american atheists: re pope death

[Enforcer Talen]

got this in my email:

ATHEISTS: NO TAXPAYER JUNKET TO PAPAL FUNERAL AS BUSH
PREPARES TO LEAD U.S. DELEGATION

American Atheists today called upon President Bush to not use public
funds for an official government delegation traveling to Rome for the
Friday funeral of Pope John Paul II.

Mr. Bush issued a statement through the White House press office
saying that the purpose of the trip "is to express our gratitude to
the almighty for such a man..."

The president and first Lady Laura Bush are schedule to depart for
Rome on Wednesday, and return to Crawford, Texas immediately after the
burial. Bush is the first sitting president to attend a pope's
funeral. Late last night, it was announced that former Presidents
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will also be in the official
delegation, along with Secretary of State Condolezza Rice.

"Bush intends to pray and thank the 'almighty,' which renders the
presidential excursion to Rome a religious pilgrimage," said American
Atheists President Ellen Johnson to reporters earlier this afternoon.
"It is unfair of our president and our government to use public funds
for such a purpose. If Bush or anyone else wants to attend the papal
funeral and pray, they should do so using their own money or private
contributions, not funds from the American people."

There are unconfirmed reports that a number of prominent U.S.
officials, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- a
hard-shell Roman Catholic -- will also be traveling to the funeral and
might intend to use public funds to pay for the trips. Scalia's plan
was revealed on cable news over the weekend, but the story has quickly
faded from view.

Did politics play a role in selecting who would be in the official
U.S. junket to Friday's funeral?

Former President Jimmy Carter had expressed interest in attending the
event, but no mention of this was made by the White House when it
announced the list of names for the U.S. delegation. According to
Associated Press, "it was not immediately clear why Carter was not
included."

THE HOOPLA CONTINUES

Meanwhile, saturation media coverage of the papal funeral continues
amidst reports that Friday's event will attract "millions" of people
and become, as CBS news claimed this evening, "one of the great events
in human history." Indeed, all three major networks lead their
nightly broadcasts with segments from Rome, including details of the
lavish burial as well as speculative reports on who might be chosen as
John Paul II's successor. European news agencies are saying that as
many as 2 million Polish citizens are flocking to the Holy City for
the burial of their native son.

While Americans are being bombarded with the constant hoopla
surrounding the papal funeral and plans to elect a new pontiff, there
is little attention in U.S. media about how this story is playing out
in other parts of the world, particularly the Middle East. Arab
networks have been giving what the Times of India described as
"unprecedented coverage" to events at the Vatican, "provoking anger
from Islamic extremists" who see the satellite network spin as further
evidence of Western -- and Christian -- cultural incursions. The
Al-Jazeera network along with the Saudi-controlled Al-Arabiya stations
have been providing live coverage along with historical documentaries
about John Paul II. In March, 2000 the pontiff visited the
Palestinian territories and Israel where he was received by
enthusiastic crowds. Fundamentalist Islamic websites have been
critical of the mainstream Arab media coverage, though, describing the
pope as an "old tyrant."

FLAG FIGHTS

Back in America, a handful of state governors are determined to follow
President Bush's call that U.S. flags be lowered to half staff to
commemorate the pope's death.

Kansas Governor Sebelius issued a statement declaring: "I join with
my fellow Catholics and the faithful throughout the world in mourning
the death of Pope John Paul II. His papacy touched millions of lives
and inspired young people in every nation to embrace faith, peace and
understanding, sacrifice and service..."

He applauded Mr. Bush's call for lowering the American flag to salute
Pope John Paul II adding: "I urge all Kansans to join in honoring the
life of this sacred leader."

Governor Baldacci of Maine has also announced support for the flag
display, and ordered that the official state flag also be flown at
half staff for the same period.

AN AUNCULAR FIGURE, BUT U.S. CATHOLICS STRAYING

Despite all of the public enthusiasm, everything from public masses
and the saturation media coverage to gushing statements of government
officials, there appears a growing disconnect between grief for John
Paul and support for many of his doctrinal policies.

The pontiff was very much a defender of traditionalist Roman Catholic
doctrine, and allowed conservatives within the Holy See to retain a
tight grip in church administration and policies. But American
Catholics, while admiring John Paul II as a man or avuncular figure
are at odds with many of the church's teachings on critical issues. A
USA TODAY/GALLUP/CNN poll released recently indicates that 78 percent
believe in the use of artificial birth control, and 63 percent think
priests should be permitted to marry. Almost 60 percent would like
the Vatican to drop its opposition to the use of stem cell research;
and 55 percent feel that women should be permitted to join the
priesthood.

For further information:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican2.htm
(Gelli arrest is another chapter in sordid Vatican bank scandal)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican4.htm
(Pope running 'saint factory'? Beatifies monk accused of fraud,
philandering...)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican5.htm
(Vatican corruption)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican7.htm
(Vatican status at United Nations)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat7b.htm
(The Vatican as political state, religious sect)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican8.htm
(Bush chases Catholic vote, affirms support for special Vatican
status)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican9.htm
(Vatican accused of subverting rights for women)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat10.htm)
(House votes to retain Vatican status)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat11.htm
Vatican asks court, US government to dismiss suit over Nazi gold

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat12.htm
(Fleeing sex scandal, pope canonizes huckster friar)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat13.htm
(Report on Calvi autopsy, Vatican bank scandal)

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat14.htm
(Vatican fights gay marriage)

**

THE DEATH OF A POPE
by Edwin Kagin

(Editor's note: Friend, philosopher, raconteur and attorney Edwin
Kagin -- also founder of Camp Quest and Kentucky State Director for
American Atheists -- has some thoughts on the death of a pope...)

THAT "Pope," who assumed the name of John Paul II (J2P2 for the
sarcastically inclined), avoiding April Fool's Day, died April 2,
2005, right on schedule, in time for the nightly news and Sunday
sermons, with an audience waiting outside his window, and the press
waiting at their delivery systems. Prior to his death, the electronic
news and the morning newspapers, were speaking of him in the past
tense. If he had not died on that day, there would have been
inconveniences.

Opposed to birth control. Opposed to the rights of gays. Opposed to
the rights of women. Opposed to the right to have an abortion. He
made a virtue of human suffering rather than working for meaningful
ways to prevent human suffering. He sought ways to deal with the
persistent problem of so many priests of his church raping children --
mostly same sex children. Perhaps he could have suggested that they
obey the law. He exonerated Galileo, and he apologized to the Jewish
people for his church having not condemned, and maybe even having
helped their un-excommunicated communicant Adolph Hitler.

Many of the faithful thought he was correct in all things. And they
obeyed him. Except when he condemned capital punishment and the war
in Iraq. The pope, they figured, got it wrong on those -- that
abortion is god-prohibited murder, but that killing people in prisons
and on the battlefields is fine no matter what the Vicar of Christ has
to say on such matters. The dead Supreme Pontiff also thought the
teaching of evolution was okay. Many think he was wrong on that too,
and that they are more qualified to decide where people came from than
the chief primate.

The President of the United States is lowering the flag of our country
to half staff for this foreign religious leader who is also the head
of a foreign state. Our American President said god had sent this
person as a "hero for the ages." There is talk of making him a saint.
He made more people saints than any other previous pope. He
reinstituted, after a lapse of some centuries, teachings on how to
perform exorcisms. Apparently, demon possession is on the upswing.

At least the news put the aftermath of the Terri Shiavo death on the
back burner.

Vatican Hill in Rome had been the headquarters of the religion of
Mithraism prior to Christianity being made the official religion of
the Roman Empire in 325 E.E. Now you know why the home of the pope is
called "The Vatican."

One might muse just why the Vatican has not been required to register
as a foreign lobby when its leaders are attempting to force their
views into American laws and to force our lawmakers to vote as the
Vatican thinks they should. And just why the representatives of the
Holy See are not charged with a crime when they try to intimidate
voters into voting for persons thought acceptable to the faith.

Did you know that before a pope is pronounced dead, he is smashed on
the head with a silver hammer to make sure? My Helen, the doctor says
"Why didn't they use a stethoscope?"

Why didn't they do a lot of things differently? If they had, we might
inhabit the stars right now.

A replacement pope will be selected soon. Watch for the white smoke.
If you don't know what that means, you are about to find out.

-- Edwin

(Mr. Kagin welcomes E-mail through ekagin@atheists.org )

[Master of Ossus]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

[Aaron]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Well isn't the Vatican an independent state? And the Pope is the head of that state. As such the US should pay their respects to the head of the Vatican state as they would any other nation.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Well isn't the Vatican an independent state? And the Pope is the head of that state. As such the US should pay their respects to the head of the Vatican state as they would any other nation.

Yes it is. However, its obvious that the respect is being paid to the Pope as a religous head and not a political (head of state) one. To put it in persepctive, when was the last time you heard of 3 Presidents going to the funeral of the head of a tiny country like San Marino or Lichtenstein?

[TimothyC]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Well isn't the Vatican an independent state? And the Pope is the head of that state. As such the US should pay their respects to the head of the Vatican state as they would any other nation.

Exactly. If the Queen of England died, whould they still be complaining about the President going? Afterall She's the head of the Anglican Church.

[RedImperator]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Well isn't the Vatican an independent state? And the Pope is the head of that state. As such the US should pay their respects to the head of the Vatican state as they would any other nation.

Yes it is. However, its obvious that the respect is being paid to the Pope as a religous head and not a political (head of state) one. To put it in persepctive, when was the last time you heard of 3 Presidents going to the funeral of the head of a tiny country like San Marino or Lichtenstein?

If the president or king or grand poohbah or whoever of San Marino or Lichtenstein wields the political power that comes with being the spiritual leader of one out of every six human beings on Earth, then yes, I fully expect three presidents to attend his funeral.

[wolveraptor]

Meanwhile, saturation media coverage of the papal funeral continues
amidst reports that Friday's event will attract "millions" of people
and become, as CBS news claimed this evening, "one of the great events
in human history."

Wow. That's just sad. Alexander the Great's conquest of the lands between Greece and India is a great event in human history. Caesar crossing the Rubicon is a great event in human history. The creation of the Magna Carta is a great event in human history. The first lunar landing is a really great event in human history (because it identified us as a single species, rather than Jewish, Indian or Spanish). Ghengis Khan creating the largest empire the world has yet seen is a great event in huma history.

Yet another rather generic Pope, who fought progress in genetics and society, dieing, is now considered a great event in human history?

Wow.[/i]

[tharkûn]

The Holy Sea has more diplomats than most, if not all, other cities in the world. As a focal point for international relations it is argueable if the UN is more or less influential than the court the Pope presides over in the Vatican. Whatever one may think of his religion, actions, and personal merit; the pope was a damn powerful personage. Power is not limited to territorial holdings, hell the SMOM gets audiences with presidents and their 'territory' consists of a single office. Marking the passing of powerful individuals is a time honored tradition and the Pope should not be excluded just because he was a theocrat.

In any event the rest of the world has already designated this as a major ceremonial bruhaha. Leaders Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, etc. communities have already paid respects. Numerous other world leaders are going to be attending. If for no other reason than the photo ops and diplomatic potential of gathering that many leaders in one room; the president and a decently sized entourage should attend.

If Bush were not to send an official envoy it would be seen as a major snub against the Catholic Church and frankly right now Bush could use the full and active support of Catholic populations in places like the Phillipines, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Pissing off a huge percentage of the world's population not to honor a world leader just because he also was a theocrat is terrible real politik.

[Durandal]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Agreed. The Queen of England is technically the Head Honcho in the Church of England, yet this reasoning would prevent Bush from showing up at her funeral.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Also, Presidents go on lots of trips that one group or another objects to.

[Terr Fangbite]

All I have to say is:

This is the best objection they can come up with? Get a life dudes.

[Lord Zentei]

Petty bullshit like this gives atheists a bad name. "Get a life?" How about get a clue regarding basic PR?

[Archaic`]

This is just dumb. The Catholic Church is powerful enough that the president of the US simply has to go to any pope's funeral to remember the guy. As for accusations that the pope's death has saturated the media--it's true, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. The media wouldn't show it if it weren't the money-making story.

Agreed. The Queen of England is technically the Head Honcho in the Church of England, yet this reasoning would prevent Bush from showing up at her funeral.

So long as she was being honoured as a head of state of a major nation, rather than as a religious leader, I don't see how this reasoning prevents it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is pretty stupid and petty. It'd come off a lot worse for the US in general if their leader didn't go to pay his respects, regardless of religious or national importance.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This is pretty stupid and petty. It'd come off a lot worse for the US in general if their leader didn't go to pay his respects, regardless of religious or national importance.

I agree. It is to be expected for the United States to send someone in its leadership to attend the Pope's funeral, since JP ver. 2.0.0 was the head of state of the Vatican, which is a sovereign nation, regardless of it's role as the center of the Roman Catholic Church.

Though, usually, we'd get away with sending Vice President Dick Cheney, the Secretary of State, and a couple of ex-presidents to someone's state funeral. After all, that's the real purpose of the Vice President.

Bush's distinctly religious overtones in his statement are disturbing, but we've come to expect them from him. It's normal for Bush, and most funerals tend to involve a whole lot of this prayer and religion, frankly.

But yes, the cause of secularism in the United States tends to be hurt the most by some of its most vocal proponents. It's difficult to convince the average American here that there is no Big Evil Atheist Conspiracy to Destroy the United States when we get reactions like that.

[Petrosjko]

As usual, a dumbass bunch on the fringe gets publicity for saying something stupid, and that colors the perceptions of the more average people who subscribe that that particular belief system/ideology/whatever.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Its not like this will effect anything. If Bush didn't go,he just go to his fucking ranch or some other useless location. And as for taxpayers money, its not like a trip to Europe is anywhere near the billions of dollars that gets wasted on random government bullshit all the time.

[DPDarkPrimus]

American Atheists can be pretty big assholes sometimes.

[General Brock]

Well, I see that I wasn't the only one wondering if JP II actually died April 1. Personaly, I am absolutely sure he did, but his publicist was on the ball.

Why Bush shouldn't go to the funeral? If nothing else the late pope was an influential and popular political figure. The reasons for papal influence aren't conventional, but it is a social reality. This is a better photo-op for Bush than the funerals of his own soldiers.

[Lord Pounder]

Sounds to me like a bunch of college kids decided on their protest of the week. On a side note i personally i resent the grouping term "athiest". Athiesm is not my religion, i have no religon.

[Durandal]

Sounds to me like a bunch of college kids decided on their protest of the week. On a side note i personally i resent the grouping term "athiest". Athiesm is not my religion, i have no religon.

Why? It's perfectly possible to group things in terms of what they lack.

[Darth Wong]

Sounds to me like a bunch of college kids decided on their protest of the week. On a side note i personally i resent the grouping term "athiest". Athiesm is not my religion, i have no religon.

Why? It's perfectly possible to group things in terms of what they lack.

Case in point: "baldness".

[Lord Pounder]

I fail to see the need to group set of completely different people just because they share a common train, or in this case lack a common trait.

[Molyneux]

I fail to see the need to group set of completely different people just because they share a common train, or in this case lack a common trait.

You mean like not grouping all Christians together just because they believe in Jesus Christ (with many distinctions between the different sects), or all liberals (despite the wide spectrum of opinions), or all science-fiction books despite the fact that very few of them have more than one or two things in common, if that?

Oh, wait...we do group all those things like that.

Atheists are grouped together because of that unifying trait - the definition of an atheist is an individual with that value for that trait. Other facets of their personality or beliefs don't enter into it.

[wolveraptor]

note that every group can be grouped by something they lack. Liberals lack conservatism, so they could be called "unconservatives" or something. Christians could be said to lack atheism.

The fact that you or others are united under atheism does not mean we have a monolithic, "set-in-stone" code of ethics. By definition, each atheist must choose his own set of values.