You got that straight.. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bashing the dead in general is pretty low-brow, but what I can't understand is why Mr. Bush decided to order all flags at half-mast today during his funeral. This honor is reserved for american _political_ leaders, NOT foreign religious leaders. It's just another blatent disregard for the separation of church and state. Bush makes it seem that the US is a christian country and that christianity is the only religion worthy of his endorsement (I guess they DID get him elected). What if a great muslim leader were to die, would he fly the flags at half mast? I seriously doubt it (those people are 'evil', right?).

if you are truly interested in debating this *i* think you should ask it in the current events forum.

I bet he would fly the flags at half mast if Tony Blair died. Just guessing, that is. I think he liked the Pope, and respected him as a leader, therefore he is showing his respect now. Maybe not the most popular thing to do, but I gotta give him props for it.

Actually, the pope is also the head of the Vatican state, so he is also a political leader.

While I understand where you are coming from and agree that G. Bush probably wouldn't fly the flag at half mast for a dead Muslim religious leader I don't really see the problem with showing respect for the dead Pope by doing this. Technically he was a foreign political leader. Countries honor one person and not another all the time...why should the death of a US Senator warrant a flag-lowering and not the death of a grocery store clerk? If any country in the world had a truly fair and equal society then both these deaths would be seen as having the same importance. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and things are not like that most of the time. I see your point but I don't really have a problem with the flag being flown at half-mast for the Pope. BTW I am not an American and not religious as I said before and I would have no problem with my country flying the flag at half-mast for the Pope. Just my 2 cents.

Northraven, I don't agree with the grocery clerk getting same props as a US senator. The senator in theory affects many more people's lives, that's why he deservers more props. The fairness is still there, because the grocery clerk was entitled to the same education, he could've made something of himself and got democratically elected to be a senator, but we get off topic...

Let's keep this discussion away from a religious debate.

This subject is still banned, remember?

[ 04-08-2005, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

For a week now, television has been limited to coverage of the Pope--his history, funeral arrangements, legacy. In the end it's been a bit repetitive, but most people don't seem to notice.

Streets are lined with candles and I've seen people quietly sobbing for no apparent reason.

At 9:37 this evening, for 5 minutes, most of Poland is going to shut off all the lights, computers, tvs, radios etc., and quietly honour the passing of an icon.

To the cynical of us, the Pope was a flawed man who may not have precisely deserved this level of response to his death. Or maybe it has more to do with people coping with the end of an era, sensing the passage of time.

But you could also say that, in an era of iconoclastism and cynicism, the Pope was a spiritual beacon for millions and millions of those who needed such guidance. He represented some measure of certainty in an uncertain age.

No mere political leader could command such international respect and love.

(IMHO)

Hmm guess I didn't notice cos I don't have a TV in my halls of residence :(

Luvian - when has a topic being banned ever stopped anyone discussing it? I know personally if I got into a heated subject, I'd probably say my piece and accept getting banned rather than stay quiet...
this board's been a bit boring lately anyway, maybe we need some heated debate to liven it up ;)

[ 04-08-2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]