On 24 Sep 2001, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Presidents speak to majorities quite often. I do understand your
> point I just think it is not terribly relevant at this time.
If you want to assess the impact of a leader's speech on the cattle it
doesn't require for you to listen to the drivel in person (because you're
going to be a a) biased b) sample of one), it suffices to go out and ask
the people, whether they found it moving, and whether they liked "the
steely glint in his gaze" and whether they think "he has done growed up
now".
> In these circumstances such neutrality would not speak to what moves
> 90% of the people and would fee very strange to them. We are a
90%? That bad?
> secular government. That does not mean that relgious concepts never
> get mentioned.
Um, Murrike is not a secular government. It might be not totally gone
Christian fundamentalism, but it's halfway there.
> I really have what I believe are more pressing things to talk about
> right now.
>
> Lashing out becauce the G word was used at a time like this is imho
> tremendously counterproductive. As a friend of mine would say "Very
> true but irrelevant at this time."
True, irrelevant, also unacceptable. Sorry, my tolerance threshold for God
freaks of any couleur is rather low right now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT