Boehner Crying over the Pope: Why there is supposed to be a separation between church and state

As many conservatives like Glenn Beck strive to bring God back into the political realm grounding the roots of patriotism, the Pope Francis visit to the United States should serve as a warning shot as to why in America we should keep a clear distinction between the separation of church and state. Obama and others like him who would love to empower the United Nations into being a ruling centralized authority throughout the world, is using the Pope to advance their progressive agenda—particularly the religion of global warming and immigration. I’m not Catholic; I don’t recognize the pope in any position of authority. If he were standing on the other side of a fence, I wouldn’t even take the time to gaze over at him. To me, he’s just another old man. I’m sure he’s a nice guy. I like that the church tries to help people with kindness—that’s a sweet thing to do as a human being. But I don’t need the pope addressing my congressional body of government from the vantage point of a religious figure from Italy who was born in Argentina and thinks socialism is more favorable than capitalism. Standing in front of my country’s government and lecturing us about the depravity of capitalism is like stepping into a hamburger restaurant and demanding that it become a Chinese buffet and should serve more items for vegans. It’s just disrespectful.

Even more disturbing is that John Boehner, my congressman in my district who happens to be Speaker of the House cried about meeting the pope. That is not very wise for a leader of Congress. Such behavior establishes that the Roman Catholic Church holds sway over the leadership of our republic, and that’s no crying matter. It’s embarrassing. No man should be crying over meeting another man—especially one like Francis. The celebrity of the pope is a completely made up thing, no different from Lady Gaga. There is nothing Holy about the guy other than an institutional organization decided to make him the leader of their church. The reaction that many have had toward the pope’s visit to the United States—summarized best by John Boehner is that philosophically, entirely too many people are wrong in their foundation beliefs and rely on the church to provide their spiritual essence—which is dangerous. It’s dangerous for individuals, it is dreadfully treacherous for an entire nation.

My article yesterday about the mysterious Serpent Mound was actually written to set up this point, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. Religion is a poor philosophic foundation for anything intended to get to the facts. A proper philosophy is one established on proven observation, not one based on faith. If the pope can sell the idea of sacrifice in the here and now for the benefit of an afterlife, he can also convince people that global warming is real, and that poor productive lifestyles are not the cause of poverty. Otherwise rational men and women who conduct their lives in the world of the real put all that on hold on Sunday when they attend a Catholic service and give idolatry to this dude from Argentina that the Vatican in Italy calls a pope. A proper understanding of history reveals that religion is much older than the Roman Catholic Church and that because of the modern doctrines established only in the last 1800 years, a proper understanding of our real history is not possible. There is nothing to cheer about for a pope. If people will believe what he says there is no reason to not believe in some of the ancient alien contemplations about the start of the civilization—that earth was seeded by extraterrestrials, the planet was terraformed by an artificial moon, and interdimensial rulers from the far reaches of the universe are the true kings of our lives as ultraterrestrials. After all, if you’re going to believe in a burning bush, resurrection after death on the third day, and making the blind see—why not.

That is why it’s so upsetting to see grown men cry and pander to some guy walking around in an archaic costume from the Middle-Ages called a pope. I’ll be the first to say that I’d rather deal with people who have religious values than no values at all, but those most committed to faith have an extremely difficult time deciphering things through logic.  Once Pandor’s Box is opened and some blind faith is accepted to the human mind, there is no turning it off. If a person is willing to look at the pope and accept that he’s the embodiment of god on earth, then that person is no different from the countless societies from the past that have failed, from the ancient Egyptians to the Aztecs. The ability to worship a deity does not make a society great. The values often associated with religion sometimes do, such as the Judeo-Christian background that established America. But the Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that there should be a separation of church and state so that an emphasis on logic could be established. Blind faith is no way to run a government, or make any decisions, so it is reprehensible that the symbol of blind faith would even fathom to lecture Congress about what types of things America should or should not value. Some of the Founding Fathers did attempt to put God in the government, such as the symbols that appear on American money—“In God We Trust.” It doesn’t say what god, it just references a deity. With hindsight being 20/20 it would have been best to never have muddied the water of confusing religion with the state and to stick with the original thought of separation. Because you can’t go down that road of belief and faith and still expect to make decisions based on rational evidence. The two things just aren’t compatible, as much as we’d like them to be.

That’s why if feels wrong to see John Boehner crying over the pope. He’s supposed to be the third most powerful person in the world—and he’s crying over the uttering of an old man because the figure represents the embodiment of godliness upon the earth. For a grown man in a leadership position to believe such a thing is a tragic display of faith instead of leadership. The human race has done a poor job of establishing a criterion for leadership largely because the values of its historic religions have idolized pacifists and sacrificial souls toward the fate of the universe, instead of relying on the miracle of thought.

For those who think human beings are insignificant in the universe consider that animals don’t think—not in the way that we associate thought to. Their activity is to maintain their life, they eat, drink, and reproduce maintaining a cycle of life that is specific to their species. Human children begin thinking very young when they begin playing with toys. With cats, dogs and other animals, they play with toys also, but the activity is largely connected to learning hunting techniques that will be valuable to them with muscle memory latter in their adult lives. Human children however play and daydream and play out fantasy events in their heads with an alternate reality that is very specific to human thought. Single cell organisms that might be found on some distant planet or at the bottom of the ocean don’t do that. They just live—they don’t do much thinking. Humans are remarkable because of their ability to think. Congress, the building that the pope spoke in, the President of the United States, and all the aspects of American culture that the pope saw on his trip are aspects of human thought—whereas in Cuba where the pope had visited the day before, the cost of not thinking was grotesquely obvious. God doesn’t help the people in Cuba with some miracle. America does with capitalism and the thoughts generated by the measurement of money have made society much better. The pope falsely associates the worship of money and a growing gulf between the rich and the poor based on Biblical text nurtured along by a crumbling Roman empire—so his premise and the assumption arrived at are wrong. Money is a measurement of productivity—of action. It’s not something given to people—it’s something that is created by value. When the political left tries to establish a life without values—and they fail, then seek to rob those values from a church that does have them—using the pope to justify every transsexual-homosexual act, abortion, and every chemical addiction known to man—they are trying to disguise their bankrupt philosophy. That’s why Obama made such a big deal about the pope’s visit as opposed to the Israeli prime minister who visited recently—that he gave the cold shoulder to completely during Netanyahu’s stay.

But to see John Boehner crying–it’s just sick. Even if the moment was an emotional one, he should be stoic enough as a world leader to hold it together. The pope has no authority in America and we certainly don’t want to go back to the inquisition of the Dark Ages. We don’t need the Crusades either. We don’t need global conquest under the flag of an old church that promotes Argentinean socialists into the white robes of piety. The pope should be asking America questions about how to live, not lecturing it. Because when it comes to moral positioning, America and its capitalism does more for more people than the church in the Vatican could ever hope to achieve. It all comes from human thought that is specific to the human race. The logic of nature and all the global warming that the pope advocated for before Congress is simply a demolition derby of primal chaos where millions of species of animals, plants and airborne bacteria are in a fight to survive from day-to-day. Of all them are human beings—the only species who can think. And when it comes to worshiping a pope, it’s a thoughtless enterprise more adapt to a primal animal, not a human being. The Speaker of the House should understand that America is a place for thought, and not a platform for lecture by a man and his church that just doesn’t understand its place in the universe—but by the definitions of a fallen empire and a Europe that still hopes to use the church to rule the world.

Before the pope could leave the United States after his trip Boehner so emotional over his visit quit Congress singing a famous melody from the Disney classic Song of the South.  The heat of the day proved to be too much for him, so he got out of the kitchen.   Many of us knew all along that he didn’t have what it took, that the position of Speaker required more than just pageantry.  And from his perspective realizing that when the pope left the podium as tears streamed down his face it was time to throw in the towel.  Because the fight coming to Congress is just getting started, and he obviously didn’t  have the heart for it.

Rich Hoffman


Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

One thought on “Boehner Crying over the Pope: Why there is supposed to be a separation between church and state

  1. One look at both Johns and it doesn’t take a surgeon to figure out why we’re so cynical.
    Good post. Note to John, don’t tell the masses you’re NOT thinned-skinned then one minute later….cry.
    I wondered if that embarrasses his family but I’m sure they know him inside out and used to it. As are we all now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s