Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

> Yeah, kind of like we should stone adulteresses.  Or homosexuals are 
> abominations.

>>This is why the Constitution, in some readings at least, demarcates a
separation between church and state.<<

Not in any readings, I'm afraid, unless by "readings" you mean "read into." 
The text of the constitution prohibits a Federal state church, ala the 
Church of England, nothing more nothing less.


But when it becomes the scripture for a substitute church, well...<<


I know you don't like going to the 4th prong of the sacred definition but my 
sense is that is what most people mean when they refer to the constitution 
as a sacred document.  There may be some who believe it is divinely 
inspired, but then manifest destiny, in some form or other, was taken as a 
given for a significant part of US history.  That doesn't mean it is right 
but it does mean it isn't that unusual.

My point to Lance that objectionable content probably shouldn't be the 
standard to judge whether a text is sacred or not, or whether it is 
wrong/right to call a particular text sacred.

I still don't agree with your umbrage, or whatever you want to call it, over 
Palin's speech.  Both of your objections seem petty at best and there is 
more evidence of that regarding blood libel:

  http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/12/krauthammer-on-debating-palins-use-of-blood-libel-have-we-completely-lost-our-minds/

Both Dershowitz and Krauthammer think the blood libel debate is ridiculous - 
"it has become part of English parlance to refer to someone falsely 
accused."  And frankly I think they are more of an authority on this than 
anyone on this list.  I expect Palin haters to attack for every and anything 
she says but for those who I consider reasonable, most of the time, it 
really is a stretch.

FWIW, I agree almost completely with Krauthammer's position on her speech. 
It was unnecessary and unremarkable, (but certainly not incendiary in and of 
itself), but it was worth noting that she was already being criticized for 
not responding: 
(http://sharpelbowsstl.blogspot.com/2011/01/msnbc-sarah-palin-silent-on-lam.html 
I think ABC was taking this tact too).  I think she would have been 
better/smarter to remain silent or just issue a public statement expressing 
sorrow and support over the shooting.  But she was truly damned if she didn’t 
and damned if she did, and I like the fact that she is willing to get in the 
ring, even if I think she could have thrown better punches.  (I am soooo 
uncivil).

I also like Christie's take on Palin.  I like her, in large part because she 
has been so viciously attacked and I tend to root for anyone in that kind of 
situation, (have you seen that death threats against her have gone up 
significantly since she started getting blamed for the shooting), but I 
don't want her to run, (not that I'm going to vote for anyone anyway):

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/christie-says-palin-needs-to-go-unscripted-to-contend-for-2012/


Mike F.
-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:07 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] oh please.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
-- 
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