They are having the same problem with this whole half-mast thing in France at the moment. The argument being used in France at the moment is that France has always honored the passing of Popes by lowering their flags to half mast.

In the US the most legitimate argument is that the Pope is the head of the Holy See which is the administrative arm of the Vatica City-State. The Vatican City is State is a legitimate and recognized nation, and thus the Pope is also a legitimate head of state. If you look at the whole half-mast thing from this perspective, lowering the flag to half mast is not done to honor a religious figure, but to honor the death of a legitimate head of state.

As an aside, I firmly believe that they should lower the flag to half-mast around the world on May 19th in honor of the many Jedi that will fall in battle at the hands of Darth Vader and Darth Sidious. It will be a sad day long-remembered.

Yes, but you ask me to look at it from a specific angle, I realize he is the head of a recognized nation state, I can accept mourning for those leaders; but the words that the governor uses allude to the religious aspect of his position....

those two lines folowing the ... are the governors words...

Mawopi sure is heating up again - keep it up boys...keep it up.

Jersey Sucks!!!

Sith Lords RUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLEEEEEE!!!!

Eat it Jon Bon.

i have learned that applying literal logical processes to the real world can be...pointless. why DO we allow a relegious leader to effect world affairs? shouldnt we be able to get along in our governments without spirituality? after all, it is governments who sponsor alot of scientific advancement, and who have to try and stay on the good side of as many people as possible at all times, something relegious affiliation can sometimes hinder. two things though: 1) governmentally speaking, the catholic church has influence simply because of the shear amount of money and followers they have cultivated. i mean shit they have thier own COUNTRY b) romantically, metaphysically and spiritually speaking, would we really want to do anything wihtout the almighty around? whether you are muslim or jew or christian , isnt it logical that a supposed "liason" of God would be prominant in a global sense? for all the fallacies of the catholic church, there is a supernatural part of our existance. every culture has relegion. so, lets get that supernatural in on the old world government. K guys? i think that might be a little bit of what the pope is about. but yeh. its confusing, if you look at it purely logically. but then again, we humans arent all that logical. thats for those snide little vulcan bastards.

Green Baron -

I concur with much of your analysis. I must add, however, that you fail to address a fundamental premise upon which both my and msd's argument rests - mainly that "Jersey sucks."

What are your feelings on this?

Liberal watchdog groups have a legitimate case against the Governor of New Jersey for his sentiments. Honoring the Pope in a secular manner is fine...but mvb is correct to question whether honoring religious aspects of the Pope's life with legislative resolutions is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The only problems are...it probably isn't, - and, for there to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, someone has to sue...and I don't think anyone in their right mind will sue the State of New Jersey or any other State, Commonwealth, or Government entity for flying the flag half mast for the Pope. Liberals are just going to have to swallow this one - with relish, and onions, and beans, and tomates!

LC

if jersey sucks so much, why do you care?

BOO yah! haha!

yeh i've never been to jersey. but i did wipe my nose today after eating pizza and the marinara sauce got kinda in my nose so i was walking around looking like i was bleeding from my face and i didnt know it for 2 hours.

oh you asked about my feelings...not my opinions. i guess reading helps...yeh so i feel bad for jersey. you'd think they'd be cooler, being so close to the atlantic ocean and new york, but they're not. that just makes me sorry for them. maybe we should remove thier feeding tube.

Jerseys so cool you have to hate it. It's sad but true.

Despite that fact; I'm ready to sue... you have that degree ready yet Concierge?

Individuals frequently sue for the public display of religious symbols - for example, there have been lawsuits regarding the display of the ten commandments in court rooms, nativity scenes in front of town hall, etc.

With that said, it does not seem like the lowering of a flag is anything more than a symbolic gesture that is performed in respect of the many Catholics, and possibly Polish immigrants, in honor of the fact that their leader has passed. While many, including myself, may disagree with whether or not JP2's leadership was beneficial to members or non-members of the church, I think everyone can respect the fact that he served as the leader of an international religious organization with many members, some of whom lived in New Jersey.

Also, executives and legislatures frequently pass resolutions concerning irrelevant issues of particular interest to a group of individuals or a cause. A resolution is non-binding and merely a reflection of the prevalent attitudes and opinion of the legislature or executive at that time. It would clearly be different if a legislature enacted in a manner to restrict religious observation or programmatic policy of conversion, however, this is not even close. It's like lowering the flag on behalf of George Lucas after Star Wars Episode One came out - some people liked it, most people with taste hated it, and either way, Gov. McGrievy's opinion on the issue was a blip on the political radar.

In a nutshell, save the good fight for another cause. For example, the liberals could attempt to do something about Brooklyn - like fire-bomb it. That place is just becoming a blemish on the left-wing with all the Che t-shirts floating around. And organized anarchist groups. And imperialists, sorry gentrifiers, moving into the hood. I say cannabolize the weak liberals, and leave the dead pope to his own. He's not going anywhere.

While I agree with most of what my Professor says, there are a few things that should be clarified. First of all, he and I are both wrong about the need to question anything legislative. The issue in New Jersey was brought by Executive Order of the Governor, and from what I understand, did not even reach the legislature. Second, legislative precedent (INS v. Chadha) has taught us that what renders most resolutions, particularly concurrent and simple resolutions, "non-legislative" as my Professor states, is the fact that they are not presented for Executive review: “In modern practice, and as determined by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), concurrent and simple resolutions normally are not legislative in character since not ‘presented’ to the President for approval, but are used merely for expressing facts, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two Houses.” This begs the question: since Executive Decision brought New Jersey’s action, does it have more weight as far as established law therefore making a more significant case for Establishment Clause violation? Probably not, but it’s something to consider. Finally, joint resolutions are the same as bills and have similar legal weight and are, in some instances, signed by the President or appropriate Executive in their final stop toward passage. What is even a larger testament for the legal weight of resolutions is that an amendment to the US Constitution can only be introduced by joint resolution AND does not require Executive signature for passage. Thus, explaining resolutions as mere informative papers is not wholly accurate.

LC

That's fine - but the underlying point is that a resolution, be it executive or not, of this nature is not restrictive of liberties nor does it impose an obligation upon others that is affirmative in orientation. Rather, its a statement of opinion with little or no governmental substance or significance. It's like a greeting card at Christmas - you do it because you have to.

I think New York should pass a resolution condemning Jersey to Hell. That would be something to write home about.

Also, jsd - please defend Brooklyn - I said we should firebomb it - I was hoping that would prod you a bit. Bait? Take it? Please?