The thing is, I don’t expect Benedict XVI to be the living Saint that JPII was. So I don’t expect Benedict’s funeral to be half as well attended/covered as JPII’s was...

You are probably right. But remember, JP was able to concentrate on spiritual leadership because he delegated a lot of messy business to other people. Including asking Cardinal Ratzinger to be prefect of the Holy Office. That's a JOB, and Ratzinger did it like a good soldier, but that's not "who he is."

Cut and pasted, but on this first visit to the blog needed.

This is what he wrote Jefferson in 1815: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

Benjamin Franklin? "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

And Jefferson, in "Notes on Virginia," written in 1782: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

Root - thanks for the reminder that, Christian Right notwithstanding, the U.S. was not nor was it ever intended to be a "Christian nation"! The Founding Fathers were a mix of religions, but were mostly Deists - they believed in a Supreme Being, who they generally viewed as uninvolved in the lives of individual man. And the evidence of this is really overwhelming - a) not a mention of Christ in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution; b) a Constitution written by mostly lawyers, trained in logical thinking, not generally prone to excessive bouts of faith. Face it - had they wanted to praise Jesus, they could easily have done it. They didn't. c) the Treaty of Tripoli, which says in as clear terms as one can possibly find "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." A treaty written by Joel Barlow for George Washington, with his approval. Passed unanimously by the Senate. Signed by John Adams. d) or how about Franklin at the Constitutional Convention uncharacteristically proposing a prayer? And how was it received? Well, Franklin himself tells us in a handwritten entry he appended to his speech proposing the prayer, where he says "The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary."
There are literally books pointing out how unChristian the Founding Fathers were, and how they had every opportunity to make us a Christian nation, with a Christian Constitution. They never did (thank God)!

Re: They Knew They Had To Come...

I'm a self-confessed political and news junkie. Could someone point me to the, how was it phrased?, oh yes, "trendizoid leftists are foaming at the mouth and squirting blood from their eyes", cause I sure didn't see it anywhere. Some LEFTISTS thought the selection good, some bad, most who aren't Catholic really weren't that concerned that I've seen.

Hey - anyone see the article in the UK's Observer on Sunday? Paper basically calls for Pope Ratzi to be arrested on obstruction of justice charges! Seems they obtained a copy of a letter Cardinal Ratzi wrote to every bishop in the Church in 2000, telling them to be firm in requiring any/all child abuse investigations remaining confidential and within the Church's authority alone, and then clearly said all evidence of wrongdoing was to be kept secret until 10yrs after the abused child achieved adulthood. The Observer noted this would, in most jurisdictions, be beyond the statute of limitations, and could be construed as seeking to hide child abuse and protect the abusers (covering up a felony). I was brought up in a mixed Catholic/Jewish neighborhood, and had considerable respect for the Church...until the child sex abuse coverup and scandal! Personally, I find this new Pope tarnished from day one. But he's 78; few expect him to be more than an office holder Pope.