Madisonians Pay Their 'Respects' to the Pope
Madison.com invited readers on their forums to share their thoughts on the Pope's passing. This being Madison, people can't criticize the spiritual leader of a sixth of the world enough. Where was this refreshingly politically incorrect attitude when Yasser Arafat died?
Anyway, here's a sampling of what some of the asshats said. Poster Danagal says:
What a guy, that old papa, consistently making the world so much worse in the intervening years with his conservative politics and "right-to-life" rhetoric. Well, that's just my opinion, but I hope the new pope is better, unlikely as that seems.
Millions in Eastern & Central Europe would disagree with that statement. So would the millions and millions helped by Catholic charities. The nicely named Svetlana_Banana says:
The Pope was 84 years old, in poor health, and he and his followers believe in an afterlife. Presumably, he's in heaven now. So why all the vigils and the wailing? Why are people so upset about his passing? Why did the State Journal devote half the paper to the story? Since we invaded Iraq, THOUSANDS of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died, and yet most people are silent about these deaths. If you ask me, our priorities are really screwed up.
Oh Ms. Banana, people are upset because they will miss him. I'm sure, when you're gone, someone will miss you too. Maybe Welshman will, as he certainly shares your priorities:
I have no personal feelings one way or the other about the pope, although I have serious issues with the Catholic church as an institution. What did bother me, though, was Dubya's hypocritical comments about the "values" he thought of so highly in the late pontiff. If he had such high regard for John Paul's beliefs, why did Bush flatly ignore the pope's antagonism towards the invasion of iraq? Just not politically expedient enough, I guess.
The better question is why did the Pope ignore his lifelong commitment to the cause of freedom by opposing the invasion of Iraq? My theory is that he didn't and by that point in his life he was not in complete control of the Vatican anymore. I know the Vatican is just as anti-American as most European countries, but the Pope didn't have any reason to be. Speaking of anti-American, Freeman chimes in with:
He was no Mother Teresa or Ghandi. He made the world better for a chosen few. Sure he stood up sometimes when it was right to do so, but for someone with his kind of power, could and should've did more. Where was he when Reagan was backing those death squads in Latin America? I believe some catholic priests were even caught in the crossfire. Did the Pope stand up? Maybe he did, but it certainly wasn't enough.
In other words, "I have no idea about anything I'm saying, but why let that get in the way of ripping on the recently departed. After all, that's the cool thing to do." Only in Madison.
Posted by at April 4, 2005 09:11 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/803
|# April 6th, 2005 2:26 PM marcus|
|I am not so certain about the assertion regarding the Pope's stand on Iraq. That he was unable to fend off the Vatican staffers.
In the Gulf War I he is also on record as being opposed to it. On Fox I heard (or I think I heard) a comment by Henry Kissinger stating temporal leaders have a much smaller time scale than the Pontiff.
Peter Robinson at NRO had posted an article detailing the Church's exact stand on all of this, I need to read it. It does sound like the Church's opposition is much more nuanced than the supposed lovers of nuance give it credit for.
|# April 6th, 2005 2:38 PM kris|
|Yeah, I admit I was reaching on that hypothesis. |