A bi-partisan resolution sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen .Sam Brownback and Penn. Dem Sen.Bob Casey to recognize the Pope during his US visit was blocked by a Dem .Senator who evidently objected to the language of some parts of the resolution .

here is the text :
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/sr-b16.pdf

although it is unclear which particular turn of phrase was objectionable my guess is that it was either one of two or both of these paragraphs:


Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the
vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith
nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty
that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of
religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our
rights and liberties;



Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and
vulnerable, witnessing to the value of every
human life.


supposedly the resolution will go forward after the offensive language is removed .

Hehe, the pope didn't even want to attend a white house dinner in his honour:
The Raw Story | Pope won't break bread with Bush (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pope_to_skip_White_House_dinner_0411.html)
He's quite perceptive.

That's OK . Clearly the dinner was held to schmooze all the Catholic politicos in Washington more so than to honor the Pope.Can you detail the last time the Pope was present at big opulent state dinners to honor him ? I don't think you can. That is not really his thing. In fact ;I can't recall any Pope doing that except perhaps as a host to the homeless .In that case Pope JPII served the dinner himself .

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2008/04/jp2-homeless-dinner.jpg

And despite the claim to the contrary;the Pope did have more important things to do .He was meeting with the US Bishops and taking them to task .

Even I find this ridiculous. I assume also it is the part that Tom Quoted. I guess the he doesn't like how it says "nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties" I guess he interprets this as saying our rights and liberties our given to us by God. I don't believe in God and I don't care that resolution says that.

Bob Casey cannot be happy with his fellow Dems . Having this resolution blocked over such trivia. Also I think the bigger issue might have been the 2nd paragraph and it's not so subtle anti-abortion message.

Update :

Politico says it was Sen.Boxer who objected and blocked the resolution . It has since been altered .

The Crypt's Blog - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Pope_resolution_stalled_over_human_life_language.h tml)

Ah abortion. People say I have a weird stance on abortion. If I ever got a someone pregnant and they wanted to have an abortion I would do everything in my power to stop them. But I am pro choice. I would never stop anyone I wasn't involved with in getting an abortion. Strange right.

From the Politico article you linked to:


Boxer's spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz has written The Crypt to say "we are very pleased we were able to reach an agreement with Senator Brownback to remove the political language and pass this resolution welcoming Pope Benedict."

"Senator Brownback also agreed to remove the political language referencing religious expression on public buildings," Ravitz said in an email.

I love how it's 'political' to recognize the value of life, even in a resolution honoring the Pope.

having this resolution blocked over such trivia. Also I think the bigger issue might have been the 2nd paragraph and it's not so subtle anti-abortion message....

“the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties.” Hello tom:

I have no trouble with the Pope thinking all life is sacrosanct.

I DO have a problem with the righty's misstating the Constitution, though. I know you think it's trivial. Wrongwingers like you always call the Constitution trivial or a technicality when you don't agree with it.

excon

I can't help it if you continue to insist that the 1st amendment prohibits religious expression in the public square... it does not . As far as the ultimate source of our rights and liberites; well,wasn't it you who recently quoted the Declaration of Independence ?