Re: oh please.
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
So you're conceding that calling the constitution sacred is an american thing, but then why single out Palin for it? Also, I'm not making this case at all, but who gets to say whether a particular document was divinely inspired or not? I know catholics, and I'm guessing orthodox, have a procedure for that but are non catholics/orthodox bound by it? And what is the real harm if some american christian has the belief that the constitution is a divinely inspired document? What they do with that belief might be harmful or it might not, but as a mere belief what is wrong with that from a non religious point of view>? Mike F. ________________________________ From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, January 12, 2011 5:37:37 PM Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please. On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Karl wrote: >> Why do Mormons have a lock on literal sacredness? > > They don't, they just believe, as a point of dogma, that the American >Constitution is divinely inspired. I wonder how that affects their missionary work in other countries... Or their involvement in debates to amend the Constitution... Anyhoo. Do Brits call the Magna Carta "sacred", I wonder? Canadians certainly don't consider the British North America Act "sacred". I wonder if there is *any* country that has the sort of religiosity for its founding documents that the Americans have for theirs ... -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot