countries. Also if it was just Catholics why would the PRC, an avowed atheistic state, care so much that they set up their own parallel system to approve Catholic priests and instead just go with what Rome said?
Some members of the Randian wing of the American Right are more fundamentalist and intolerant of disagreements than the Pope, who is an actual leader of a very old organized religion. When a person says anything about balancing capitalist market economy with any degree of collective social responsibility, they get called "Communist" and "Socialist" by these Randian purists. The degree to which they demand adherence to doctrine almost reminds me of China's Cultural Revolution:
I've been wondering myself at the coincidence that the same week Pope Francis visits the US and the Whitehouse so does Xi Jinping. http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-a-paradox-at-the-heart-of-pope-francis-power-2015-9 There's a paradox at the heart of Pope Francis's power Pope Francis and Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in the United States this week the same way, making a slow descent down an airplane ramp toward a waiting entourage. Watching the two, you couldn't help wondering: Which man is more powerful in the world today? Francis is arguably the dominant figure, despite the old crack about how many army divisions the pope has, and the potency of a rising China. That's because the nature of power has changed: Francis embodies the kind of intangible but world-changing influence that matters most now, which Harvard University professor Joseph Nye a decade ago described in his book "Soft Power." Francis's primacy is clear when you add the other two figures who will dominate the stage in the coming days ahead of the United Nations General Assembly in New York — President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their quest for temporal power — in Putin's case, through the most aggressive use of Russian military force in a generation — is more fragile than it looks. "Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others," Nye wrote in his 2004 book. The essence of such influence, he said, was that it "co-opts people rather than coerces them." This past decade has been a series of lessons about the limits of the military version of hard power to achieve results, notably in Iraq. Why is Francis such a magnetic figure? The answer illustrates a paradox of power that resonates with the Christian message. This pope is strong because he is humble. His message resonates in a complex world because it is simple. He disdains the trappings of power, the pomp and fanfare, and thereby enhances his real power. All of his words and actions seem to be going in the same direction. Francis's special impact was clear Thursday when his speech to a joint meeting of Congress brought a rare moment of bipartisanship to the House chamber. The pope touched on political issues — including immigration, climate change and the sanctity of life — but his core message was the simplest precept of tolerance and faith: the "Golden Rule." On the Capitol balcony afterward, he even reached out to unbelievers, asking them for good wishes. What's fascinating, watching Xi, Obama and Putin on the same global stage with Francis, is that the political leaders seem to crave the authenticity that the religious leader commands so effortlessly. Obama had this intangible quality in his first year as president. His 2009 Nobel Peace Prize might have been premature, but it reflected a global yearning for his trademark theme, hope. Obama lost this halo as he shouldered the commander in chief's burdens of wars and drone strikes. His hard- and soft-power messages got mixed. The world began to perceive him as warlike and inflexible, while many Americans began to see him as pliable and weak. With the exception of the Iran nuclear agreement, in which Obama embraced a strategy his first day in office and carried it through systematically, he also came to be seen as reactive, rather than visionary. That's a mistake Francis never makes. Putin is hungry for soft power, even as he flexes his muscles, literally and figuratively. He wants to be seen as the bare-chested big-game hunter, and he seems to relish his experiments with paramilitary "hybrid warfare" in Ukraine. But his ambition (and real power) is something deeper: an appeal to the aspirations and grievances of a Russia that feels its culture and values have been ignored. However distasteful Putin's actions may be, the West should recognize the spiritual yearning that underlies his power — the soft side of hard. Xi, meanwhile, is in some ways the most paradoxical of the figures visiting the United States. Like Putin, he has tried to operate as a "big guy" in the world arena — "Xi Dada," or Big Daddy Xi, is his Chinese nickname. But even as he cloaks himself in the garments of hard power, and ruthlessly consolidates control of the Communist Party machinery, Xi misses the soft touch. China over the past two years has made enemies of most of its Asian neighbors. Xi's power grab at home has stirred dissent and even whispers of unrest. A pope is a teacher, always. But this one is teaching us about the nature of power in a world where social media can create an intimate bond with even the grandest figure. This bishop of Rome has unusual impact because he disdains the throne. Read the original article on The Washington Post. Copyright 2015. Follow The Washington Post on Twitter.
I'm not getting the article. The decisions they make, the authority they have and their influence are all different in nature. Right now, Pope Francis is shining brightly on moral authority, but things wouldn't look as rosy if he were responsible for executing it among his following.
It still doesn't beat the "SECEDE" sticker next to the "Support Our Troops" sticker. I see that a lot.
Lol at the perception of what a Christian looks like by non believers. Acting kind, doing generous things, these are just the simple things of being a Christian. It is much more than that and it makes me laugh when people say then Pope has been the best example of what a Christian is. Sad, actually.
Oh due tell what a Christian is. Would love to hear. I mean, the Pope's message should not be confused with any politics. I was discussing this at length with my priest (Catholic) over dinner yesterday. Great guy, very intelligent man: former Princeton grad, played baseball there. Stand-up guy who didn't m*****t kids, bobby. With Jesuits, they often speak in generalities. If you have read some of Pope Francis' other writing, they are very hard to go through (at least in our general agreement). This (and many other reasons) is why the Pope's statement cannot be taken into political context, really. It's not a really left or right-wing; the Pope isn't politics, nor are his statements an "agenda". When Francis makes the assertion about wealth distribution/socialism/whatever you want to call it, it's not that he is dismissing capitalism, or wants a Marxist society, or some of the other crazy ideas going about. Often times, he is just trying to enable individual action, usually led by example, i.e. eating with the poor. Hope the above makes sense.
