Skip to main content

View Diary: CPAC 2013: Social conservatism, demoted (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More likely (8+ / 0-)

    that's just sour grapes over the O'Malley "snub".  Boston being Boston at its most parochial, in the truest sense of the word.  

    The new Pope was all cozy with the 70s Videla junta in Argentina.  Not real promising background for a "progressive" breakthrough.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:17:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  From what I gather (7+ / 0-)

      the College of Cardinals has been stacked, during the previous two papacies, with ConservaPriests -- those who disagree with Vatican II, for example.

      Someone here last night suggested that Pope Francis was one of the least-bad choices, given the alternatives.

      And I think his living like a normal person rather than in luxury is probably real.

      But I doubt he's progressive in any way other than being for the poor and against policies that favor the rich.

      Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

      by Youffraita on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:59:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Social Justice Pope... (6+ / 0-)

        ...might cause the "sanctity of human life" crowd to wrestle with life between birth and adulthood.

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 02:22:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  given the mixed history of the RCC when it comes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        semiot, milkbone

        to accommodating tyrants and military juntas, it is hard to come to a conclusion as to the extent of his alleged collaboration.  While there are shining examples among the clergy of opposition to absolutism, at the same time, the RCC hierarchy seems more inclined to live and let live with dictators

        •  As a former Catholic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          entlord, aitchdee

          raised fairly strictly, I find a problem squaring that with the attitude that "God is God, right is right, wrong is wrong, and it never changes".

          I understand practically that we sometimes must sacrifice our priciples to survive, but if one does that and immediately returns to absolutism after the crisis passes, how can that person claim any moral high-ground?

          I had a heated discussion with a friend from Columbia yesterday, who was in a "Papal Mood" because of the new Pope...and he was the quintessential "Cafeteria Catholic".  His religious views seem parallel to the younger Republicans at CPAC - they want to pick and choose what conservative priciples they hold on to, while the old guard stresses it all - even when their behaviour does not foot with their words.

          Which is the same reason why many of us here can move on from a scandal like Anthony Weiner's - as a Democrat he never put himself on a moral pedastal.

          •  I would say Dems deal with a moral lapse and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            move on while the GOP either denies it happened or if they admit it happened, argue it was not a moral lapse.  Since they choose to ignore such things instead of dealing with them, the problems never go away

    •  It's the fact that he's NOT progressive on (8+ / 0-)

      sexual issues (in the larger sense, including gay marriage and abortion) and that he IS progressive on helping the poor that makes him, I think more dangerous to the corporate establishment than if he had been one of us.

      He's a wedge.  A lot of conservative Christians find abortion a motivating force to vote.  Corporate Republicans have carefully crafted the message that concern for abortion must be married with a hatred of social justice.  Here is the most visible Catholic in the world, extremely concerned about the poor.  There are only three things that corporate Republicans care about:  less regulation of industry, less taxes, and getting enough stupid people to vote for their handpicked politicians so they can get more of the first two.  A concern for the poor, by necessity, means taxing the rich.  They will fight this Pope tooth and nail, because he highlights the plight of the poor, endangering their tax status, and because he shows there is a middle way for zealous anti-abortion voters, that a person can be anti-abortion and yet against wealth inequality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site