Why I am Boycotting Pope's Address

[channonc 466]

I don't understand why the liberals aren't going crazy about the POTUS spending millions to honor a religious figure. What about separation of church and state?

The pope is also a political figure and the head of a state.

But it's Boehner who invited him to speak before congress, not the president.

Exactly. Pope Francis has the same diplomatic status as Benjamin Netanyahu: Head of a sovereign state. As such, if invited to address Congress, he is also entitled to speak on any topic that concerns heads of state, including environmental issues!

Great points! I just don't remember the same fanfare for Netanyahu. I think the U.S. is treating this more like a visit from Prince William (is that the right prince?) and Kate Middleton. It is interesting that the pope's remarks so far are right in line with the president's. Does the U.S. pay the pope to come or does he/The Vatican foot the bill?

I wouldn't say "right in line." Like all Heads of State, some issues they agree, others they disagree.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't understand why the liberals aren't going crazy about the POTUS spending millions to honor a religious figure. What about separation of church and state?

The pope is also a political figure and the head of a state.

But it's Boehner who invited him to speak before congress, not the president.

It is actually a City State with a population of less than 900. It hardly rates the amount of money taxpayers have spent on the Pope's visit. Amazing we spend so much money for him to tell us capitalism is bad.

[homersapien 11,393]

The conservative establishment freakout over the Pope is because it threatens their current coalition of various interest groups. They've made a lot of hay over the years cobbling together a confederation of hard core economic libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists with social/moral traditionalists. Combined with the Democratic party's utter disdain for anyone who holds to conservative social and moral views, they've managed to get a lot of them to buy into the establishment economic and fiscal views (which plays into environmental views because of regulation and taxes). But Pope Francis threatens to cast that entire alliance into chaos by suggesting that someone who holds to Biblical and traditionalist views of morality need not subscribe to everything else conservatives preach on other matters.

Believe me, if there were a person of similar stature and influence on the liberal side that held to more liberal/Democratic positions on economic policy, trade unions, taxes, universal health care and so on but was adamantly pro-life, the liberal talking heads would be having a conniption as well. There just isn't such a person on that side right now. There are pro-life Democrats but they don't have the following of a Pope Francis and are largely already marginalized within that party.

Can a person be "pro-life" without supporting legislation to make all abortions illegal?

[homersapien 11,393]

I don't understand why the liberals aren't going crazy about the POTUS spending millions to honor a religious figure. What about separation of church and state?

The pope is also a political figure and the head of a state.

But it's Boehner who invited him to speak before congress, not the president.

It is actually a City State with a population of less than 900. It hardly rates the amount of money taxpayers have spent on the Pope's visit. Amazing we spend so much money for him to tell us capitalism is bad.

Do you really not recognize what absurdly simple-minded hyperbole that is?

Man, talk about black/white thinking!

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The conservative establishment freakout over the Pope is because it threatens their current coalition of various interest groups. They've made a lot of hay over the years cobbling together a confederation of hard core economic libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists with social/moral traditionalists. Combined with the Democratic party's utter disdain for anyone who holds to conservative social and moral views, they've managed to get a lot of them to buy into the establishment economic and fiscal views (which plays into environmental views because of regulation and taxes). But Pope Francis threatens to cast that entire alliance into chaos by suggesting that someone who holds to Biblical and traditionalist views of morality need not subscribe to everything else conservatives preach on other matters.

Believe me, if there were a person of similar stature and influence on the liberal side that held to more liberal/Democratic positions on economic policy, trade unions, taxes, universal health care and so on but was adamantly pro-life, the liberal talking heads would be having a conniption as well. There just isn't such a person on that side right now. There are pro-life Democrats but they don't have the following of a Pope Francis and are largely already marginalized within that party.

Can a person be "pro-life" without supporting legislation to make all abortions illegal?

I don't really see how. If you permit the elective killing of defenseless human beings when not in self-defense or to save the life of another, how can you be?

[homersapien 11,393]

The conservative establishment freakout over the Pope is because it threatens their current coalition of various interest groups. They've made a lot of hay over the years cobbling together a confederation of hard core economic libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists with social/moral traditionalists. Combined with the Democratic party's utter disdain for anyone who holds to conservative social and moral views, they've managed to get a lot of them to buy into the establishment economic and fiscal views (which plays into environmental views because of regulation and taxes). But Pope Francis threatens to cast that entire alliance into chaos by suggesting that someone who holds to Biblical and traditionalist views of morality need not subscribe to everything else conservatives preach on other matters.

Believe me, if there were a person of similar stature and influence on the liberal side that held to more liberal/Democratic positions on economic policy, trade unions, taxes, universal health care and so on but was adamantly pro-life, the liberal talking heads would be having a conniption as well. There just isn't such a person on that side right now. There are pro-life Democrats but they don't have the following of a Pope Francis and are largely already marginalized within that party.

Can a person be "pro-life" without supporting legislation to make all abortions illegal?

I don't really see how. If you permit the elective killing of defenseless human beings when not in self-defense or to save the life of another, how can you be?

By acknowledging that it's not for you - or the government - to intercede in such a private and personal matter of another person.

It's a principle. The same way that rationalizing the killing of innocent human beings in the cause of "self-defense" is a principle.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

By acknowledging that it's not for you - or the government - to intercede in such a private and personal matter of another person.

A dispute between any two people I don't know is not my business. But I still assert the right of society to have legislation that makes one of them murdering the other over it illegal. A matter ceases to be private and personal when it means another individual is harmed or killed by your decision or actions.

It's a principle. The same way that rationalizing the killing of innocent human beings in the cause of "self-defense" is a principle.

They aren't on the same level. The only sort of abortion related thing that would be equitable would be inducing a delivery or taking an action that will result in a pregnancy being terminated to save the mother's life. We don't have a "principle" that equates to killing another human being because their existence makes my life harder.