Topic: The Pope is dead but Bush loves him to much (Read 1889 times)

TheAntiChrist · « **on:** April 05, 2005, 03:38:27 PM »

President Bush has ordered that all American flags be displayed at
half staff on Friday to commemorate the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

The practice is usually reserved for U.S. officials including
presidents and justices of the U.S. Supreme along with state
governors, peace officers and members of the military.

Chapter 10, Title 175, however, does give Bush the legal authority to
order a half staff display "as a symbol of respect for other officials
and foreign dignitaries."

"It's inappropriate for the American flag to be lowered as a salute to
a foreign religious leader," said American Atheists President Ellen
Johnson in a statement issued today to news reporters. "There is no
secular purpose for this, and Americans would be outraged if Mr. Bush
ordered a similar acknowledgement for the death of an Islamic,
Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or Protestant prelate."

So far, news coverage of the Bush order has received little mainstream
media scrutiny. A piece carried on the Voice of America web site
("Bush Hails Late Pope as Champion of Freedom") by correspondent Scott
Stearns mentioned the move at the end of a five-paragraph story.

Bush may also have a legal weapon to rebuff any court challenge to the
half staff order, since the Vatican is both a religious institution
and sovereign nation state enjoying U.S. Diplomatic recognition.

Johnson said that even with this constitutionally-suspect status, Bush
is wrong with his decision to order American flags throughout the
country lowered.

"By reserving this special recognition for the leader of the Roman
Catholic Church, Mr. Bush is ignoring the religious diversity of the
United States, and the fact that millions of Americans do not share
his uncritical admiration for John Paul.

"One of the things that our nation great is that we have the
separation of church and state," Johnson added. "The flag should
represent all Americans, and not all Americans believe that the Pope
deserves such a special, government-sponsored recognition."
AA.com

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2005, 07:48:09 PM »

I say that Johnson is biased against religion. And I say she should shut up. But who am I, lowly Christian fool that I am--so ignorant of religious diversity by my failure to admit that two conflicting truths can both be true at once--to judge?

If Bush wants to honor a dead man--who happens to be a major religious leader, as a footnote--as a champion of freedom, why should this atheist rebuke him on the basis of freedom? Has ever there lived one man or leader of any kind that all Americans have held in high esteem? Has there ever been a time when it could not be said that not all Americans believe that [*insert name or title here*] deserves such a special, government-sponsored recognition?

Harry Desert Rat · « **Reply #2 on:** April 08, 2005, 09:00:32 PM »

I say that Johnson guy is biased against religion.

Well DUH! She is the president of the American Atheists.

Whine as you might Triple S, it was inappropriate.
The pope was the leader of the roman catholic church. To be fair in his ways Bush needs to issue this same order whenever the leader of the Southern Baptists, the American Atheists, punjab of the order of hindu monks, whatever leader of whatever religious order dies.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2005, 10:13:09 PM »

Okay. What is exactly wrong with that Harry? Ummm...just wondering! And don't say, "read what I've said" or something like it. Be more specific...after all, I really am a dummy, ya know. lol.

Are Athiests at this significient time trying to determine what is right or wrong? Just wondering what they base this on. Just trying to understand...thats all. :D

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:51:13 AM »

Notice that Bush does not honor the Pope as "Leader of the Catholics" but as a "Champion of Freedom." Why should it matter what the guy's religious affiliation is, if that's what Bush is honoring in him--a purely secular aspect, and one that you seem to like? List for me any other major religious leaders that have died lately that you think might be worthy of that particular praise. Would you have any problem with this if he had happened to champion an atheist--in spite of the fact that this would be "unfair" to non-atheists?

Is the Pope any less human than an atheist?

"There is no secular purpose"...! Just like a secular to complain about something so ridiculously trivial. Even I wouldn't have bothered back then. Honoring a man who just happens to be a religious leader, as a "champion of freedom," is neither wrong nor unwarrented. If you have beef with religion, fine--but don't overturn your own ideas of religious freedom by forcing secularity on such a thing as honoring the dead. That's no better than forcing religion on it--or anything else.

Harry Desert Rat · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2005, 08:36:44 AM »

geegee, I didnt say 'wrong' I said innappropriate. Big differance.

Champion of freedom? Yeah, I'm sure the white house legal team made sure bush refered to the pope as such but you and I both know he was nothing more than the leader of the RCC.

When the former American Atheists leader (AAL) O'hare died where was the order for half staff? It can be said she was a true 'Champion of Freedom' also. What did the pope do to further freedom other than utter words condeming terrorism or complaining about somebodys right to die or fussing about legalized abortion? I didn't see the vatican joining the collition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. I didnt see any of rome's cash being donated to the causes of freedom in these countrys.

Let's do a search on the countrys listed in the collition supporting freedom and democracy in the third world, not just words, but by action, militarity or financially and see if the vatican is on it.

Show me some "Champion of Freedom" actions made by the Pope or the vatican and I shall stand corrected. Actions, not mumbled words of support.

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2005, 04:13:43 PM »

'Fraid I can't show you anything. I know of none, nor do I care if the guy did anything or not. To be honest, it doesn't phase me that another Pope has gone to whereever they put the Popes. My point is different: there is nothing wrong with honoring a religious leader who bit the dust. Johnson's main argument is "there is no secular purpose for this... Bush is ignoring the religious diversity of the United States." My question is, would Johnson complain about that, if there had been a secular purpose? Does there have to be a secular purpose? If so, why?

And Johnson's invoking seperation of church and state is of no effect. Seperation of church and state is there only to prevent religion from controlling or influencing the government of the country. It has nothing to do with lowering flags for a dead guy. As far as I see it, "secularity" is no less prone to influence government in bad ways than is "non-secularity." Why, then, is religion being shoved into a corner by people like this Johnson, and secularity championed? That's what irks me. It irked me as an atheist, it irks me as a Christian. If we, the non-seculars, are expected to tolerate seculars, why do so many seculars--whose biggest complaint is the intolerance between clashing beliefs--refuse to tolerate us? What it amounts to is hypocrisy. So, you see, even though I disagree with the Roman Catholics on many counts, and do not recognize the papacy as anything more than a podium for a figurehead, I am defending the president's action on this one.

And I repeat: Johnson's assertion that "the flag should stand for all Americans" is honorable--yet ridiculous in this context. If we had to wait for unanimous approval to lower flags in honor of a dead guy, we'd never have an opportunity to lower them.

Out of curiosity, why would you consider what's-his-name, the former AAL president, a "Champion of Freedom?" What actions does that person have to his name?

Harry Desert Rat · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2005, 09:04:26 AM »

Glad you asked.

Many years ago MY freedom of religious expression was being trampled upon by, no less than, the State of Texas. The state was my employer at the time and bad enough they had a preacher on the payroll to do nothng more than preach (they called it 'religious services' which was stupid for the state to pay for because any could call any local corner preacher and they would come out and perform any religious rituals wanted for free) but they supported a little project of his called "religious expression day" where all employees were encouraged to wear T-shirts and such expressing their religious affiliation.
At the time I thought "what a great idea!" and promptly donned my "Friendly neighborhood Atheist" T-shirt and my "Atheist amongst you" ball-cap.
Well that didn't last throughout the day. I was called up into the boss'es office and told to go home and change clothes. I refused kindly and stated something to the effect of "religious expression day" and if one "religious expression" was to be oppressed then all must be halted.
Then all hell broke loose. Job was threatened, the xtian community pounced on me like a small field mouse who wandered into the old 'cat lady's' house.
I stood my ground. If 'religious expression day' was a bad idea given the diversity of beliefs of folks employed by the State of Texas then someone needs to tell Mr. Paid Preacher it was a bad idea and the administration suits and ties need to admit they were less than smart in their idea to approve such a thing. Didn't happen. I was told MY "religious affiliation" (thoughts, beliefs) need to be quelled and others were encouraged to express theirs. Guess who got involved in the fight to protect MY FREEDOMS[/b][/u] ? The American Atheists.

They showed up en'mass, provided me legal counsel and stepped up to the plate.

This Mr. Paid Preacher was the head of religious services for all the State Hospital facilitys across Texas and had written much of that departments standard operating procedures himself in the 30 some-odd years he was employed there. This rucus his idea caused ended with that SOP being re-written and went from being a foot thick to being about 3 inches thick. A hugh chunk of it was thrown out and the remainder re-written to be more tolerant of diversity and all-inclusive. Mr. Paid Preacher retired himself when the process was about 1/2 way through. Oh, and "religious expression day" was ash-canned.

You asked for an example of what freedom was championed by the American Atheist? Well there ya go. That was one. They do this across the country daily. No order was given for 1/2 mast when the leader was killed. MY flag flew 1/2 mast.

Now, I ask you. What ACTION was taken by the pope championing freedom? What ACTION? Not just showing up somewhere and mumbling 'blessings' to those oppressed or giving speeches about freedom, but what ACTIONS.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2005, 05:50:00 PM »

What actions? Pope John Paul II was one of the major leaders in the Polish Solidarity movement that led to the overthrow of USSR domination of Poland and provided for an easy transition into a government that believed in human rights. He spoke up in Poland at a time where people were executed for speaking up (it's a bit harder to whack a Pope than a 'revolutionary.') His work in Poland is certainly the best example of his support of freedom, but he also decried Western expolitation of African nations and fought very hard to provide human rights in Africa and Eastern Europe. If you read a few biographies of him that the media have been publishing recently most of them mention at least his commitment to freedom in his native Poland.

Harry Desert Rat · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2005, 08:10:15 AM »

So he spoke eh?

Did he chant in the streets with the other 'revolutionarys'? Did he march on the embassy with his people? How would you describe "fought very hard"? Wrote a few letters and made some speeches 'decrying'?

Or did he organize a league of nations to fight oppression? Did he support/call for embargos? Is the vatacan a member of the collition in Iraq or Afghanistan?

We could haggle back and forth on the definition and what qualifies as 'actons' all day long. I would not call his actions, Actions. My point is Bush's 1/2 mast order for the pope's death was inappropriate as the pope is nothing more than a religious leader and to be unilateral in religious matters this same order should go out for the deaths of ALL religious leaders no matter the popularity of the religion. It was a political move, nothing more, when he gave the order as RCs are a big voting block of people. Others are not (Atheist, Hindu etc. leaders)

Zane · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2005, 03:39:09 PM »

While I completely agree with HDR that Pres Bush should never have lowered the flag unless he did it for every 'Champion of Freedom" I also believe that he had his reasons for doing so. and even though they are political reasons he was still right in doing so simply because a large majority of the population is RC and Bush made his desision on the basis of appleasing the masses. now if he would have ordered the lowering of the flag for someone who like the American Atheist Leader who even though is increadibly important to people like us, there would have been a huge public outcry, simply because, even though we here on this forum are open minded enough to accept each other for what we are, the masses are not so understanding, "mob mentality" at its greatest it is unfortunate but undeniable

Harry Desert Rat · « **Reply #11 on:** April 12, 2005, 07:57:12 AM »

Zane speaks words of wisdom. Can't argue with that.

TheAntiChrist · « **Reply #12 on:** April 12, 2005, 03:15:46 PM »

Quote

Champion of Freedom

no more than me. In fact the pope was against madilyn Murry from the start. And she was a champion of atheist rights.[/code]

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2005, 03:53:41 PM »

Quote from: Harry Desert Rat

Many years ago MY freedom of religious expression was being trampled upon by, no less than, the State of Texas. The state was my employer at the time and bad enough they had a preacher on the payroll to do nothng more than preach (they called it 'religious services' which was stupid for the state to pay for because any could call any local corner preacher and they would come out and perform any religious rituals wanted for free) but they supported a little project of his called "religious expression day" where all employees were encouraged to wear T-shirts and such expressing their religious affiliation.
At the time I thought "what a great idea!" and promptly donned my "Friendly neighborhood Atheist" T-shirt and my "Atheist amongst you" ball-cap.
Well that didn't last throughout the day. I was called up into the boss'es office and told to go home and change clothes. I refused kindly and stated something to the effect of "religious expression day" and if one "religious expression" was to be oppressed then all must be halted.
Then all hell broke loose. Job was threatened, the xtian community pounced on me like a small field mouse who wandered into the old 'cat lady's' house.
I stood my ground. If 'religious expression day' was a bad idea given the diversity of beliefs of folks employed by the State of Texas then someone needs to tell Mr. Paid Preacher it was a bad idea and the administration suits and ties need to admit they were less than smart in their idea to approve such a thing. Didn't happen. I was told MY "religious affiliation" (thoughts, beliefs) need to be quelled and others were encouraged to express theirs.

Man. Sorry. Didn't know.

Hypocrisy, that's what it is. What a bunch of blockheads...

jason · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2005, 05:54:22 PM »

maybe someone else said it...

Anti, if you are going to copy and paste an article, you need to attribute a source. Otherwise it's called plagiarism, and at best it makes you look cheap to the people you debate with, and at worst you can get in a lot of legal trouble for it.

and i agree, it was inappropriate to lower the flag. He was not a US citizen. I don't remember lowering a flag when ________ (fill in the blank) died.

TheAntiChrist · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2005, 03:27:40 PM »

Quote from: Sir Somebody Something

"There is no secular purpose"...! Just like a secular to complain about something so ridiculously trivial. Even I wouldn't have bothered back then. Honoring a man who just happens to be a religious leader, as a "champion of freedom," is neither wrong nor unwarrented. If you have beef with religion, fine--but don't overturn your own ideas of religious freedom by forcing secularity on such a thing as honoring the dead. That's no better than forcing religion on it--or anything else.

LOL I guess your rights have never been challenged.

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #16 on:** April 14, 2005, 06:21:38 PM »

No, I admit, they haven't, not religiously. That would be because I never told anyone I was an atheist, 'cept a sparse few.

But even so, oddly enough, it's always been a bat in my belfry.

Heretic · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2005, 04:32:42 AM »

Anti, if you are going to copy and paste an article, you need to attribute a source. Otherwise it's called plagiarism,

No he don't. A little plagiarism never detracted from an arguement. Only does for the anally retentive. He never claimed the words to be his own. It isn't plagiarism unless you try to pass the words off as your own.

jason · « **Reply #18 on:** April 15, 2005, 03:14:34 PM »

Quote from: the hair a tick

It isn't plagiarism unless you try to pass the words off as your own.

But see that's exactly what he does when he doesn't attribute a source, whether intentional or not

TheAntiChrist · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2005, 03:51:20 PM »

I don't think american atheist are going to sue an atheist for using something they wrote against Christians.

Author Topic: The Pope is dead but Bush loves him to much (Read 1889 times)