Washingtonpost.com:

First was the British prime minister, who called Donald Trump “divisive, stupid and wrong.” Then came Britain’s Parliament, which denounced him with colorful language. The French prime minister, the Turkish president and a Saudi prince also weighed in: The Republican presidential front-runner, they agreed, was a demagogue disgracing the United States.

On Thursday, Pope Francis added the strongest voice yet to a growing chorus of world leaders taking a stand against the celebrity candidate — condemning Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda and suggesting he was not a Christian because of it.

As the pontiff took the rare step of injecting his views into the U.S. campaign, his remarks underscored the anxiety coursing through world capitals about a possible Trump presidency. Francis noted Trump’s promise to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States illegally and make Mexico pay for a wall along the border to keep them out.

“A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis told reporters Thursday aboard the papal plane as he returned to Rome from a visit to Mexico, according to a translation from the Associated Press.

“This is not in the Gospel,” he added.Trump, not to be admonished by anyone, dissed the Pope.

 

Trump, who never accepts admonishment, dissed the Pope and his words.

Trump, a Presbyterian, strongly rebuked Francis for his comments, seeking to gain the upper hand politically in a state where polls show him with a double-digit lead.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Kiawah Island. “I’m proud to be a Christian, and as president I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now with our current president.”

If a religious leader can’t question a person’s faith, then who can?   I am sure men and women of the cloth would question mine on any given day, especially if they heard the rant I was on yesterday.  Fair game.  It’s their job to provide assessment to their own flock.  The Pope has a great many people in his flock around the world–perhaps as many as a billion.

Trump is not a member of the Pope’s flock.  However, often world religious figures comment on the behavior of various leaders, especially the more outrageous or notorious one becomes.  Much of U.S. world interaction is diplomatic.  Trump makes a very poor diplomat.  People need to remember this.

Whether you agree with him or not, President Obama is a gracious diplomat.  About the only people who do not respect him are Americans.

Furthermore,  Trump has to cultivate enemies.  He has to talk down to people.  I believe most Christians, if they look closely at their own religious teachings, can agree that  perhaps that behavior doesn’t fall into line with the teachings of Jesus.

 

43 thoughts on “Trump vs. The Pope

  1. Building walls is unchristian – says the guy living in a fortress surrounded by walls for the past 1,200 years.

    1. Good point. However, this pope as well as Pope John Paul both went out and about amongst the masses. Comparing apples to apples, the Pope didn’t suggest that Trump remove the security around the White House or that Italy kick Sicily to the curb….

  2. “Whether you agree with him or not, President Obama is a gracious diplomat. About the only people who do not respect him are Americans.”

    While I don’t care what other countries think of our President I have say that this statement is completely false.

    1. Provide documentation @Jackson

  3. @MoonHowler
    Sure thing… How many links can I provide per comment? If I’m not mistaken there is a limit, right?

    1. only 4 before you go into auto-moderation

      2 will do. Not someone else’s opinion…I want it from the horse’s mouth…

  4. Kelly_3406

    It is curious that the Pope chose to comment on Trump’s religion, but during the papal visit to Cuba said nothing about the murder and mayhem caused by the Castros. So this must be political–this Pope clearly has a leftist agenda. He is supposed to operate in the realm of the spiritual, not the realm of national politics. He clearly has little appreciation for the security challenges posed by our northern and southern borders.

    1. When has any pope ever kept quiet about national politics? That’s how I feel every time a Pope, cardinal, bishop, etc starts talking about reproductive rights.

  5. Obama is a crappy diplomat–his international agreements are so bad for the US that it is easy to wonder whose side he is on. Hostile countries think he is gracious because they usually get favorable results from their negotiations.

    1. I can’t think of a single example that would make me agree with you. The world is a strange place. I might say the same thing about his predecessor.

  6. MoonHowler :
    Comparing apples to apples, the Pope didn’t suggest that Trump remove the security around the White House or that Italy kick Sicily to the curb….

    The pope also talks about compassion when it comes to immigration and that the US should let in more people and not deport those here illegally.

    Let’s do an apples to apples comparison of our immigration policy (we let in 1.7 million legal immigrants last year) and the Vatican’s immigration policy. Which one is more compassionate and christan like?

  7. Cargosquid

    I haven’t seen the Pope’s criticism of Mexico.
    I’m sure that he did, right?
    Because Mexico IMPRISONS illegal aliens coming over THEIR southern border.

    1. Yea, that’s the reason so many of our illegal immigrants are from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. How do you think they get into our country? This about geography and then think about what you just said.

  8. blue

    The Pope has now apologized to Trump. Did not see that one coming.

    1. What did he say? I am disappointed.

    2. On second thought, I don’t really consider than an apology, from what I have read.

  9. Wolve

    The current British Prime Minister and Parliament calling anyone else names is a rip roaring laugh, especially in a country where freedom of speech is going down the tubes. Not to mention the French, who preside over the migrant horror at Calais; the Turks, who are pissing all over Kemal Ataturk’s legacy of secular rule; and whatever Saudi prince opened his mouth in between decapitations by sword in the public square.

  10. Wolve

    Wonder when we’ll be seeing the Piazza Pius XII chock-a-bloc with migrant/refugee tents and laundry drying on Caligula’s obelisk and from the parapets of Castelo Sant’Angelo? The Holy See will certainly be something to see.

  11. Wolve

    Well, he did tell the College of Cardinals that they would be sorry if they elected him. Can’t say that he fibbed.

    1. I think he is a breath of fresh air in all regards. I think his biggest asset is his humility.

  12. @MoonHowler
    By any measure, the Iran nuclear deal was not an equitable give and take. With cash from the release of its assets, plus the end of sanctions, Iran reached an agreement to purchase fighter aircraft and advanced air defenses from Russia. In return, what verifiable proof do we have that Iran is dismantling its high-speed centrifuges? Nothing. In fact, the latest reports are that Iran has stopped dismantling centrifuges.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SZ1Z720151110

    My view is that the US should get something tangible out of any deal that it makes with a hostile country. Bill Clinton was hailed for his nuclear deal with N. Korea. The North Koreans exploded a nuclear bomb about a decade later. This nuclear deal by Obama will very likely produce the same result.

    My idea about what constitutes a good deal for the US must be very different from that of many people on this blog. When Trump says that the US has been getting very bad deals, it resonates with people like me who see the Iran deal as very bad for national security.

  13. ed myers

    I didn’t need a Visa to enter the Vatican “fortress”. There is security when entering the buildings, but anyone is free to walk across or ride the bus across the border from Italy to Vatican City. The Vatican wall is not one that excludes or divides.

    I took the Papal comment on walls and bridges as a allegorical device to comment on Christian teaching: Jesus/Church welcomes all. If politicians don’t want to be corrected they should stop wearing their religion on their sleeves in an attempt to get votes.

    The biggest threat to religious freedom in this country is Evangelicals politicizing Christianity. Aligning religion with political power requires religion to compromise to maintain a political majority.

    1. I have never been to the Vatican but much of what you say here makes sense.

  14. Pat.Herve

    @Kelly_3406
    and after complaining and posturing – the Congress voted what on the Iran deal?

    The money was Iranian money – it was not our money in the first place. And the agreement was with Iran and six other countries – so are you saying that the UK got a bum deal also?

  15. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    Possession is 9/10 of ownership.

    It would have taken a super majority to defeat it. What’s the point of a vote when supposed moderates like Warner and Kaine can always be counted on to carry Obama’s water?

    1. Whose water should they be carrying?

  16. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    It was a really good deal for China and Russia.

  17. Pat.Herve

    @Kelly_3406
    Kelly – so, they sent it to Obama’s desk, and he vetoed it?

    the point is not that it would have taken a super majority – the fact is that this Republican led Congress does not want to vote an any issue. They want to throw rocks about positions without actually taking a position.

    I remember the Republicans talking about the number of days with out a budget – and now when in charge – we do not have a budget that is being discussed.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-10/ryan-scrambles-to-unify-republicans-on-u-s-budget-strategy

  18. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    The Senate did hold a vote on the Iran deal. The Dems blocked it from being sent to Obama:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/sep/10/iran-nuclear-deal-us-senate-vote-disapproval-live-updates

    Four democrats and 54 Republicans voted to end debate and move to a final vote, but 42 Dems prevented it from advancing.

    The Republicans deserve plenty of criticism for avoiding votes, but the Iran deal is not one of those cases.

  19. Pat.Herve

    @Kelly_3406
    Thank you – I stand corrected, they did try to have a vote in the Senate.

  20. Starry flights

    I am glad that Trump called George W a liar about the IrQ war. I also like that Trump supports the Obamacare mandate, Medicaid expansion, punitive tax increases and public funding for Planned Parenthood

    1. Does he really support funding for Planned Parenthood?

  21. Kelly_3406

    @Starry flights

    Since Hillary was on George W’s side for the Iraq war and Bernie’s campaign is all but doomed, you must be solidly in Trump’s camp now, right?

    1. You are seriously kidding? Hillary has said for a long time that her vote was wrong, based on faulty info.

  22. The info may have been faulty, but much of it came from the Clinton administration. That’s the dirty little fact that she would like to gloss over.

    1. That is such a serious stretch. As for fault, it was the job of the current administration to make sure the information was updated and current. Its a ‘fact” that is irrelevant.

      I think 9-11 was a game changer. Blame Clinton? I am laughing. Furthermore, if Bill Clinton painted a bulls eye on Iraq, that really has nothing to do with Hillary.

  23. Pat.Herve

    The Bush administration moving against Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or UBL – it was a personal vendetta that started the day they got into office. The below memo shows that Rumsfeld was preparing for war – without knowing why to start it.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/newly-released-memos-of-donald-rumsfeld-prove-knowing-iraq-war.html

    and the Bush administration was warned that Bin Laden was looking to highjack aircraft and was also surveilling federal buildings in NYC -before the attack. Yet, they were focused on getting regime change in Iraq.

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

    Yet, we spend more time focused on Benghazi than was spent on focusing on the intelligence failures of 9/11. Why is that?

  24. Cargosquid

    @MoonHowler
    The success of illegal aliens transiting Mexico does not cancel out the fact that Mexico’s policy is to imprison illegal immigrants.

    The other explanation, besides successful bribery by coyotes, is that Mexico assists them to transit their country and dumps them on the northern border.

  25. Cargosquid

    @MoonHowler
    The nation’s.

    They are smart enough…well, Warner is, to see that the deal was bad for everyone except the Iranians.

  26. Cargosquid

    @Pat.Herve
    We’ve had constant intel since…well…forever, that assorted groups target planes and public buildings in various ways.
    What did you expect him to do? Ground every plane until……what?

    The regime change was signed into policy by CLINTON. Bush was continuing Clinton’s policies.
    As for Hillary, she lies to fit the political need.

    We’ve focused on Benghazi because the administration obviously lied and covered something up. And left people to die instead of reacting to it.

    1. Why should Hillary get the blame for Bush being too lazy to change the past administrations policies?

  27. Kelly_3406

    @Pat.Herve

    Cargo’s #47 is basically correct. I happened to be in Air War College before 9/11. The US had been in a low-level conflict with Iraq since the first Gulf War, as the Air Force continued to enforce no-fly zones (NFZs). This conflict was increasingly viewed as unsustainable. Regime change had been signed into law by Clinton and we learned in AWC that escalation was advocated by officials spanning both administrations.

    We also read articles in AWC (before 9/11) that described a potential plot to use aircraft as weapons of mass destruction. This was even before the Bush Administration took office. So the idea of such a plot had been around for a long time before 9/11.

  28. Pat.Herve

    I do not remember anyone making the case for war in Iraq during the Clinton Administration. The Bush Admin was angling for a war before 9/11.

    The Bush admin very much covered up the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.

Comments are closed.