DamagedGoods

I guess this was the part that really bothered me - Bush took it upon himself to speak for all Americans as if we all believe just like he does. I also heard several other folks on radio and TV taking opportunity to talk about God in the same fashion. Ronin is right: there were plenty of ways to express condolences and provide comfort without turning it into an opportunity to 'minister.' Regardless of the intent, it causes division at a time when it's least appropriate.

Just a thought here - if the family of one of the astronauts came out and said they were offended by Bush's comments (because they were atheists or Buddhists, let's say), what would happen? I suspect a lot of people would get bent out of shape, as if the family should 'feel guilty' for saying such a thing. If that's what would actually happen, doesn't that mean that the President making such comments puts undue pressure on people that don't believe as he does, at the time when they least need it?

Krieger

1. That is a lie and you are well aware of it.

2. The posters in this thread have all either expressed their sorrow for the loss of the astronauts here, or in a thread in another forum.

3. This is the Church-State Separation & Secular Activism forum - the intent of this forum is to discuss topics regarding the separation of church and state (example: Bush using a tragedy to force his religion on everyone else) and to advocate secular activism. This forum is not focused on mourning for people that have died in either this incident or any other.

4. Furthermore, if we're going to use your logic, we could say, "Thousands of people died from starvation or disease today and all you can focus on is a few astronauts?!"

BigBlue2

Unlikely, unless she converted after moving to the US. Well over 80% of Indians are Hindu and most of the rest are Muslim or Sikh. Christians are a tiny minority.

Well said, cricket. My sentiments exactly. There are ways of expressing condolences and sympathies without bringing non-existent deities into it.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): A good question, and I suppose it's one that would have to be answered by Dubya's handlers. What you said about not offending any major voting blocs is a lot of it, I'm sure. Playing to their audience, so to speak.

My complaint is the expectation by an overwhelming number of Americans that in times of national tragedy our elected officials should seek to comfort us with references to a superstition. A superstition that our culture should have outgrown long ago, imo.
If Dubya had made no reference to a loving God and an afterlife, a lot of people would have been disappointed and felt something was missing from his speech.
I'm ashamed.

chrislee

"Bush as a Christian was trying to take comfort with the idea that those seven will live on in some sort of afterlife. It indeed would have been shocking if he had not done so. If someone is a Christian then they are a Christian 24/7. Anyone who is not a Christian 24/7 is either a hypocrite or not a Christian at all. Bush's right to be a Christian is constitutionally protected. To say that he should not make religious statements in public is to demand that he renounce his religion. That is not our right. Now if next week Bush wakes up and realizes that he can no longer be be a Christian then that would be great. But until such time as he sees the light, he has every right to make religious statements in public."

No. The problem is that Bush (like a lot of fundamentalists) is a single-level thinker who can't tell the difference between the himself in the secular and religiously neutral role as President of the United States, and himself as a private individual. The former is supposed to be the leader of the entire nation, not just the Christians. The latter can say what he likes in his private capacity. But he was addressing the nation. And speaking on _our_ behalf.

GaryP

A lot of people with Bush's belief system never come to grips with the reality of that belief. IMO.

These type of events SHOULD make them realize that not all good people are Xtians and that they are therefore, according to their own belief, burning in Hell right now because they used their rational thought processes and concluded something different than GWB and his ilk did.

So when he says we can "pray that they are home" he is ignoring the salvation message that was brought by his "favorite philosopher".

capsaicin67

FYI, they just showed on one of the newschannels that I was surfing that the brother of one of the female astronauts was meeting with the members of a Unitarian Universalist church she had been married in and attended at some point in Racine, WI. That could definitely mean a lot of things about her metaphysics. But that, needless to say, was not explored at all. Its a bit bothersome that the newsmedia participates in the dumbing down of the whole topic, and seems to take care to not let any actual information get in the way of the superstition, propaganda, and general Hallmark card fluff. They made some general comments that *made it sound like* the UU church was pretty much in line
with the immediately previous segment on a big gathering at some fundy church for a couple of the other guys. The woman may or may not have believed in god, and they didn't say she did----but they definitely implied it. Now I realize that it wouldn't have been cool to go off on some total tangent about metaphysics, but it seems within the realm of possibility and professionalism that they might make a brief comment to the effect that people from multiple beliefs were directly affected by the accident. I think they have the resources to figure out a way of conveying that message appropriately in 2003.

GWB is acting as the head of state of our country, and while he may of had the legal right to say what he wanted, it was not his role to proselytize. I'm not going to stew over it because I expected as much, but my hunch for the sake of discussion is that it was politically wise but generally inappropriate. My gut tells me from the State of the Union address etc that his intentions are not ceremonial deism, but rather to proselytize and use propaganda to equate his policies with some sort of divine mandate. He simply is ok using superstition [and a tragedy which evokes a strong emotional response] in order to anesthetize the bulk of the public *while he and his cronies pick their pockets*! Could he make a courageous and contemporary and progressive statement from his position as leader of the free world? Yep. But it is not likely. He puts the "bully" and "pulpit" back into bully pulpit. He was not trying to comfort genuinely, he was selling something at the expense of those that might genuinely have something to sincerely grieve. IMO.

Krieger wrote:This forum is not focused on mourning for people that have died in either this incident or any other.
Furthermore, if we're going to use your logic, we could say, "Thousands of people died from starvation or disease today and all you can focus on is a few astronauts?!"

Well said.

Gobs of people die every day and if anything its kinda weird to me how everyone is supposed to feel strongly about some strangers' untimely demises [generally those that are perceived as extremely successful, or are famous.] Lots of non-famous people suffer and die too soon in near anonymity. There seems to be a lot of popular "factitious grieving" in our culture that trails these types of tragedies, too, which I find a bit repulsive. That being said, I get the symbolic level of importance of the astronauts, and like others that misfortune visits, I'd rather they fared better.

But I do not feel obligated to feign any great emotional attachment to the tragedy. Didn't know them personally. I would help them if I could and if it were still an option. But in the exchange of ideas, I don't feel too much need to act like their passing was of greater sigificance in my life than it was. But sorry that that stuff happens to anyone, especially the unrecognized and unacclaimed for whom daily life has often been mostly a struggle for existence and recognition on a daily basis. IMHO.

Grad Student Humanist

I expressed similar feelings to a close friend of mine yesterday and she was taken aback by it. I could only imagine what reaction I would get where I to express such feelings publically. I'd be branded an "uncaring atheist" or even worse "unAmerican" which is all in vogue as an insult these days.

I definitely don't attach as much significance to all of these moments of "national tragedy" as the society feels I should. Why should I? My grandmother is in and out of the hospital and could die any day now. She helped raise me. Her death would hurt me considerably, certainly more than these astronauts' deaths. Yet I wouldn't expect that anyone else who isn't in my position would feel the same way. Why then am I expected to feel so much for these astronauts, or an even better example, the people who died on 9/11? Why are those people all saints while the millions of other people who died on 9/10 or 9/12 can all fade into obscurity? Why is dying in a terrorist attack any more noble or worthy of sympathy than dying in an earthquake, or dying from cystic fibrosis?

I feel the same way about anyone's death. It is a tragedy and if I had the power I would make it so that nobody had to die. But, that being said, I won't let the media or society dictate how I should feel every time there's some kind of catastrophe.

Shadowy Man

Actually, the IAU handles the names of stars.

CALDONIA

So, should we be:

1. Sad that the astronauts died, but happy that they are now at
"home" (Heaven)?

2. Happy that they died because in doing so they are now at
"home" (Heaven)?

Such platitudes as uttered by Bush mock the grief of the victims' friends and relatives under the guise of offering comfort.

Why not just acknowledge the tragedy for what it is and express admiration for their courage in taking part in their mission?