Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Preventing the Next Coup Attempt

There is a good article on the Washington Post site by Jennifer Rubin on what needs to happen to prevent a repeat of the Jan. 6 attempt to overthrow the election. We need to think about what specific reforms are needed to protect our democracy.  

From the article: Opinion | A step-by-step guide to heading off the next coup attempt - The Washington Post

"Let’s first consider disincentives to keep conmen from running for president or other federal office in the first place. Had former president Donald Trump been required to release 10 years of tax returns, he may not have run in 2016. Likewise, if presidents were required to liquidate ongoing businesses to avoid conflicts of interest with a true blind trust administered by neutral parties, Trump might have preferred to stay at Mar-a-Lago. "

"...In advance of the next election, Congress should also remove the operational machinery Trump tried to exploit in 2021. That means passing federal laws that prohibit the firing or removal of state election officials except for cause — and with speedy court review. And it should require a paper ballot record for every vote, and agreed-upon audit standards for neutral and experienced election auditors.

"It then needs to clean up the Electoral Count Act. Several fixes are needed. As election guru Richard L. Hasen pointed out, the ECA “provides that a state legislature may send in a slate of presidential electors when the state has ‘failed’ to make a choice of President on election day. The section of the Act contemplates something like a natural disaster that prevents voters from casting their ballots.” That needs to be tightened to insure that state legislatures stick to whatever the voters decide. No alternative slates of electoral voters allowed."

"Moreover, the law should clarify that the scheme from John Eastman, who tried to get the vice president to toss out electoral votes, will not work. Hasen writes:  "Certification is essentially a ministerial act; there is no discretion in the normal decision whether to accept or reject votes as counted by election officials. States should change laws to eliminate any discretion in the certification process; if there is a bona fide dispute about fraud or about who actually won an election, states should have procedures for judicial or other administrative review by those empowered to examine facts and evidence and make a determination about election outcomes.Congress also must amend or replace the 1887 Electoral Count Act to make it harder to raise frivolous objections to Electoral College vote counts. Right now, it takes only one Representative and one Senator to raise an objection and trigger a two-hour debate and vote on a particular state. Congress should set the threshold higher and otherwise rewrite the rules to bar frivolous challenges. Congress should also rewrite the ECA to exclude all but natural disasters and terrorist attacks from the definition of a “failed” election that could allow the state legislature to send in an alternative slate of electors."

"Lawmakers also must address attempts to strong-arm or threaten election officials and interfere with a state’s counting process. Candidates themselves should be barred from private contacts with any official involved in election administration. (No calls, for example, to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.) Issues should be resolved by legal representatives of the parties, and representatives of both campaigns must be present for any such contact. As bizarre as it sounds, federal legislation must also make clear that it is illegal for a president to incite others to interfere with vote counting or to overthrow the election."

"Then come reforms for social media platforms, which must not permit incitement and election disinformation to flourish after an election. "

"....It used to be that presidents conceded when they lost, members of Congress would not dream of overturning results, and state and local officials would never countenance interference with their duties — or recommend phony election audits to create uncertainty about the outcome. That universe no longer exists. That’s because one party has abandoned democratic norms and decided nothing should prevent it from obtaining power. "

"...For example, an incumbent president must not be able to throw sand in the gears of the transition process under the Presidential Transition Act....This is not about deciding who’s president; this is about deciding whether someone is going to get the information they need to be ready to govern if they are in charge on Jan. 20.”

"Whatever sensible proposals lawmakers come up with, Republicans will seek to thwart them. That is why it is essential that defensive laws (i.e., legislation to prevent subversion of an election) are not subject to a filibuster by the same party whose actions require extra safety measures to prevent future coup attempts."

"For now, then, the task is to padlock elections from the next set of conmen who seek to discredit and overturn the cornerstone of democracy. There is little time to spare, so Democrats should get cracking."

34 comments:

  1. I'm not sure legislation can be anything but a prop against what's really endangering our democracy. Trump was thankfully an idiot autocrat but a more intelligent organized mind might be able to fly under the legislated radar. Besides, how do we enforce this? Trump should have been deposed with the 25th amendment but nothing happened.
    I think we would be a lot safer with general economic equality and security. But I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stanley, I think you are right, to a degree, to be skeptical of what legislation is able to accomplish. There are already laws against most of the stuff Trump and company did. They said, "So what!" and did what they darned well pleased. And got away with it.
      I do however think this part is vitally important: "Certification is essentially a ministerial act; there is no discretion in the normal decision whether to accept or reject votes as counted by election officials. States should change laws to eliminate any discretion in the certification process."

      Delete
    2. Yes, Katherine. I think the voter restriction legislation is one of the biggest attacks on democracy. The vote should be more open via voter rights acts.

      Delete
    3. Bill Maher had a pretty depressing scenario for 2022 and 2024: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR4fXcsu9w&feature=emb_logo

      Delete
    4. I don't see why Maher's scenario can't come to pass. All the elements are coming into place, most importantly, the ignorant electorate with knee-jerk reactions. "Oh, my gasoline is more expensive. Vote Republican". Well, if the Repubs win, we won't have to watch the ping pong game anymore. They will be the party in charge until the USA is no more.

      Delete
  2. When Americans vote for a billionaire they are actually choosing a king rather than a president. It is very difficult to enforce laws on billionaires. Billionaires live in environments where few people tell them that they cannot do something. Trump operated in the White House like it was a family business which is what a kingdom is about. Everyone else he fired when he got tired of them, or they fell out of favor, or he wanted to blame something on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Americans wanting a king doesn't surprise me, given the ongoing infatuation with the British royal family in this country. But at least Queen Elizabeth has little real power. If we get an autocrat elected here, he'll have real power.

      Delete
  3. Unfortunately, I think Rubin is right that none of these ideas, many of which seem sensible, would come to pass, at least at a federal level, until Trump retires or dies - and nobody else springs up to take his place among Republicans.

    What is not touched on sufficiently in the portions quoted by Katherine (I'm not able to read Rubin's full article - it's behind a paywall) is what underlies the Trump evil: his putting 40%+ of the American electorate under his spell. At the risk of stating the obvious: without that huge phalanx of voters, Trump would wield no power, and Republican officials who otherwise would loathe him (if not on principle, then because they are his rivals for power) are forced to kowtow to him.

    Those voters are activated, not only by Trump himself, but by the complex of "conservative" media outlets which have succeeded in constructing a bubble of alternative reality in which these voters live all day every day.

    The bubble-of-alternative-reality problem is larger than among "conservatives", but its most toxic manifestation right now is in "conservatives'" continued fealty to Trump.

    Our country clearly has failed epically, not only in achieving a basic formation in civics, but in the moral/ethical formation of Americans such that they can recognize right from wrong and truth from falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim- Our country clearly has failed epically, not only in achieving a basic formation in civics, but in the moral/ethical formation of Americans such that they can recognize right from wrong and truth from falsehood.

      I agree completely. But I would include Christian churches in this indictment - more than 80% of white evangelicals support trump. This group is also among the least vaccinated subgroups, and they are the main drivers of the anti- mask protests at school board meetings and elsewhere. White Catholics also support trump by a statistically significant majority.

      The churches, other than mainline Protestant, have failed to provide a moral/ ethical foundation that is based on Jesus’s teachings. You have often mentioned that few homilists who disagree with the trumpistas views on many issues dare to say anything about it because it riles up those in your congregations who have abandoned the gospels in favor of a form of twisted populism and libertarianism.

      Too many clergy in the RCC are afraid to teach the truth because they fear the reaction - angry calls and letters and email to the parish and bishop. Even worse - a drop in money in the basket on Sunday.

      The RCC’s most outspoken bishops and clergy, the ones that grab the headlines, are pretty much in the trump camp. Those who try to teach the gospels tend to withdraw from speaking out except on abortion.

      It’s not just America itself that has failed, it is the majority of white christian churches.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Jim says "what underlies the Trump evil: his putting 40%+ of the American electorate under his spell"

      A lot more precision is needed here. Actually it is somewhere near to 30-35% of the American public, but none the less a clear majority of the Republican/Republican side of the electorate. The precision is necessary because it is possible for a Republican not allied with Trump to gather together enough votes, and it is possible for a Democratic candidate to get enough Republican votes to win an election.

      The ability of Trump to continue has sway upon Republicans depends heavily upon media outlets. That may be softening. My neighborhood Trump promoter has taken down his Trump flag and other signs. I suspect the problem is that his wife has refused to get the vaccine under the influence of right wing media. That could result in big problems for him. Sometimes reality does surface.

      Delete
    4. Jim, unfortunately this article doesn't really go into "...what underlies the Trump evil: his putting 40%+ of the American electorate under his spell." I have wondered that myself. I have heard people speak of Trump's charisma, which I can't see, but if it's there, it is a negative sort of charisma. His signature "look" is a squinty eyed scowl. I've heard of people having an RFB, "resting b face", but he takes it to a whole new level. I think he somehow activates a type of toxic tribalism. Which is really hard, because friends and family members are under the spell. It is selective, because those people are intelligent and make good decisions in other parts of their lives. I would trust most of them with my life. But not with the future of democracy.

      Delete
    5. I need to add this - the black evangelical churches do not promote trumpism, unlike their white counterparts.

      Also, too many white American Catholics oppose Pope Francis when he speaks out about social justice, caring for the poor, opening borders to immigrants and refugees, and, in general, following Jesus' example in warning against excess wealth and greed. The bishops opposed to Francis grab headlines, and a too large number of priests follow their lead in their parishes, condemning Biden,and fighting social justice policies proposed by Democrats for anyone other than embryos and fetuses.

      I tend to agree with the pessimists - Rubin has outlined steps that are needed to help save our country. But it's unlikely that they will happen. I think it's too late. Trump's election was the canary in the mine- it signaled that the America we thought we were, the ideals we thought we shared, have died.

      Delete
    6. The abortion issue has distorted the entire religion/politics relationship. If 800,000 humans per year are being killed, then, if one practices arithmetic morality, it would be ok to support a party that beheads 799,999 people per year if that party stops abortion. If the abortion issue is pre-eminent, then all other issues like economic justice, climate change and even democracy itself can be kicked to the curb. I am not willing to do that. And, being somewhat susceptible to arithmetic morality myself, I have no problem comparing the gigadeath that will result from climate change with that from abortion. So the Republicans lose and the Democrats ain't so great either. As for Christians who support Trump, I prefer to call them Christianoids.

      Delete
    7. "The churches, other than mainline Protestant, have failed to provide a moral/ ethical foundation that is based on Jesus’s teachings. You have often mentioned that few homilists who disagree with the trumpistas views on many issues dare to say anything about it because it riles up those in your congregations who have abandoned the gospels in favor of a form of twisted populism and libertarianism."

      Anne, I think you're quite right that most preachers, at least in Catholic churches, fear to say things that will rile the congregation.

      I don't know if it's accurate to say the "churches have failed to provide a moral/ethical foundation". I think you're right that, at least in Catholic churches, one isn't likely to hear an explicitly anti-Trump homily. There is nothing to prevent a preacher from speaking up for what is morally and ethically right (and even in favor of civic virtues) without making explicit reference to Trump. But whether any of them ever do, is impossible for any of us to say. At best, all we know is what we personally happen to have heard.

      But the topic of moral and ethical formation goes far, far beyond preaching. It begins as soon as parents begin speaking to their infants. It happens in schools, whether they are Catholic schools or public schools (supplemented or not by religious education at the parishes) or home schools. It happens in all family and parish activities. In a profound sense, the people *are* the church.

      Delete
    8. I always wondered how I'd fare under a dictatorship like nazi Germany. I am starting to wonder what I'm going to do if democracy in America evaporates. Will the autocrats still maintain the illusion of democracy? Or since votes will no longer matter, will the wedge issues like abortion go away. At some point, if we see Trump's return become a possibility, will our forum become a discussion about how to be Christian in the new reality? In nazi Germany, you had the go along/get along Church and the Confessing Church. What will post-democracy Amerika call us to do. One thing becomes simple. If the great powers are all autocracies, why should I support any war between their Tweedledum and my Tweedledee.

      Delete
    9. Jim, the white Catholics have shown that they disregard much of what Jesus taught ( reinforced by Pope Francis and many don't like him either) but still they aren't as bad as the white evangelicals.

      Their preachers openly urged support of trump, and worried not at all that the laws prohibiting this would be enforced. Apparently quite a few Catholic priests and a few bishops equated a vote for Biden, or even being a Democrat, with mortal sin. Trump promised to overthrow that law - don't know if he did, but obviously it wasn't enforced.

      The white Catholics and white evangelicals combined are a very large voting block and it's clear that the gospel has not gotten through to them, even though raised from birth as active "christians". If the people ARE the church - then maybe their skewed understanding of christianity is among the reasons tens of thousands of young adults are shunning church affiliation. In fact, that is supported by all the studies. They see little more than sheer hypocrisy in organized christianity. They don't see the church - either the institutional church or the people who are the church - as following Jesus' teachings.

      The leadership of the American RCC, from bishops on down to parish leaders, cannot pass the buck on this, by saying its the people who are wrong and who have the responsibility to teach their children. Why are they so wrong? It was the institutional church that taught them, and they are either ignoring it or never grasped what Jesus actually taught. Either way, the professional church people need to do a serious self-examination to discover and correct what they have done to cause this sad situation.

      All the fault is not in the people in the pews - teaching the gospels is a primary responsibility of the clergy class and of the churches the people fill on Sunday mornings

      Too many clergy duck their responsibility. They keep their mouths shut in order not to rock the boat by teaching what Jesus taught - the unpopular stuff.

      Delete
    10. p.s. I finally added a comment about your homily and the scripture passage - Reconsidering our lives.

      Delete
    11. "Also, too many white American Catholics oppose Pope Francis when he speaks out about social justice, caring for the poor, opening borders to immigrants and refugees, and, in general, following Jesus' example in warning against excess wealth and greed."

      Francis certainly has rubbed many Americans the wrong way with his forthright criticisms of the excesses of a free market economy. His magisterial declaration that there is a path for the divorced and remarried to receive communion also has made him suspect in the eyes of conservative Catholics. And then there is his obvious distaste for calling out Catholic pro-abortion politicians.

      On all of these issues, Francis's papacy has highlighted that what we Americans think of as sort of mainstream, run-of-the-mill Catholic thought really is distinctively American. The rest of the world can't apparently can't fathom why abortion looms so large in our politics, and we can't fathom why large portions of the world object to liberty (which is how we tend to think of free market business activity; we probably are shielded from some of the worst excesses exploitations which happen outside our borders).

      Francis's papacy has been good for me: it has forced me to rethink some things, and has caused me to refamiliarize myself with some streams of Catholic moral and social thought that were sort of, shall we say, neglected during the previous papacies.

      Delete
  4. Let me make an observation which may strike some folks here as controversial: these Trump voters - the downscale "deplorables" - who, quite frankly, are putting the republic in peril, would have been Democrats 1-2 generations ago. Likewise, the upscale, educated portions of the electorate who seemingly are the responsible bulwark of the basic values which sustain the American experiment, would have been Republicans 1-2 generations ago.

    The ability of these groups to coalesce into party identities obviously is important in our system. And pretty clearly, those party identities have been reconfiguring themselves for the last decade or two. But the root cause of all this is not the party identity; it's the group itself - today Republican, yesterday Democratic - which apparently has turned it back on these basic American values. Trump the power-hungry narcissist is the first to figure out how to successfully exploit it. If I'm right about this, he almost certainly won't be the last - and as Stanley noted, the next guy could be considerably more adept at exploiting it than Trump is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The realignment of the electorate has been long in developing. It began with the Republican "southern strategy," essentially racism that brought not only the South but blue collar workers in the North into the Republican party. It also resulted in the exit of Republican conservatives in the North, especially New England, and West into the Democratic Party. Trump used and exposed the racism that is at the heart of not only the Republican Party but also the Evangelical movement. But remember that core is only a third of Americans.

      It also resulted in shifting from an economic battle in which Democrats represented the working class and Republicans the business class to our present cultural wars, i.e. that race and gender became central issues. Both the Democrats and Republicans are now dominated by business elites. They benefit when the average voter is focused on cultural issues and ignores the concentration of wealth. Hence the media dominated by the wealthy have sought to exclude Bernie Sanders. Sanders has always had stronger ratings than Trump. If Sanders had a history of relating himself to FDR rather than European Democratic Socialism he could have won the presidency.

      Delete
    2. Billionaire oligarch Lloyd Blankfein said he would switch allegiance to Trump if Sanders were nominated. Many oligarchs prefer velvet gloved domination but will switch to autocracy if they have any chance of losing their dominance. I think the powers and principalities would have turned on Sanders no matter what he called himself, but, yes, the antisocialist brainwashing of the American public IS a factor.

      Delete
    3. Jim, I think the Democratic Party is responsible. When Reagan became president, I wondered why the Democrats weren't fighting this guy. But they rolled over, surrendering to his popularity and to the increasing power of wealth. The blue collars felt the Democrats had no interest in them and I think they didn't. The Dems bought the neoliberal line, too. But their constituency were the neo-rich Silicon Valley types while the Repubs had the fossil fuel and other old tech types. The blue collar types may have been less sophisticated about social issues, but they got the message that they were obsolete. As for the college educated, they received their own brand of conditioning.

      Delete
    4. Stanley: I am starting to wonder what I'm going to do if democracy in America evaporates. ... if we see Trump's return become a possibility, will our forum become a discussion about how to be Christian in the new reality

      I have done a lot of reading in recent years about Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and about fascism, which technically started with Mussolini. (Some experts say that trump is more Mussolini than Hitler) I have worked to try to understand how the millions of Germans, Lutheran and Catholic, who were in the pews every Sunday could support Hitler and what he did. Certainly some at least were assuaging their consciences because of what their priests and ministers were preaching (or not preaching) every Sunday.

      Bonhoeffer is one of the most interesting christian leaders of history. Few seem to know about him, especially in Catholic circles.

      The debate around him about whether or not he was really a "christian martyr" is interesting, because there would be no doubt about it if he hadn't actively participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler.

      I can't answer the question, but I do believe he is far more worthy of being called "saint" than most RC saints (including especially almost all of the popes who have been canonized)

      An interesting article about this

      https://mrijournal.riccimac.org/index.php/en/issues/issue-6/132-dietrich-bonhoeffer-and-the-problem-of-dirty-hands-what-counts-as-christian-martyrdom

      Delete
    5. Stanley said "The abortion issue has distorted the entire religion/politics relationship." I think that is correct.
      I think many of the PTB in the church are mad because Pope Francis didn't read Nancy Pelosi the riot act when she met with him earlier this month. And they are probably going to be mad when he fails to read Biden the riot act when he is in Rome toward the end of the month. "More Catholic than the pope" describes a subset within the church.
      Just a caveat to those who would like to see homilists address Trumpism (for lack of a better term) from the pulpit. Do you like it if they harp on the culture war issues in homilies? Didn't think so.

      Delete
    6. I've lost two long replies.

      Short answer - which issues? The culture war issues fall into two baskets, but most think of abortion, gay rights/transgender rights these days. They don't think about climate change, or poverty, or racism or many others. For one thing, they never hear about them in church.

      Did Jesus rock the boat? Did he preach to people to make them feel comfortable or did he challenge them? He made them squirm. So does Pope Francis - he is far less obsessed with sex, abortion, divorce, etc than he is with teaching about poverty, social justice, immigration issues,refugee issues, racism, climate change and other hot button issues.

      Those are the "culture war" issues that are almost never preached in our white Catholic and protestant churches (with the exception of a number of progressive christian churches like UCC, and ECUSA - including the Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde)

      Shouldn't priests and deacons buck up their courage and do the same? Shouldn't they stop being afraid of their congregations, of losing money in the baskets, and stop being afraid of their bishops, and follow Jesus? It's sad that so many American bishops are on the trumpism side, not Jesus' side. Maybe the lower clergy have a responsibility to rock the boat since their bishops won't, except when it comes to abortion.

      What is the point of pablum homilies? Most that I've heard in my life are totally predictable, bland - are pablum, especially in the RCC.

      Delete
    7. About "rocking the boat" with preaching; consider it from where I am. From the demographics, three-fourths of the registered voters in the town where we live are Republicans. Most of them voted for Trump. I would have to guess that the composition of our parish is about the same. The priest might have voted for a third party in the presidential election, but he for darned sure isn't a Democrat and didn't vote for Biden. I don't discuss politics with anyone in the town or the parish, though I do have some close friends among them. Believe it or not there are plenty of other things to talk about. The last thing I want to hear is a political homily, because I know exactly where it would go. Give me pablum any day over that.
      I remember a children's story, it might have been from Kiplings's Jungle Book. There was a watering hole which was never went dry, even in a drought. It was a safe space for all the animals, both predators and prey. The animals observed a sort of truce, that they all had a right to drink there. That's sort of how I view church, and how it pretty much is treated here, that it should be a safe space for all of us to drink the water of life.

      Delete
    8. "The realignment of the electorate has been long in developing. It began with the Republican "southern strategy,""

      The southern strategy, I think was Nixon's. That was before my time, politically speaking. I do remember Reagan in 1980 sweeping to victory, though, by getting the votes of many white Democrats in the South and blue collar Democrats in the industrial North. I believe some Democratic officials changed parties at that time - Phil Gramm, perhaps there were others.

      Perhaps racism was part of it, but in Reagan's case I think a big part of it was his promise to make America strong again. He tapped into some patriotism. It caused the media and many Democrats to suspect for eight years that he was a warmonger, although in the event he wasn't much for armed conflict.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Jim, I think you are right about how Reagan won. His "morning in America" message resonated with a lot of people.

      Delete
    11. I tend to agree with Katherine re: preaching about politics and ideology.

      FWIW, here is my view (I've probably shared this before): the church's ministers, in their preaching, should not be overtly political. They should seek to preach the fullness of the Good News. Certainly, that could and should include the ways that Christian thought and doctrine has developed over the last two millennium, including Christian moral thought, social thought and so on. And certainly, much of that thought is applicable to current political issues. But the preacher shouldn't cross the line into being political himself.

      It is the laity's role to take that Christian foundation and apply it to the political situation in their local community, state and nation. They do this by voting, by being active in campaigns, by running for office themselves, by working in public service, by contributing to public affairs via the media, think tanks, and so on. This is one of the most important ways we bring the Good News into the world.

      Preachers must walk a fine line: their preaching should be relevant to the lives of the people to whom they're preaching, but the preacher shouldn't cross over into overt political advocacy.

      Occasionally, I mention abortion in my homilies (very occasionally). When I do that, I seek to speak with the church - I try to say what the church teaches about abortion. I don't talk about voting or candidates. As we've discussed a number of times, the way that church teaching on abortion gets translated into political activity is pretty complex. For example, I might vote for a candidate *because* of her views on abortion, or I might choose a candidate *despite* his views on abortion. There are ways I can do either of these and remain faithful to what the church teaches. But as a voter, it's my decision to make, not my pastor's or my church's.

      I don't doubt there are churches, perhaps including Catholic parishes or dioceses, that cross lines in this regard which I believe shouldn't be crossed. That's too bad, as I happen to think I am right about this :-).

      Delete
    12. In light of my comments directly above: if we consider the USCCB's actions regarding "Eucharistic coherence", it certainly could be argued that, by extension of the criteria I laid out, they've crossed a line. Consider:

      * Joe Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, was elected president
      * The bishops immediately formed a special committee to figure out what to do about it
      * They subsequently decided to issue a document on the Eucharist. Understandably, this was perceived as a partisan attack on pro-choice Catholic Democratic officials. The bishops' debate on the topic further heightened this perception.

      If the bishops wished to be scrupulous about avoiding any perception of political partisanship, they should wait a few years, until a pro-life president is in the White House, and there is a pro-life majority in Congress, and then issue a document.

      Delete
  5. Preachers can rock the boat by teaching what Jesus taught - by teaching scripture. They do not have to mention politics or politicians. Pope Francis does this frequently - he talks about human responsibility to care for all of God’s creation. Following God’s commandment on this means christians must be involved in efforts to mitigate the causes of Climate change, and to favor efforts to reduce pollution and waste. Francis reminds us of the many times in scripture that God tells us to care for the poor’ and to welcome the stranger. Obviously the Pope’s reminders refer to immigrants and refugees and reminds us that the rich nations have an obligation to all the world’s poor.

    Many Christian leaders note that Mary, Joseph and Jesus had to flee to Egypt to find safety, just as many refugees and immigrants flee to America and Europe for the same reason.

    The pope frequently teaches what the scriptures teach without ever endorsing specific pollitcal leaders or parties. Many conservative Catholics don’t like this. The Pope is gently rocking the boat, making the comfortable, uncomfortable. He makes some people squirm.

    But few homilies in Catholic Churches that I am aware of address the issues that Francis adresses all the time. I think they should - Jesus offended a lot of those who heard him preach. He did it anyway. Shouldn’t those who preach in Jesus’s name follow his example ? I don’t remember Jesus elevating creating safe spaces for his followers above teaching how we should try to live, how we should try to act as God’s hands to do God’s work on earth. He also taught through his example that teaching hard things, “speaking truth to power” can exact a high cost. Priests and ministers who claim to be teaching what Jesus taught, what God teaches through scripture, should not be afraid of teaching hard truths instead of comforting pablum.

    I apologize for the typos. Sometimes my iPad doesn’t cooperate when I try to make corrections and I give up trying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne - great points about Jesus letting his preaching rock the boat. and Francis following in that tradition. And I think that comment was pretty typo-free!

      Delete