I know I can.

...kicks the living shit out of them.

LOL

views and of course his anti choice views. They have mutual objections to 'Obamacare' and mutual interests in such American political groups as March For Life and the Heritage Foundation.

This is consistent within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supported the finding of the French National Health System in 1945 (and supported it under the Vichy Regime between 1942 and 1945). As far the the Obamacare was involved the Church SUPPORTED the concept of Universal health care, they only objection was the inclusion of abortion. Thus it is NOT quite accurate to say the Catholic Church oppose Obamacare, the Church did NOT lobby against its passage, just the inclusion of abortion.

The Vatican gave assistance to the family that owns the Hobby Lobby in their suit against the ACA. So your Church says they would support a less than universal health plan that excludes vast areas of health care needs? But you still want to use the word 'universal', so you just use it in spite of it being so utterly dishonest.

Does health care cover cosmetic surgery? No, unless it is related to actual repair as oppose to someone wanting a smaller nose or ear. Does it covers wigs for people taking chemotherapy? No, on the grounds that people can walk around bald. Does it include the extra cost of food required by someone who has diabetes? No, on the ground it is food,

These are just SOME of the cost related to "Health Care" that are NOT covered by health insurance. You have to draw the line somewhere and that is what Congress has done with the ACA by setting up minimal requirements for health plans under the ACA. The Catholic Church just wanted to add another restriction. Reproduction health care they did support but NOT birth control OR abortion (i,e, pre-natal care was supported). You may disagree with them on where they wanted to draw the line, but the line had to be drawn somewhere and was. The dispute on where to draw the line did not lead the Catholic Church to oppose ACA as a whole, the fight has been over abortion and birth control NOT the idea of universal health care which is the point I was trying to make.

I think a refresher on The Beatitudes and Christ's core message is most certainly in order.

I wonder if Francis will get the same rousing applause as Bibi?

His views on life and abortion are pretty much opposite the party platform.

The Catholic church is nearly dead in this country as it is. One final step to bury it, I'd be grateful.

because of, you know....separation of church and state.

Therefore, he is not just a religious figure but a head of state, as well. In a similar manner, the Queen (or King) of England is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and when in his country, the Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibet and also the high figure of Buddhism. There are other examples.

The policy of separation of church and state refers to the way this country is governed internally, not with its relations with other countries.

No religious leader has ever addressed the US Congress in this manner, and the fact that it is the world's leading anti gay activist coming to side with the GOP against our rights makes it disgusting. I'm sure it will make you feel good about you, and that's the whole point of the world after all.

Guess it would be too much to expect him to ex-communicate those Koch lackeys squatting in the House of Representatives.

They relentlessly hate the poor with no mercy. Francis is in favor of social services and taxation. But will he take the view it should all be in the hands of the church and family with no tax dollars?

That would be a huge gift to the Koch brothers. On single payer, maybe he supports it. I am against money being distributed by churches who proselytize. For secularists it'd be bad, but for religionists it'd be a major boost.

The GOP has told him to SU. Even Sanctorum, who wears his Catholicism as a shield for all his dishonesty. And Ayn Randian Catholic Paul Ryan... ugh.

and anti gay politics. Hobby Lobby, March For Life. In November Francis was keynote speaker at a big Vatican conference against marriage equality, invited guests included Tony Perkins of FRC, Maggie Gallagher of NOM, heads of LDS, Southern Baptist Convention and the Heritage Foundation. Rick Warren gave a big speech. Tony Perkins said the atmosphere was 'euphoric'.

So. What are the chances, in reality, that Francis will not mention choice and equality but will speak about single payer and the Koch Brothers? It's pure fantasia.

now my friend? The Republicans invited the Pope because they agree with him about nearly everything. You and Boehner share this admiration for Francis. I do not agree with you and I find it offensive that religious clergy that expresses bigoted views and backward ideas has been invited by Boehner to address the Congress.

As usual, people here are getting upset over what they fear might happen, or what they assume might happen. They do this with Obama all the time -- why should Pope Francis get any better treatment?

So, it's not "turning out very badly" at all. Until the speech is over, I'm going to go by the Pope's established record, which is humane and against the extremes of modern capitalism.

You know the old saw about good preachers: "It's my job to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? I look forward to seeing him lay on some of that affliction to the US Congress, who are one of the most smug and hypocritical bodies of politicians on the planet.

but to do so is dishonest. He says gay families are a form of child abuse. You stand with that if you like, but remember to wipe off your shoes before you come indoors we don't want that bullshit on the carpets.

or better yet, walk out and offend every Catholic in the country.

its probably not going to be particularly comfy for democrats either

issues. They don't really care except for how it all plays with the base.

you know the GOP will spin this like a top until their messaging is turns into a perfect sound bite. He'll be "right" on things that fit their propaganda and "deeply" wrong on other things that mess with the "bubble".

IMHO, he will be demoted as a "figure head" if need be.

and send missionaries to South America to convert Catholics.

Many of the 1% in Central America have abandoned the Catholic Church in favor of these Fundamentalists Protestants for the 1% really do NOT like the concept that they have a DUTY to protect the poor AND to get to heaven they must do "Good Works" in addition to believing in Jesus Christ.

Fundamentalists tend to down play "Good Works" citing St Paul you only need "Belief" to get to heaven, a position supported by Martin Luther and rejected by the Catholic Church. Martin Luther's objection to the Catholic Concept of "Good Works", while based on the writing of St Paul, seems more to do with the Catholic Concept of praying for the soul of someone was a "Good Work" and that was sufficient "Good work" to get into heaven. This concept was rejected by Martin Luther while maintaining the concept that "Good Works" is something people should do as part of being a Christian. Thus the split between Protestants and Catholics to this day, Protestants maintain you can get to heaven on faith alone, Catholics reject that concept and demands that people do "Good Works" in addition to having faith.

The 1% have always liked the concept of faith alone for it permits them to reject helping the poor in society (Through both Lutheranism and Calvinism/Presbyterianism/Congregationalism and other "Reform Churches" maintain charity is part of being a Christian). Charity is a big part of old fashioned Mainline Protestantism and for that reason the mainline Protestants have had a hard time expanding in Latin America (To close to the Catholic concept of "Good Works&quot . On the other hand the American Fundamentalists, which reject GOVERNMENT assistance to the poor as evil even as the Catholic Church sees it as needed in a good society, has boomed for it permits them to cut down Charity to nothing as long as their "believe".

This embracing of Fundamentalism is supported by the CIA for the CIA see the Catholic Church as to close to the people and thus to close to the people who want to overthrow the 1% in those regions. While the Bishops and other members of the Catholic Church Hierarchy tend to support the 1% (for most of them are of or in the 1%), the local parish priests tend to be the one closest to the peasants and those peasants with needs and they have enough education to understand HOW to address those needs, and that often involves what is called "Socialism". You see this even in the US, the Bishops say one thing and then in a meeting of Catholic Priests, you hear something else. You do NOT see that among the Fundamentalists and it appears why such Fundamentalism is growing in Latin America, but mostly among the 1% and their "hanger ons" i.e. the people in the top 10% of the economy who are the most dependent on the 1% for their doing better then the bottom 90% of the population.