Obama highlights common ground with Pope Francis

[TomCADem]

Source: LA Times

WASHINGTON — When a White House speechwriter turned in a draft of a major speech on economic policy this month, President Obama sent it back with an unusual instruction: Add a reference to the pope.

The final version of the speech quoted directly from Pope Francis' recent letter to the faithful: "How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?" he said.

The citation marked a notable development in Obama's complex and sometimes confrontational relationship with the Roman Catholic Church: After several years of high-profile clashes with U.S. bishops, Obama is seizing the chance to highlight common ground with the bishop of Rome.

Quoting the pope isn't likely to yield direct electoral dividends for Obama's party — the once-vaunted "Catholic vote" largely disappeared long ago. But in a string of effusive praise, the president has made clear he sees the pope as a like-minded thinker and potentially useful ally in a crucial battle of ideas, particularly on the importance of shrinking the gulf between rich and poor, a subject Obama has pushed repeatedly but with limited success.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-francis-20131226,0,3850401.story

---

I am actually glad that finally Democrats are not going to shy away from the fact that the historical, not the fictional Jesus, often high lighted issues of poverty in his ministry. The right often conveniently ignores this part of the gospel while highlighting so-called moral issues against Democrats. I think that Democrats and liberals should not be ashamed about noting that not doing anything to alleviate poverty is immoral. Of course, the right will act in indignation that the President has "politicized" religion even as they wield the Bible as a club against liberals and LGBT community.

[rustbeltvoice]

1. This will have different sorts of partisans gnashing their teeth.

[Deep13]

2. Right, like how they both read domestic emails en masse, ...

...murder foreigners by remote control, and kiss corporate ass.

Oh wait, that's just Obama.

[Demeter]

3. I know

If I can ever stop the laughter, I will comment a bit.

It's simply shameless. They are as different as chalk and cheese.

Obama trying to wrap himself in pontifical purple is just jumping the shark and landing in the belly of the whale....like Jonah!

[TomCADem]

5. Obama presses Republicans to extend unemployment insurance

Or, are we simply giving Republicans a free pass on their opposition, and blaming Democrats for Republican intransience.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-presses-republicans-to-extend-unemployment-insurance/

President Obama pushed Congress to extend unemployment insurance in his weekly address on Saturday, warning that if the benefits expire as scheduled on Dec. 28, job seekers and the economy as a whole will pay the price.

“The holiday season is a time for remembering the bonds we share, and our obligations to one another as human beings,” he said, “But right now, more than 1 million of our fellow Americans are poised to lose a vital economic lifeline just a few days after Christmas if Congress doesn’t do something about it.”

Approximately 1.3 million Americans receive unemployment insurance checks as part of a program offered “so that job-seekers don’t fall into poverty, and so that when they get that job, they bounce back more quickly,” the president said. “For many families, it can be the difference between hardship and catastrophe.”

Far beyond the damage it could do to individual families, the president warned, a failure to extend unemployment benefits could drag down the entire economy, threatening a recovery that finally seems to be gaining traction in the wake of several months of robust job growth.

[Deep13]

8. And on the other hand...

...Obama is not trying to exclude women or suppress their rights.

[Demeter]

10. I see by your profile that you are not female

so your lack of useful and up-to-date information can be excused.

[Deep13]

11. Well, that's a worthless statement. nt

[Demeter]

12. On the contrary

a man is unlikely to pick up on the subtlties of Obama's sexism, since like fish, neither he nor they can observe the water they breathe.

[Deep13]

15. You're painting with a pretty broad brush.

My comparison was between the Pope and Obama, not Obama and some ideal standard. The Pope opposes women having any real authority in the Church, opposes female priests, opposes birth control and divorce on principle. And he opposes gay rights. Obama has appointed half of the women who have ever served on SCOTUS (granted that's only 2 out of 4) many female federal judges and Cabinet officials. Needless to say he opposes neither women voters nor women officials. He's pro-choice, pro-birth control to the point of insisting religious-affiliated employers offer health insurance that includes contraception. And his administration opposes voting resprictions that effect working women disproportionately.

As for myself, I may be wrong and I may be misinformed about some things, but I do not breathe sexism and resent the implication.

[Demeter]

19. As I was replying to the self-deleted message

Not-attuned doesn't mean "sexist".

And Obama isn't any kind of a feminist. He goes through the motions, when prompted, but his heart isn't in it, nor can you see it in his policies and actions.

The Pope is dealing with his 2000 year old (roughly) institution, which wasn't structured to be accepting, trying to break it open. He is change. I'm much more hopeful for the Catholic Church than I am for this nation.

[DerekG]

21. Well, Obama's drones are certainly suppressing their right to live

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude about Francis, but the guy's failings are miniscule compared to Obama's.

[TomCADem]

4. Odd That Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers, etc...

...spent hundreds of millions to beat him back in 2012. Also, why didn't he simply abolish the consumer protection agency is he just kisses corporate ass? Just curious.

[Deep13]

7. liberalism vs. radicalism

conservative: one who believes progress will happen by complying with the rules for the current paradigm

liberal: one who believes progress will happen by modifying the rules for the current paradigm

both believe in rules, the current paradigm, and progress. There are real differences between them, but not on fundamental assumptions. Obama is pro-corporate and pro-capitalist, but he is not an actual fascist. The CofC and the Kochs OTOH are fascists.

radical: one who believes that progress will occur by replacing the current paradigm.

anarchist: one who believes progress is only possibly by abolishing all paradigms.

OTOH, a reactionary: one who believes progress of a sort can occur by returning to an idealized past. Note, discussion of an idealized past is not ipso facto proof that one is reactionary, as liberals and radicals also use such language.

[TomCADem]

13. Meh, I think the efforts at micro-categorization obscure...

...rather than illuminate. Indeed, the categorization is often based implicit assumptions that are designed to reach the desired label, For example, you use the words "pro-corporate and pro-capitalist," which may actually exist in tension, since capitalism ideally requires a multitude of economic actors acting independently while pro-corporate seems to connotate a support of large corporate entities who may behave in a monopolistic manner, which would interfere with operation of capitalism's "invisible hand." Indeed, Adam Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power.

Of course, you might respond that my interpretation of your labels is incorrect, but that sort of proves my point of how efforts to micro-categorize depend on one's implicit assumptions and definitions.

It is sort of like trying to neatly place the Pope on a liberal or conservative spectrum. His views on gender equality are probably "conservative," but his views on economic equality could be construed as "liberal." But does the labeling really help, or can the reader support some of his views while opposing others?

[Deep13]

17. these are not micro-categories. nt

[Doctor_J]

16. Yeah, I don't remember the pope saying re: health care,

"Insurance companies deserve to make a profit".

[madrchsod]

6. the right wing christian fundamentalists ignore the first 4 books of the new testament

the old testament fits their views for a modern patriarchal religion. while the pope is basing his speeches from the first four books .

[TomCADem]

9. Which is ironic, since they purport to be strict followers of Jesus...

...yet they ignore the actual historical Jesus who had brothers and sisters, whose ministry was supported by women, and who often made digs at the rich in numerous passages.

First, there are several Biblical quotes that directly endorse collective ownership, which are often ignored by the evangelical Christians:

And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2: 44, 45

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 4:32-37

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13:1-7

Second, in direct contradiction to those who preach the prosperity gospel, i.e., that being rich reflects the Lord's favor and being poor reflects God's disfavor, the Bible contains numerous provisions expressing hostility to the rich:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

- Matthew 21:12

"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,"

- Mark 11:15

"In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

- John 2:14-16

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Mark 10:25

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Luke 18:25

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Luke 18:25

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

- Matthew 19:24


“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows”

- I Timothy 6:10

[quadrature]

18. does P.F. think that current policy holders should be able to keep

their health insurance?

(other than that, I have misgivings about
name dropping)

[Cha]

20. Thanks Tom.. And why wouldn't President Obama

take an opportunity to align with anyone speaking out like the Pope has.. to help make people more aware of the dire straights regarding the poor and those who are homeless?

Fortunately, what others like the rw have to say about this doesn't keep the President from doing what he feels is right.