Somehow though I would feel better about this if Bush was not backed by a
Christian extremist and fundamentalist Republican party. Somehow this is
beginning to remind me of a new crusade in the 21'st century.
With most of us playing the role of the poor peasant being robbed and killed.
I think Bush had originally used the word crusade.
I am sure this connection has occurred to others.
Ralph
At 10:23 AM 9/24/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>"Olga Bourlin" <fauxever@sprynet.com> writes:
>
>> From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>>
>> > Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Michael M. Butler wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I consciously adopt the language of my audience. At the end of a
>> > > > recent post, I mentioned God even though I'm an agnostic. Was the rest
>> > > > of the content valuable, or rendered valueless?
>> > >
>> > > The latter. To cite a recent case, a superficially reasonable email on
>> > > post-WTC policy sailed into my inbox a few days ago. It made sense right
>> > > unto the final sentence, which read "God bless America". Now, I don't
>> > > trust people basically driven by inscrutable motivations. One might
>> > > support points of policy, warily so, but certainly not the person
>> pushing
>> > > it. Sooner or later, the dissonance must surface.
>> >
>> > What is the big deal here? Saying "God bless America" speaks quite
>> directly
>> > to the 90% of Americans according to polls who have some level of theistic
>> > belief. To ask for God's blessing on America in the face of 9/11 and that
>> > level of belief is almost mandatory if you want to reach the people and
>> speak
>> > to their hearts. Why should those who are not theistic make such a big
>> deal
>> > about this?
>>
>> Well, then, what about the remaining 10% - are we chopped liver? When a
>> President speaks to all the "American people," how does it compromise
>> anything he may need to say if he simply talks about the business at hand?
>
>Presidents speak to majorities quite often. I do understand your point I
>just think it is not terribly relevant at this time.
>
>
>> (In fact, he compromises what he has to say every time he mentions God,
>> because that's coo-coo and childish, e.g., just like having an "Invisible
>> Friend," you know, except for grownups.) Certainly it's the President's
>> right to mention God, just as it is his right to mention that he believes
>> the earth is flat (althouth even if he and 90% of Americans believed THAT,
>> it would still not make it true). But, and this is the most important
>> issue, he would still be excluding 90% of his audience. Neutrality
>> regarding the God issue is a better idea, IMHO - we are supposed to be a
>> secular government, after all. However, it may be more appropriate for the
>> President to talk about "God" to a captive audience of churchgoers, for
>> instance (although it would still be coo-coo).
>
>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 secular
>government. That does not mean that relgious concepts never get mentioned.
>
>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."
>
>- samantha
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT