The Irony of Bush attending the pope's funeral

from JoeUser Forums




President Bush will be the first president to attend the funeral of a pope. How ironic that our president should choose to honor Pope John Paul II since the pope so fundamentally disagreed with the Bush policies.

With the exceptions of gay marriage and abortion, President Bush and the pope had very little in common. They disagreed on the death the death penalty, the Iraq war and the social programs embraced by Bush and his conservative supporters. Politics does in fact make strange bed fellows.
politics
27,117 views 81 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will certainly not be going, it would wrong for me to do so as a devout English Protestant.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some lame publicist probably told Bush to go because it would make him look good. That man can never look good. Stay home bunker boy!
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Takes a truly great man {PRESIDENT BUSH} to forgive and forget disagreements in this time of sadness over the Popes death.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Takes a truly great man {PRESIDENT BUSH}..."

Yes, I am sure the focus of the media coverage will be on George and how brave it is that he is going.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great man and Bush do not relate!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Sir Peter Maxwell(Anonymous User)Posted: Monday, April 04, 2005" Takes a truly great man {PRESIDENT BUSH}..."Yes, I am sure the focus of the media coverage will be on George and how brave it is that he is going.


pish tosh.. poof off buggerboy.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: COL GenePosted: Monday, April 04, 2005Great man and Bush do not relate!


un huh. sure gene.. have you been taking your medicine?? for you know?.... if not put the computer keyboard DOWN, back away shake a pill in your hand and drink water and repeat after me. BUSH IS A GREAT MAN, KIND forgiving, all knowing.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Except for Bush 41 and his contacts Bush 43 would be an Asst. Mgr at a 7/11 if he were luckey. If you look at what George W. accomplished without the help of his father and his fathers contacts there in NOTHING.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Except for Bush 41 and his contacts Bush 43 would be an Asst. Mgr at a 7/11 if he were luckey. If you look at what George W. accomplished without the help of his father and his fathers contacts there in NOTHING.




MM is quite corret. Take your medicine and calm down! And just what "is" your point? That your not allowed to use your fathers help? That the very concept of this is bad? Do you have a son? Would you not help him as a father should?
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Except for Bush 41 and his contacts Bush 43 would be an Asst. Mgr at a 7/11 if he were luckey. If you look at what George W. accomplished without the help of his father and his fathers contacts there in NOTHING.


and that makes you insanely jealous since you are just as incompetent (if not more so) as W., and you've never been successful, right?

More blather from you.


Hmm, Bush, a deeply religous individual, who makes no excuses about his faith is no more out of place and no more ironic in attending the Popes funeral than would be the idiot you voted for. The idiot that still hasn't signed the standard forms that would demonstrate how John Kerry dressed up his military service. Ignoring even that, you also voted for the same individual that claimed to be a Catholic, but couldn't reconcile his own support of the killing of completely innocent lives via abortion and also couldn't necessarily show where he (unlike Bush) could follow the scripture in exercising an eye for an eye (in the case of capital punishment).

Had the loser you supported won the election, would he have attended the funeral? Would he have been welcomed by the church?

Keep railing, the green (monster of envy) in you reminds me much of the spring.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Darn, I see that the good Dr. responded while I was typing, though it seems like we could just add dittos on each others replies
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
These guys just love their dubya, ColGene. Nothing you or I can say, no amount of reasoning or discussion, no amount of pointing out the facts can get these guys to pull their heads out of whereever it is that they hide their heads. They love their dubya, right or wrong. Jingoistic lunacy.

I don't begrudge dubya for going to the pope's funeral, per se. But, this lowlife scumsucker was, and still is totally absent from the funerals of any of our own troops who died for his damned folly. Where was/is he when other leaders die? I dunno. I remember kind of distinctly that he sent in his henchmen for other funerals, but didn't go himself, but I cannot remember who the funerals were for. Also, I doubt he'd be at other great leaders' funerals of other faiths, ie the Dalai Lama or any significant rabbi.

Like always, dubya appears to be pandering yet again.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

How ironic that our president should choose to honor Pope John Paul II since the pope so fundamentally disagreed with the Bush policies.

I don't find it ironic.  You don't have to 100% agree with somebody to have great respect for them.

Where was/is he when other leaders die? I dunno. I remember kind of distinctly that he sent in his henchmen for other funerals, but didn't go himself, but I cannot remember who the funerals were for.

It's not customary for the President to attend funerals of fallen soldiers.  It is customary for the Governor of the home state of the soldier to attend their funeral, if any at all attend.

How would the President determine whose to attend?  Should he attend all of them?  Would one, or a few, be considered more important than others? 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
For you Bush supporters who claim he is this great Christian, explain his budget cuts that impact the poor, the old and the children? Explain the deaths of our military and the tens of thousands of Iraqis that died as the result of our attacking that country. Explain the death penality. I can not find Christ teaching any of those things. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve when it suits him and turns his back on the most basic teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is nothing wrong with getting SOME help from your parents. In the case of George W. Bush he got all his help from his parents. Without his father and his father's contacts Bush wouldn't accomplished most of the things he is credited with throughout his life. He would not been an officer in the National Guard, gone to Yale or Harvard, formed his two great businesses ventures, been manager of the Texas Rangers, governor of Texas or President of the United States. Other than that he would have done OK. That is not jealousy its reality.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top


For you Bush supporters who claim he is this great Christian, explain his budget cuts that impact the poor, the old and the children? Explain the deaths of our military and the tens of thousands of Iraqis that died as the result of our attacking that country. Explain the death penality. I can not find Christ teaching any of those things. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve when it suits him and turns his back on the most basic teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Good Col., would you please show me where in the Bible it says the leader of any given nation should take tax money from its inhabitants to support said poor, old, and children? Rather than looking at his tax policies, why don't you look at his personal financial records, and from there decide whether or not he is doing his part for the above mentioned peoples. Are the poor, old, and children, and their well-being, mentioned in the Bible, and more specifically the New Testament? Yes. Who is tasked to caring for them? The church. Not the state. "Budget cuts that impact the poor, the old, and the children" have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics, economics, and effectively running a country.

Or how about the passages where the Bible forbids a state from executing lawbreakers? Does the Bible forbid murder? Yes. However, I believe you will be hard-pressed to find any mention of state executions by Christ in the New Testament. Furthermore, if you know anything of the story of Christ, he wilfully submitted to such an execution, without condemning it any way. Even as others were crucified next to him, he made no condemnation of the Roman State for doing so, but rather offered the criminals forgiveness for their sins, acknowledging that A) they had in fact sinned, B) they were in fact going to die for their sins, and C) they had an offer of eternal salvation even as they paid the proper price for their actions, that being the law of the land. State executions are not the equivalent of murder according to the Bible.

The fact that people have died as a result of the Iraq war has nothing to do with Bush's religion. Why is that seperation of church and state is required, but when someone acting from a Christian basis does something you don't like, they must immediately be mixed, and everything he does must have something to do with his beliefs? Defending this nation is Bush's job, as you are so quick to point out when it concerns border security. Bush acted in the way he thought best. Did people die as a result? Yes. Does that have anything to do with his religious beliefs? No.

I am not a Christian by any means, but I have taken the time to thoroughly study the Bible, as well as the Koran and Torah to a somewhat lesser extent. However, I find it very frustrating when a person such as yourself is so quick to throw out accusations at a man concerning a subject of which you seem to hold little knowledge. Go study the New Testament, then come back and detail how Bush is "turning his back on the most basic teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ." Because to anybody knowledgeable of the subject, it is quite obvious you are simply attempting to find one more method of spreading hate and dissemination rather than making a valid argument with a valid, researched, and well thought-out point.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am a Christian and I have read the New Testament. The policies we are following turn our backs on the very types of people Jesus taught we should help. For many years the church was the only source of help for the poor and the sick. Today that responsibility is shared between charities including churches and governments. Bush hides behind the argument that faith based organizations need to help those in need. It is fine to encourage more help from churches and charitable groups but the reality is the need far exceeds anything these groups will collectively provide. When you look at the policies supported by Bush and the conservatives they do not follow the spirit of Christianity. They selectively picked things like abortion and gay marriage and then turn their back on helping the poor , the young and the old. Conservative philosophy is they had an opportunity to make their way and if you didn't - too bad.

The point of this blog is how different the philosophy of the Pope is from the actions of George W. Bush. Anyone who has looked at the reality understands, with the exception of life issues such as birth control, dying, contraception and prohibitions against gay marriage, the teachings of the pope as he understood Christianity and the actions followed by our president and the conservative Republicans are totally disparate.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
I don't believe you can effectively argue they have "turn[ed] their back[s] on helping the poor." Forcing tax-paying citizens to cover for those unable to help themselves, regardless of their circumstances, has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible does not dictate how a state should care for its own, or how a Christian leading a state should do so. Obviously, he should act in a manner befitting his beliefs. Cutting social programs doesn't disregard or break those beliefs. If he believes faith-based programs should cover the needy, and states so and encourages it with his own charitable gifts, how is that acting against his Christianity? Just because he diverts government money from doing so says nothing about his love or lack thereof for the poor. There comes a point when you can only throw so much money at people before it becomes a sink. Rather than increasing spending, perhaps time should be taken to clean up the bureaucracy, or some other solution that would make the programs more effective.

If it is so important that Bush delegate government mone for the care of our poor, wouldn't it also follow that he should do so for all underprivileged everywhere. The Bible cares not for nationality or race - take for example the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. He asked her for water, and then proceeded to help her with her tasks, which was unheard for a Jew at the time. Doesn't it follow that if Bushes Christianity dictates he must use government money to care for our poor, he should do so for all poor everywhere? Of course this is ridiculous, but that is because it is not Bush's job to do so, according to our way of governing. You can argue he has a moral, or Christian obligation to make sure it is so, but that should be from his own pocket, not yours and mine. This is not to say that the government should shut off all aid to our own underprivileged, but I don't think that you can effectively argue that by making cuts he is turning his back on his religion. In all reality, if that was really the issue, all the aid given to our poor should instead be diverted the actual food and shelterless in other parts of the world. Our "suffering" have it quite easy compared to the poorest of the poor in Haiti, Cuba, and even Mexico, not to mention vast numbers in Africa.

I did not mean to come across rude or harsh in my previous post, but I still feel this is being used more as another issue to bash Bush on than something you really care that much about, for the reasons I stated above, i.e. why the US and why not the world, etc.

Also, I must ask, are you Catholic? The teachings, thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, and declarations of the Pope have little bearing outside of Catholicism. The Pope is surely learned and knowledgeable in his beliefs, but a non-Catholic really has no reason to respect his teachings any more than any other learned Evangelical pastor or Episcopalian priest. Bush, as I understand it, is a Methodist...what does it matter if "the teachings of the Pope as he understood Christianity and the actions followed by our president and the conservative Republicans are totally disparate?" My parents are strong evangelical Christians, and the pope has no bearing on them or their beliefs whatsoever, nor does he on Bush, or any conservative Republican or liberal Democrat who doesn't follow Catholic teachings.

Many of the Bishops in the United States did not agree the Pope on a number of issues, even though they were part of his clergy and indirectly under his command, so to speak. That doesn't mean they were unable to maintain different beliefs and interpretations of various issues. The Pope is not the end-all be-all of Christian correctness.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a Catholic and understand that some of the practices of the Catholic Church do not conform to what American Catholics would like to see nor are they in agreement with my personal philosophy. The issues however such as helping those in need are the ones that I believe Bush ignores. Each country needs to provide help for their citizens. We do help other countries but I believe our first responsibility is to help the millions in this country would not have health care, enough to eat, resources to enjoy even the basic necessities of life such as being able to heat their homes.

The current philosophy takes the money that could be used to help some of these people and hand it to those who are ready have more than they can possibly need does not conform to what Jesus Christ taught. A philosophy that ignores the growing deficit which will burden future generations both rich and poor alike is not a policy but I believe exemplifies the Christian ethic. Although I certainly do not want to see a specific religion in America, this country was founded by Christian men and our laws and morality is grounded in the Christian ethic. The attitude of the conservative Republican which to me is" they had their shot if he didn't succeed or didn't take their shot --To bad! please don't tell me that tax cuts for wealthy are their own money. The fact is we are running a deficit and we have no money to return to the wealthy and until we balance the budget. We really don't have any additional money to help the poor.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
How ironic that our president should choose to honor Pope John Paul II since the pope so fundamentally disagreed with the Bush policies.

I don't find it ironic. You don't have to 100% agree with somebody to have great respect for them.


I agree, Karma. I don't understand how this became an issue of any note, let alone a divisive one.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am not a Catholic and understand that some of the practices of the Catholic Church do not conform to what American Catholics would like to see nor are they in agreement with my personal philosophy. The issues however such as helping those in need are the ones that I believe Bush ignores. Each country needs to provide help for their citizens. We do help other countries but I believe our first responsibility is to help the millions in this country would not have health care, enough to eat, resources to enjoy even the basic necessities of life such as being able to heat their homes.

The current philosophy takes the money that could be used to help some of these people and hand it to those who are ready have more than they can possibly need does not conform to what Jesus Christ taught. A philosophy that ignores the growing deficit which will burden future generations both rich and poor alike is not a policy but I believe exemplifies the Christian ethic. Although I certainly do not want to see a specific religion in America, this country was founded by Christian men and our laws and morality is grounded in the Christian ethic. The attitude of the conservative Republican which to me is" they had their shot if he didn't succeed or didn't take their shot --To bad! please don't tell me that tax cuts for wealthy are their own money. The fact is we are running a deficit and we have no money to return to the wealthy and until we balance the budget. We really don't have any additional money to help the poor.


Once again you danced around the point. Get it right.... It's NOT up to the state to take care of the poor!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is not what most Americans want and it is not what CHRIST taught. Your viewes are what is wrong with Republican conservatives in America. The hell with those poor bastards and the average workers. Just as long as I can have what I want, that is all that counts.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
BUSH IS A GREAT MAN, KIND forgiving, all knowing


All knowing? Aren't we going a wee bit far here?
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
That is not what most Americans want


The Hell it isn't. MOST Americans voted for Bush you loser. Most Americans (excuse me, most U.S.A. voting citizens) sent your losing candidate packing, knowing full well what crap he was peddling, and knowing full well what to expect of George W. Bush.

Most U.S.A. citizens do not support higher taxes.

Most U.S.A. citizens do not support more welfare and government give-aways, most especially not if you include information indicating that the respondent would be required to fork over more of their own money.

Even you COL Gene, as you have done time and again, run away from any possibility of paying more taxes for yourself, and instead you point at others and demand that they pay more and more.

You do not speak for MOST Americans (U.S. citizens) and you know that, yet you continue to behave as if you think you do. Get it through your cranium, you voted for losers, supported losers, and continue to this day to attack those above you because you are filled with jealousy and hatred. You don't want to admit it, but you are greener than an Irish Leprechaun running through a meadow full of shamrocks. Thou shall not covet apparently escapes you.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Given the fundamental differences between the philosophy of the Pope and Bush it's a bit hypocritical to be the first president to attend the popes funeral. If this was such a necessary action, why is has no other president done something like this in the past? This is politics nothing more nothing less by a man who has one skill, that of being a politician.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not find it odd at all that Bush would go to PJ2s Funeral. He was a well respected and accomplished world leader. You can disagree with someone on points but still respect them. Many of my friends and I disagree strongly on any number of issues, but we're all still friends.

Your attempt to jump on Bush over every damn thing discredits whatever valid points you may have. It also shines poorly on those of us on the left who are able to think past the general Bush hatred and think rationally. You, Myrr and Dabe claim constantly to be representative of the nation, that your views are the views of the public. Your views, at the very best, represent less than half the voting public. That assumes that all Democrats agree with you, but a lot don't, so you're representative of an even smaller portion of the voting public.

You really represent no one aside from your self, please stop making claims for the rest of us. This non-Catholic democrat feels embarassed to share the title "liberal" with you and your kind.