First Amendment Overstretch

President Bush ordered the American flag lowered to half-mast to honor Pope John Paul II. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- the Pope's many accomplishments, Bush's Proclamation sent the secular left into religious paroxysms. As usual, the inmates of the Democratic Underground forum imagined all manner of illegalities and conspiracies (all spelling in original):

• anarchy1999: Why are flags being lowered to half mast? Tell me why? First I've heard of and I am outraged. What do I do with my outrage?



• burrowowl: It makes me nervous re separation of churh and state, it is hypocritical to me. Fly it half-mast for the death of the republic!



• Zorra: Bu*h is using the death of the Pope for political opportunity.



• saigon68: Its all smoke and mirrors. To appear to the "faithful" that he cares.



• Kimber Scott: Those Catholic votes are mighty important, aren't they? If he had spoken as quickly about the children who were gunned down in their school the other day, it might not be so obvious.

The uproar over honoring the Pope wasn't confined to the Internet. Even the normally sane Kevin Drum, at Washington Monthly was worried:

Why would an American flag fly at half staff because the leader of the Catholic church had died?

But no: that's exactly what's going on. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, and I don't know if previous presidents have done the same thing, but it sure doesn't seem right. Would we do the same thing if the Archbishop of Canterbury died? Or the Ayatollah Sistani?

The Associated Press reported that the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" of (where else?) Madison, Wisconsin called the Proclamation "an endorsement of Roman Catholicism over other religious viewpoints." And Friday's Washington Post printed a letter to the editor from Richard E. Moore:

To fly flags at half-staff for anyone other than Americans is an affront to the separation of church and state. Moreover, the Vatican is not only the seat of power of the Roman Catholic Church but also a sovereign nation.

Since when do we subordinate the United States to any monarch, pope or other religious leader, or foreign state? Our Constitution prohibits titles of nobility and religious tests and guarantees a republican form of government everywhere under our jurisdiction -- which is certainly not the practice of the church.

These lefties are short on long-standing rhetorical techniques such as the law or history. For those less conspiratorial or less easily outraged, Bush's Proclamation plainly is lawful under the "Flag Code" (4 U.S.C. § 7(m)):

By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law.

The Pontiff is both a religious leader and Head of State as sovereign of the Vatican See. Either way, John Paul II qualifies as a "foreign dignitary," thus authorizing Bush's Proclamation.

It's also an established practice. Prior Presidents have lowered the flag to honor fallen foreign leaders, including President Lyndon Johnson upon the death of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Bill Clinton upon the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and again when His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan died. More comically, Attorney General Janet Reno once lowered Department of Justice flags despite lacking the authority to do so.

Bush's Proclamation also is Constitutional; the First Amendment does not erect any "wall of separation." Contrary to idiots like NY Times letter to the editor writer Stephen Teti, America neither founded by, nor on behalf of, secular humanists. Freedom of Religion does not demand we erase religion.

Liberals should get a life. Not long ago, they won the right to burn the flag--why the sudden concern over its place on the pole? After all, lowering the flag didn't suddenly turn non-believers into Catholics. And how is churlishness evidence of their supposed tolerance? Is this how grown-ups behave at funerals? Perhaps in France, embroiled this week in it's own flag-lowering controversy. As a public service to the excessively outraged, I note that Paris is lovely in the spring.

For 26 years John Paul II loved and led a billion of the faithful worldwide. I'm not Catholic, so can only imperfectly imagine -- but cannot overlook -- the depth of their grief. Still, I respected and appreciated the Holy Father and, as Hugh Hewitt observed, saw an "epic and global outpouring of admiration and love for John Paul II." Honoring his achievements and death by raising then partially lowering the flag conveys America's appropriate respect.

Liberals, especially in the media, unfailingly call every two-bit terrorist in a white robe a "spiritual leader." No wonder they're blind to the real deal.

More:

Richard Delevan's got links to the bloggosphere's reaction to the Pope's passing.

Still More:

Don't miss MaxedOutMama's reaction, under a headline far better than mine.

More and More:

Stan at CasingThePromisedLand: "I get the First Amendment thing, but some people have their shorts on too tight."

More³:

Postcards from the Ninth Circle: "You'd think the diversity-equality-and-pudding brigade would be throwing confetti in the air for this kind of cross-sectarian tolerance and respect. But I guess that doesn't move product."