Should we not find your blatant bigotry offensive? Aren’t you supposed to be tolerant?
Don26, it is usually a good idea to read through an entire thread before posting. In this thread, I call your attention to Post #43 by pseudotriton ruber ruber.
I’m not sure that you yet have the hang of this particular Forum. We’re here to discuss ideas, (sometimes savagely, although I would prefer civilly), not to simply post angry challenges of (or insults against) other posters.
If you believe that a poster is demonstrating bigotry, you are free to challenge the expression of bigoted ideas, here, or if you must, to move to the BBQ Pit to call that poster names. Simply throwing out a claim of bigotry and insisting that you are offended is not really appropriate.
Calm down and play nice.
[ /Moderating ]
ruber ruber, you almost had me convinced that since it was a state funeral, the President would be assumed to be acting in his official capacity. Therefore, even though he was free to say what he chose, he would have been fairer not to mention religious subjects. (Since this wasn’t the only funeral.)
And then you go and get all reasonable. Hmph!
How do you feel about the Washington National Cathedral? It’s at the highest point in the city and seems to be the default church for state religious services. I hadn’t given it much thought until your thread. If this is too off topic, I apologize.
It’s not the government’s national cathedral. It’s the national cathedral of the Episcopal Church.
But he is right in that it does seem to be the default location for those events where government and religion co-mingle (like state funerals), and the Cathedral itself incorporates secular American as well as Christian iconography in its art.
But such things are unavoidable, I think, as long as people can freely practice their faith in this country.
That’s true, but I think it’s largely because the denomination is appropriate for many presidents (Ford was an Episcopalian, after all). President Kennedy’s funeral was not held there.
I was going to take issue with prr, but then he went and got all reasonable and shit, but I couldn’t let this one pass by.
Are you fucking high? Pardoning Nixon was Ford’s saving grace, and the one act that will make him be seen by historians as more of a statesman and not just a caretaker president for a couple of years.
At the eulogy that Jimmy Carter gave for Ford, he quoted the opening line of his own inaugural address:
(He then noted, ruefully, that that line received more applause than the rest of his speech.)
Brush with greatness aside: Prior to converting, I grew up Episcopalian. My family attended St. John’s Episcopal Church, aka “The Church of the Presidents,” in Washington, DC during Ford’s presidency and, yes, Ford did attend services there.
This has absolutely nothing to do with separation of Church and State. That clause does not say that Government and its leaders have to pretend religion does not exist, nor does it prohibit them from making religious statements. Therefor it is not inappropriate whatsoever, he’s well within his constitutional bounds.
Yes, actually he is. He’s free to say what he wants, just because he’s speaking “as the President” doesn’t mean he has to limit himself. What he isn’t free to do is enact whatever he wants, the Constitution governs the actions of the President, not his words.
Am I alone in finding even such bland homilies as Bush vomited forth dutifully objectionable?
[/QUOTE]
A state funeral isn’t for the public, sorry, your views or wishes are rightfully not going to be given any credence whatsoever here. A state funeral (or a military funeral, as another example) is something given to someone by the state in reward for their contributions to the United States; in accepting what is basically a gift from the state the family is not required to have an atheist funeral nor should they be.
You should read this:
That has been extrapolated by the courts to further mean Government in general can’t act in a way that is establishing, or in a way the prohibits the free exercise of religion (or choice to not exercise.)
It has never even remotely been suggested this part of the constitution means anything close to, “elected officials aren’t supposed to make religious remarks in an official capacity.”
Out of curiosity, if we have a national cathedral, do we also have a national mosque and a national synagogue?
Maybe what this country needs is a national circle of standing stones.
Anytime a “product” reaches a saturation point in which it becomes inextricably tied to the culture in a society it’s going to get a ton of free advertising. Look at Coca-Cola for example.
For the record, the Episcopal Church built that structure as (a) its national worship structure – it’s the only cathedral in the world, AFAIK, shared by two top-gun bishops (as opposed to suffragan, coadjutor, assistant, etc. bishops): the Presiding Bishop for the national church, and the Bishop of Washington DC; And (b) a place it could offer for worship services for the nation as a whole, or that part of it that worships God. It’s intentionally set up to host ecumenical and other-denomination events from time to time.
I believe there is a national mosque in Washington, owned and operated by some Islamic group in the capital; I recall seeing it at a distance when driving through Washington some years back. You could discuss with the Jewish folks here about a national synagogue, and with whatever pagan groups claim affinity with Stonehenge about the other idea (personally, I’d like to see it; America needs a suite of trilithions!!). There’s a big Baha’i temple there somewhere too, though I’ve never personally encountered it.
Or perhaps you object to people using “national” as a descriptor when they aren’t beholden to the Federal government? Like the National Rifle Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Environmental Coalition? Obviously, to be fair, the country should support a National Antigun Association, a National Aryan Rights group, and a National Polluters Association – even though none of the above, like the Episcopal Church, have any connection to the government?
As pointed out by Monty, “we” do not have a national cathedral…the Episcopal Church does. The Catholic Church also has one…it’s called the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and it is also in Wash DC. Neither of these cathedrals are in any way associated with the government in any offical capacity. Since the National Cathedral was built, I believe only 3 presidents have had their funerals there (Ike, Reagan, and Ford), and I presume this was because of their personal desire/denominational affiliation.
Yes, I know that the National Cathedral is Episcopal. Until twelve days ago, I had been a member of the Episcopal Church for over forty years. Now I have returned to the denomination of my youth for non-theological reasons.
Was a religious service held in the National Cathedral shortly after 9-11? Was it a National Day of Mourning? I can’t remember. I do remember a woman with the most magnificent voice.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I objected to it at all. I had never heard of a National Cathedral before, and hoped that someone would clarify so that it would illuminate the difference between a state function taking place in a government building and a personal-but-publicized function taking place on private property.
And I want to be the head honcho at the National Sun Worshipper Aztec Pyramid, when we get one. You get babes with that, right? There’s gotta be babes or I don’t sign. 
Sorry. For THAT position, you have to demonstrate a capability to remove still-pulsing hearts from the chests of several hundred offerings in any given afternoon using an obsidian knife. (How many babes that will get you, I have no idea.)
I had read the entire thread, though from the TITLE of the thread there was an obvious bigotry, i,e;
Are Jews called “Heebs” here? One would hope not. The name of the religion, is Christian, not the, frankly offensive, Xian as used throughout this thread.