Flag at half-mast for Pope?

Sorry that this is a tad old but I'm just getting back into the swing of things after vacation.

For those of you not aware, Every public building in the US is currently required to lower all american flags to half-mast to honor Pope John Paul II. This angers me a great deal. Lowering the flag at half mast has always been an honor reserved for great american leaders (I know that great is debateable as people debate whether previous presidents like Reagan were great), such as previous presidents and national tragedies. Now we are lowering the flag to half-mast for the leader of a religion? I though the U.S. government has a seperation of church and state? It really angers me that we are lowering the flag to half-mast because it appears that Bush is playing religion again and showing how religious he is, just like he did during the last elections, for his own personal gain and popularity.

Thoughts?

I don't agree with it because the Pope was not an American citizen. It could be argued that he was a man of the peace, and he did great things for humanity, but the fact remains that the flag is only lowered to half mast to recognize the passing of great Americans.

Yes, the fact that he is/was not a U.S. citizen also bothers me.

Why on earth does it anger you? It's hardly a big deal, they honored a great religious leader....I fail to see why that would anger someone. Who cares if he wasn't American, why do you only want to honour Americans in that way? Sounds Xenophobic to me.
They flew the flags at half mast for a day, I'm sure, somehow, the American people will get over it eventually. Seriously, check the news now & then, there are thousands of reason above that one to get angered right now.

It angers me because it is one of 1000 ways that Bush is trying to put religion (namely Christianity) into our governemnt.

And I didn't say that this is the only thing that angers me, or angers me the most. Yes, there are thousands of other things in this world to get angry about, but this thread is about the flag at half mast, not about the thousands of things in this world that make me angry. That's why we have EoEO for different threads on the subjects.

I'd think a pope is more of a citizen of the world at large anyway.

The Vatican wasn't supportive of plenty of things the Bush administration was involved in. Is it actually Bush who signs a paper every time the flag is lowered? I got no idea and I'm not going to look for the answer to that because frankly, respect for the dead is respect for the dead.

When Bush dies and the flag goes to half-mast, will you be opposed to that?

Eh, seriously, it doesn't matter. We've flown half mast for non Americans before, we'll do it again. One of these days, the flag will be flown at half for that Mr. Bush... hopefully, ASAP. The Pope was a great human being. He did more good for people than almost any individual that was ever honored by flying the flag at half. He DESERVED the honor, he spent a lifetime dedicated to the helping of others... as far as I'm concerned, he's an honorary (post-humous) American citizen.

Oh, and so you don't get the idea that religion is influencing my opinion, I worship a Goddess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not At All Reno

When Bush dies and the flag goes to half-mast, will you be opposed to that?

---

Will I not like it? Yeah, because I'm not a big fan of Bush. But will I oppose it? No, because we always lower our flags to half-mast for presidents.

Technically, the Pope is the leader of the Vatican as a country, so the half mast is honouring another country's leader's death. Sure, not all leader get the honor, but then, not every leader is influential over a billion people. The same debate arose in France about it, and we did it for some Popes before, and not for others, and the debate lasted a good two days and stopped when politicians realized most people didn't care.

I really don't mind if the Pope gets to be in our super-exclusive flag-descending club.

First off, the "seperation of church and state" is a myth, and this does not violate any religion clause in the constitution.

However, I still don't like it, because lowering the flags has been a tradition upon the deaths of American leaders.

Flag lowering, more than anything else has been a tradition, not reserved just for Americans, but for people in general who did deeds that were deemed positive for America and the world at large in some way, OR if they were great American citizens. The flag has been lowered for the passing Winston Churchill, Gandhi, and John Lennon among other non American citizens.

Though I share your opinion that the seperation between Church and State is all but gone, I view this more of a sign of respect for a figure, not as a religious gesture.

Take care all.

America is a catholic country well at least thats what i was told
the Pope did alot of great things and showed his reaons for oppinions the guy went all over the world got shot lived and forgave the guy who shot him he was a great man american or not he deserves it sadly only UK Catholic schools do the half mast or something

im an agnoscist protestant with slightly aphiest views so my oppinion doesnt matter does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

America is a catholic country well at least thats what i was told

---

...who told you such an outrageous lie?

Quote:

---

Flag lowering, more than anything else has been a tradition, not reserved just for Americans, but for people in general who did deeds that were deemed positive for America and the world at large in some way, OR if they were great American citizens. The flag has been lowered for the passing Winston Churchill, Gandhi, and John Lennon among other non American citizens.

Though I share your opinion that the seperation between Church and State is all but gone, I view this more of a sign of respect for a figure, not as a religious gesture.

---

I agree with all of that...I wasn't aware that the flag was also lowered for Churchill and Gandhi and them.

couple of online canadian friends and my friend

Have you considered that the flag might be at half mast as a mark of respect? Its not necessarily the fact that all americans are mourning, but it could just be your nation is acknowledging the life of a man who brought hope to many?

Just a thought....

exactly

why are you so angry at something for a man who done more than the presidents? a man who inspired more than his country a man who showed many hope in times of despair

I'll add that the Pope was instrumental in the downfall of Soviet communism. If for nothing else, he should be acknowledged in America for that much.

not just America the whole world

I agree that the pope did good, but he did a lot of bad too.

He (and his church) regularly told followers that if they didn't act a certain way, like vote for certain politicians, they were going to hell.

He (and his church) condemn any form of birth control, including condoms, even when only worn for protection against STD's. Many third world countries are highly catholic and STD's are spreading at an alarming rate, even among married (non-promiscuous) people, and for fear of hell and damnation they don't use condom's, even furthering the problem.

He (and his church's) doctrine are designed to promote the catholic church and increase it's population, not to spread the word of God.

I'll stop now or I'll go on all day. I already have a severe disliking of the catholic church and everything about it and lowering the flag for the pope doesn't sit well with me.

And I know that this post will piss a lot of people off because I'm pointing out the bad in the pope, but remember that we're in EoEO and please don't attack me for stating my opinions.

much ado about nothing. It's clear now that it's more to do with your hatred toward the Catholic church than anything else. Living in Belfast, I've experienced this quite often, it's cost lives, friends lives. Your dislike of a religion should not spread to it's followers. The Pope was a Humanitarian before a Christian and a Christian before he was Catholic, a sentiment echoed by other Christian & non-Christian leaders & ordinary people throughout the world, even here, which is a BIG thing for a Protestant to say.
On your other notes, of course he condemns birth control, it's against his religon. He lived & had to preach in accordance to that. The same way other religions preach their moral guidelines. If you don't agree with that, and I don't before you ask, you don't HAVE to be a practicing Catholic.
Lastly, about the church doctrine designed to promote the Catholic church, OFCOURSE IT WAS. They were Catholic's trying to spread their form of Christianity, I don't get annoyed by Unionists promoting Unionist policies here, They are Unionists for crying out loud.
Anyway, imma go back and worry about stuff that actually needs worrying about.

it was his religeon his belief you cannot go against your belief can you? he couldnt because he was leader of that religeon he represented that religeon he couldnt do anything to change it but hopefully the next pope will shine some light witht he condom thing

but do you go As far in religeon like too far? eg Jehova's witnesses

I for one, agree with the decision to lower the flag. John Paul II was a great man, and this is Americas way of saying "We respect you" It does not mean that America supports Catholicism over another religion, or that it prefers religion over non religion. It simply means America respects great people. I don't think that the "American citizen" argument hold up either. Why should we ONLY lower the flag for Americans? Why should a symbol of respect only be reserved for Americans? I ask you this, if Nelson Mandela were to die, would you be opposed of lowering the flag for him? What about Winston Churchill? (Yes, I know he is dead) or Ghandi? (Yes, I also know that he is dead)

Quote:

---

He (and his church) regularly told followers that if they didn't act a certain way, like vote for certain politicians, they were going to hell.

---

Give me one instance where the Pope said this. I know that certain Catholic leaders have said this, however, I am almost positive that John Paul has not.

Quote:

---

He (and his church's) doctrine are designed to promote the catholic church and increase it's population, not to spread the word of God.

---

That is just utter nonsense. It would make sense for them to promote Catholic ideals. However, they DO spread the word of God. To deny that is pure ignorance on your part.

I highly doubt there was a doctrine signed declaring everyone have their flag at half-mast for the Pope. (Or did I miss the memo?) It was most likely more based on the opinions of the private residents and business owners. It doesn't really matter if you like the Pope, they did, and wanted to honor him on his passing. I don't exactly see where the issue is.

The problem then becomes where do you draw the line? What constitutes the requirements for lowering the flag for a world leader? Also, the pope was a figure head of a church, not a world leader. Yes, he did have a lot of sway in the world, but he was not a world leader. It's an interesting subject because there aren't many people that have an such an influence outside of political borders. Ghandi is another example. Should the flag have been lowered for Ghandi? I honestly don't think it should have. What did Ghandi do for the U.S.? I know that it is self-centered to think that way, but that's why we lower the flag. To show respect for those that made America a better place. And to backtrack, with the Soviet Union collapse, that is a fair reason for lowering the flag for the pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Lastly, about the church doctrine designed to promote the Catholic church, OFCOURSE IT WAS. They were Catholic's trying to spread their form of Christianity, I don't get annoyed by Unionists promoting Unionist policies here, They are Unionists for crying out loud.

---

I mean it is designed to literally spread the catholic church. Everything about the religion deals with having more children and covering the planet. When a church's doctrine says more about spreading themselves then about preaching the bible and other beliefs, that's not good.

And also, I don't hate the catholic church, I just have issues with all of the loopholes and contradictions that are constantly ignored, as with most religions.

they cant do anything about it blame Jesus he started it
the leader of the religeon should be aloud to change it slightly but not too much
the Pope did many great things so he maybe become Saint John Paul and he must have done many great things to deserve that

Churchill saved Britain from the Nazis and Ghandi i dont understand about that

I would think, that above all else, America wants to promote the notion that it does stand for peace, liberty, freedom, the things that we were founded upon, so to lower the flag for people who have done something in promoting peace, liberty and freedom, such as Gandhi, makes sense.

Whether you agreed with the Pope or not, he was just as human as the next, and yet, in his lifetime, he touched the lives of billions of people, most for the better. I too am not a fan of some of his policies, but you have to look at the grand scheme of thigns when judging a person's legacy, not just isolated instances. Yes, he was no where near the progressive that I believe the Church needs, but he was certainly more progressive than other Popes and world leaders have been. He stood for peace at all costs and believed in forgiveness, which are two very important elements of life, of being a citizen of the world.

America is the great melting pot of the world, as we try to stand for what is best, yet hold the double standard that we are better than the rest of the world, when in fact, we should realize that we are part of the world, not above it. We, like the rest of the world, should honor people how have made great differences in life and in some of the ideals that Americans hold most dear.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

Churchill saved Britain from the Nazis and Ghandi i dont understand about that

---

I believe Ghandi was probably one of the greatest Humans ever to live. He maybe deserves more plaudits than anyone listed here, even the name in the topic.

Flying the flag at half-mast is a gesture of solidarity in a time of mourning - not an induction into the Patriot's Club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

The problem then becomes where do you draw the line? What constitutes the requirements for lowering the flag for a world leader? Also, the pope was a figure head of a church, not a world leader.

---

Vatican City is a country. Any atlas or other geographical reference will attest to this. Thus, he was a world leader in a political sense. Further, as the head of the Catholic Church, he leads a group of people that numbers over one billion worldwide. Given that pronouncements relating to faith and morals made ex Cathedra are to be followed by Catholics, he was certainly something more than a figurehead. Really, if anyone is a world leader, it's the Pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

America is a catholic country well at least thats what i was told

---

The U.S. is a secular nation, and one of the major principals on which the country was founded is supposedly "seperation of church and state", which implies an absolute freedom of religion among its citizens and no religious influence in government. Frankly, this will likely never be effectively practiced, but that's acceptable, I suppose. George W. Bush, the country's leader, is of the Catholic faith and there's an obvious religious influence in his political platform. I'd imagine this is the reasoning behind the "America is a Catholic country" statements. It could also be taken as mudslinging from those who are Anti-Bush and are unhappy with the blatant impact his Catholicism has on how he does things.

The Pope undeniably had an immense amount of influence over a great many people, but so did Hitler, which is to say that those who were popular or had an impact shouldn't arbitrarily be honored. The question is whether he was a respectable man who had a positive effect on the world. Personally, I'd say the Pope was. When thinking of things he's done that I find disagreeable, I realise that it's a case where I differ in my beliefs more or less with the principles of the Catholic faith rather than his individual ideals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

it was his religeon his belief you cannot go against your belief can you? he couldnt because he was leader of that religeon he represented that religeon he couldnt do anything to change it but hopefully the next pope will shine some light witht he condom thing

---

I think Shoden actually makes a good point. Given that he is the leader of the church, his beliefs are going to be immensely deep-rooted - the church isn't going to appoint a leader that doesn't uphold their morals to the fullest extent. Relative to the general conservatism of the Catholic faith, though, John Paul II had some progressive ideas. I certainly think the church is better off as a result of his time as Pope.

Quote:

---

The U.S. is a secular nation, and one of the major principals on which the country was founded is supposedly "seperation of church and state", which implies an absolute freedom of religion among its citizens and no religious influence in government.

---

I'd just like to point out that the entire bolded part of the above quote is false.

The only mentioning of religion in the Constitution is in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "the government shall make no laws that either endorse or exclude religion" or something very similar. Everything else is PC bull. The "seperation of church and state" is a myth, coined sometime in the past few decades.

Whether the Pope did mostly good or bad, whether he's too religious to be acknowledged by the American government or not... it's just some flags down for a couple of days or something. I, personally, could not care less.

Then again, I've been just on this rush towards ignoring everyone's differences lately due to... everything around me. So maybe I'll change my mind. But the first mentioning of "reserved for Americans blah blah" brought back my rush of annoyance and angered my face.

In honor of the Pope they should make two statues: One for people to visit and bow to, and the other for people to pee on. That way everyone will be happy. Until one of the one's peeing realizes he wants to be able to pee on the other statue, and then we can have a war about it where the heathens drop condoms on those other types and they scream and they can all go to Hell together where they will have a chance meeting with the Pope as he's heading out for a meeting with the Director of Fire Poking in the Catholic not-as-great-as-you-thought-when-you-were-alive District but that wont matter to me because I will still be alive because Christians believe in propor condom use and going to Heaven which is why we are the superior race and are looking forward to the occurance of the afformentioned events.

Quote:

---

George W. Bush, the country's leader, is of the Catholic faith and there's an obvious religious influence in his political platform.

---

That is completely, one hundred percent false.


And that is, of course sarcasm on your part, Shlup. Right?

Which part?

Eh, Bush is most definately NOT Roman Catholic. There's only been one Catholic Presdent....and he got shot in Dallas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

George W. Bush, the country's leader, is of the Catholic faith and there's an obvious religious influence in his political platform.

---

That is completely, one hundred percent false.

---

...what? How is that false? Are you saying his anti-gay marriage platform isn't influenced by his personal religious beliefs?

EDIT: I meant the part about the influence; not the part about Catholicism. :p

Quote:

---

And that is, of course sarcasm on your part, Shlup. Right?

---

I doubt it. Shlup likes the idea of peeing on things. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

Which part?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shlup

In honor of the Pope they should make two statues: One for people to visit and bow to, and the other for people to pee on. That way everyone will be happy. Until one of the one's peeing realizes he wants to be able to pee on the other statue, and then we can have a war about it where the heathens drop condoms on those other types and they scream and they can all go to Hell together where they will have a chance meeting with the Pope as he's heading out for a meeting with the Director of Fire Poking in the Catholic not-as-great-as-you-thought-when-you-were-alive District but that wont matter to me because I will still be alive because Christians believe in propor condom use and going to Heaven which is why we are the superior race and are looking forward to the occurance of the afformentioned events.

---

That part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

...what? How is that false? Are you saying his anti-gay marriage platform isn't influenced by his personal religious beliefs?

EDIT: I meant the part about the influence; not the part about Catholicism.

---

Yes, I was talking about the part where you had said "Bush is of the Catholic faith". That would be a false statement, but I have no doubt that Bush is influenced by his religious beliefs. Because he is. (However, it's because of his religious beliefs that Karl Rove decided to make him the President. It's no secret that the republicans are claiming the religious moral highground for the sole purpose of getting votes. I doubt Karl Rove even believes in god.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

That part.

---

I'm afraid I don't get your meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shulup.

they scream and they can all go to Hell together where they will have a chance meeting with the Pope as he's heading out for a meeting with the Director of Fire Poking in the Catholic not-as-great-as-you-thought-when-you-were-alive District but that wont matter to me because I will still be alive because Christians believe in propor condom use and going to Heaven which is why we are the superior race and are looking forward to the occurance of the afformentioned events.

---

How 'bout just that part then?

Don't mock my beliefs! *pees on you*

So, anyway, the Pope is cool. Everyone has flaws, except for those other people who didn't but they died too so whatever, but John Paul II didn't have that many flaws, and he was good looking.

Here in Portugal in my school we also have it... I think is good...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

That is completely, one hundred percent false.

---

I know that, silly. I was just testing you.

Posting in a thread about the leader of the Catholic church + in response to Shoden's statement about a Catholic America + posting late at night while on four hours of sleep = me inadvertently interchanging Catholicism and Christianity as being synonyms. Just ignore that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sepho

I know that, silly. I was just testing you.

---

ofc you were :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

The Pope was a great human being. He did more good for people than almost any individual that was ever honored by flying the flag at half. He DESERVED the honor, he spent a lifetime dedicated to the helping of others...

---

And he has also caused many people to be hated. homosexuals for instance were declared a part of the ideology of evil. The man was not helpful to the world at all. He told others how to run their lives, was close minded, and above all else, feeble. In his last 6-7 years as pope, all he did was read statements made by the Council of Cardinals, because in the end, he has no real power after his health reaches a certain stage. That is because he is thought to be incapable of making rational and clear ideas for the church itself.

Quote:

---

America is a catholic country

---

America was founded by separatists fleeing the church.

Quote:

---

I agree that the pope did good, but he did a lot of bad too.

---

*concur*



Though, I don't mind the flags being lowered, I think, because he is not someone who was from the United States, that it should be lowered for a day. no more. no less...

And let's be honest, this could go on for another week or so... Reagan's half mast stopped about 3 weeks after he died. Respect is one thing, sometimes, we overdue it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marick

And he has also caused many people to be hated. homosexuals for instance were declared a part of the ideology of evil. The man was not helpful to the world at all. He told others how to run their lives, was close minded, and above all else, feeble. In his last 6-7 years as pope, all he did was read statements made by the Council of Cardinals, because in the end, he has no real power after his health reaches a certain stage. That is because he is thought to be incapable of making rational and clear ideas for the church itself.

---

Agreed.

Also, I'd like to point out that the pope didn't have to follow any of the doctrines of the church, he chose to. You shouldn't say "I want to be Catholic" and then join the church and get told what to think(although sadly that happens quite often), you should have a belief structure and find a religion or whatnot that works with that. No one made the pope hate gays, hate birth control or love Jesus, he made a concious choice to do that. So when you say that he had to do these things, no, he did not. Not only was he the man with the power to try and make changes if he saw them necessary, he could always step down if he didn't agree with the church, or not even become the pope for that matter. The pope became the pope because he agreed with all of the church's teachings 110%.

Reading "Pope" next "hate" is simultaneously funny and completely antithetical, and shows how little you know of the Catholic beliefs. That said, some catholics forget about that aspect too. If you were him and were convinced to your core that making them stop *insert behavior condemned by the Church is how you will save them because you wish their good, would you let them go to hell or try to save them? Personally, while Roman Catholic, I disagreed with some of these aspects (homosexuality, birth control are okay to me, for example), but I know that the Pope doesn't say this or that because he "hates" people. Also, the doctrine will evolve, it's slow, but it's happened before and will happen in the future.

About having a belief structure and finding the religion that fits... good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

Also, the doctrine will evolve, it's slow, but it's happened before and will happen in the future.

---

Slow's one way of wording it. Since they admitted the world is round about 40 years ago, homosexuality will be embraced by the church around the year 2400.

the leader of 1 billion catholics dies and you think that the USA showing a mark of respect is out of order, i think you neglect the importance of the man.

Importance is relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

Also, the doctrine will evolve, it's slow, but it's happened before and will happen in the future.

---

Slow's one way of wording it. Since they admitted the world is round about 40 years ago, homosexuality will be embraced by the church around the year 2400.

---

It was admitted long before, it's only the formal recognition that took long. Same goes with priests, I know a lot who interpret differently (read: disagree) the doctrine and what people should be allowed to do. These are the ones who matter imho, and that you conveniently ignore.

i think you'll find that america is currently in the non isolationist period of it's international relations cycle so it is quite relative.

I can see how it would anger you that flags are at half cast for Pope John Paul II, but Imo its understandable, he was a great person and was very influential. Honouring people but lowering your flag to half cast should be open to anybody, not just American citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

Also, the doctrine will evolve, it's slow, but it's happened before and will happen in the future.

---

Slow's one way of wording it. Since they admitted the world is round about 40 years ago, homosexuality will be embraced by the church around the year 2400.

---

It was admitted long before, it's only the formal recognition that took long. Same goes with priests, I know a lot who interpret differently (read: disagree) the doctrine and what people should be allowed to do. These are the ones who matter imho, and that you conveniently ignore.

---

Regardless of whomelse I ignore or recognize, the pope's the one I'm talking about here, and he didn't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

He (and his church) regularly told followers that if they didn't act a certain way, like vote for certain politicians, they were going to hell.

He (and his church) condemn any form of birth control, including condoms, even when only worn for protection against STD's. Many third world countries are highly catholic and STD's are spreading at an alarming rate, even among married (non-promiscuous) people, and for fear of hell and damnation they don't use condom's, even furthering the problem.

He (and his church's) doctrine are designed to promote the catholic church and increase it's population, not to spread the word of God.

---

Note the "and his church" at each line.

Fair enough.

The Pope made sweeping changes in the Catholic Church, including many of the things that anti-Catholics hated most about it, and perhaps most importantly (especially in the preception of non-Catholics like myself), his work in secular matters. He helped to smash Communism--not only through Solidarity in Poland, but all over the world, and thus bring down an empire that made the Nazis look like pikers.

It wouldn't matter if the Pope was Catholic, Southern Baptist, Muslim, or Atheist--he did a lot of great things, and the man deserves some respect.

i wouldn't stop watching that channel.see:
my aunt married the pope's cousen and my whole family are in tears.i can't believe that he died.

Quote:

---

The Pope made sweeping changes in the Catholic Church, including many of the things that anti-Catholics hated most about it, and perhaps most importantly (especially in the preception of non-Catholics like myself), his work in secular matters. He helped to smash Communism--not only through Solidarity in Poland, but all over the world, and thus bring down an empire that made the Nazis look like pikers.

---

But wait...I thought Reagan brought down communism all by himself?

I think the death of the Pope is enough of a moment of international mourning to warrant the American flag at half mast.

Well said, eestlinc.

The people who disagree with America mourning the loss of the Pope are using the same logic that would demand no government buildings lower their flag for the death of a president, because that would be supportinga political party.

Quote:

---

America was founded by separatists fleeing the church.

---

They were fleeing religious persecution by the protestant church.

Quote:

---

And he has also caused many people to be hated. homosexuals for instance were declared a part of the ideology of evil. The man was not helpful to the world at all.

---

Where the hell did you get a stupid idea like that from? Alot of religious tolerance and unity between different faiths can be accredited to him. He tried very hard to bring peace between different faiths. The man believes that homosexuality is evil, but he most certainly does not look down on them. He realizes that it is Gods duty, NOT HIS, to judge others.

Also, the fall of the Soviet Union can, in part, be accredited to the Pope. But of course, he didn't do ANYTHING for the world. Not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marick

America was founded by separatists fleeing the church.

---

America was founded by the Spanish Conquistadores at St Augustine. English America was founded in the 1500's by British imperialists at the Roanoke colony, which was followed by Jamestown in 1603. The pilgrims didn't arrive until 1620.

Anyway. They wouldn't lower the flag for the Dalai Lama. *grumble grumble*

Yeah. It's really not a big deal to me. Wow. This would've pissed me off royally a few years ago. I guess the Eightfold Path ISN'T a load of bollocks after all.

how many buddists are in america?

Quote:

---

The people who disagree with America mourning the loss of the Pope are using the same logic that would demand no government buildings lower their flag for the death of a president, because that would be supportinga political party.

---

I no longer disagree with the lowering of the flag...but that analogy is not even remotely correct. There's nothing in the Constitution that the government isn't allowed to support a political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I no longer disagree with the lowering of the flag...but that analogy is not even remotely correct. There's nothing in the Constitution that the government isn't allowed to support a political party.

---

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government isn't supposed to recognize a world leader, regardless of his religion, either. The analogy was that people disagree with the flag being flown at half-mast for the Pope because they don't like the Pope, or his party. Just like people would disagree with the flag being flown at half-mast for a president because they didn't like the president, or his party. Or, possibly, even that certain president's religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gokufusionss1

how many buddists are in america?

---

Around 500,000 :D

Quote:

---

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government isn't supposed to recognize a world leader, regardless of his religion, either. The analogy was that people disagree with the flag being flown at half-mast for the Pope because they don't like the Pope, or his party. Just like people would disagree with the flag being flown at half-mast for a president because they didn't like the president, or his party. Or, possibly, even that certain president's religion.

---

There are clauses in the Constitution and domestic policies against the government endorsing religion - there's nothing about political parties. The analogy between the two is absurd.

The pope was a very much loved and respected man, although I partly agree that the half -mast thing should have stayed for american citizen's only, as it is a tradition for the american public. I also believe that everyone should have paid some respect to the pope for his role amongst the world. I do believe that making a certain religion forced to respect a different religion's leader is wrong, but only in that aspect. We should have respected the pope as a great leader and respect him for all he did for that religion and the world. Not because he was a leader of the catholic church. Regardless of what religion he was, he had strength and gave people hope. Isn't that something to respect him for. It is wrong to judge people by their religions or their races. They are people too and they can be just as great as any one of us. We should respect them for how they treat people as a person and not treat them differently because they're in a different religion.

Does anyone else agree?