A good politician is a people pleaser?

A comment I'd heard some time back concerned a politician. The speaker (not a politician themselves, but recalling an interaction with one) had said to the politician something like "I suppose you want to win with the biggest majority possible". The politician responded along the lines of, "No, that would mean I wasn't doing my job; if I'm really pushing the limits of the possible I'll have just the barest majority."

People pleasing in politics means never pushing out of the public's comfort zone.

(And no, this isn't an endorsement of any current orange head of state, far from it.)

A good politician is able to garner support to enact change.

>> In the end, nobody was really happy with him.

This is true if you live in a bubble. Most Catholics don't hold strong opinions on the Pope. The people who do are, as usual, the extremes on either side - not the majority.

Not holding a strong opinion counts as not being happy with him, otherwise you would have a strong positive opinion of him.

How very Christ-like

Yeah, nothing says Jesus like siding with the aggressor due to your own prejudices.

Jesus famously said turn the other cheek

You can’t turn your other cheek when you’re dead, so I am pretty sure he didn’t mean it as allow yourself to get killed.

Besides, Ukraine did turn other cheek after 2014 war, they just run out of cheeks to turn.

Back to main subject, I believe nothing weakened Pope Francis’s policies as much as his widely misunderstood position on this subject.

> he didn’t mean it as allow yourself to get killed.

You know, what happened on Easter right?

I do, according to christian doctrine Jesus sacrificed himself for humanity’s sins. That sacrifice wouldn’t be particularly meaningful if it came with expectation for everybody to follow through. As much as I am not a fan of this (or any other) religion, I’m pretty sure it’s not a suicide pact.

I think getting killed for your belief is exactly what Jesus was arguing for. It was also what all apostles did and the only cause for the next 300 years to be declared a saint.

Jesus' death was special, because he was without sins, he was the son of God (YMMV) and, because was walking around afterwards physically (i.e. capable of touching and eating, etc.) on earth. I am not sure, why you name it suicide, because he didn't killed himself, he got himself killed.

I do not think, that Jesus would defend "the agressor". But fighting in return is also not good, which is where "turning the other cheek" comes into play.

There's almost two millennia of counter arguments to the usual attempts to reframe Christianity as strictly "just suicide and turn the other cheek".

Suicide is a mortal sin, so I'm not sure, if we argue past each other.

> reframe Christianity

How is it reframing, when it is what it is all about? Can you elaborate about the counter arguments?

Of course dying is not the only method of worshiping God and promote the faith, but it is quite effective. And giving the other option is killing people it is definitely the preferred way.

Jesus pretty famously did allow himself to be killed

Yep, as a sacrifice. Using this as a justification for aggressive war against a christian nation is not only extremely intellectually dishonest, but against the doctrine as well.

That doesn't mean what people think its means, though.

(But it's not that the audience here cares ...)

Thanks for that comment, as it encouraged me to read a wikipedia article on the subject, which was very interesting.

Link for others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

You could educate the audience, rather than commenting like this. People are here to have curious conversations.

Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hmm, I meant that in an "it's off-topic" way but you're right, the wording comes across quite harsh.

It mostly does. There's a deeper meaning to it, but it's still also about nonviolence.

As with everything, it's open to interpretation, but you don't turn your other cheek expecting to be hit again; it's meant to signal defiance not resignation.

I guess, but "defiance" can mean anything, and the passage is telling you not to resist. It's about not participating in a violent conflict to begin with. It's definitely not "I f'ing dare you to try that again".

I don't think that US conservatives and liberals are were the center of gravity of papal policy is.

US doesn’t have a monopoly on those words and I am not even American.

this is such an intensely off base comment, youre back seat politicking the pope? You think he alienated conservatives and not that American conservatives went off the deep end and find themselves suicidally agitated over the lightest "love your neighbor"? I dont know anyone whos mad at him over Ukraine either, thats extremely minor.

Dude just died, rest in peace francis, the most popular pope we've had in decades.

Of course I am happily criticising pope from back seat, this thread is literally to discuss him as a public figure.

Already said that conservative and liberal are English words not necessarily connected to US political scene. I know plenty of people initially supportive of him who got seriously pissed when he broke the long standing tradition of supporting the attacked, not the attacker.

I would argue it’s a pretty common position in Europe.

> I dont know anyone whos mad at him over Ukraine either, thats extremely minor.

I know a lot of people that are mad at him over that, it's extremely major.