Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

> > 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."

Well, I'm not going haggle over what *kind* of reading it is.

> 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.

It may be the primary, most-literal definition to apply in those cases, 
sure.  But there's no reason Palin's use of that or any other word has to 
have *only* one nuance.  There's a stirring of sentiments that occurs when 
words like "sacred" are used that does not happen with *other* words.

> That doesn't mean it is right but it does mean it isn't that unusual.

Well, my whole point was that it was wrong, not that it was unusual, so 
you seem to be rebutting a point that I never made.

> 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 yet the debate exists.  Which is all the proof you need that Palin 
and/or her advisers should have known better.

Unless, of course, stirring the pot was what they *wanted* to do.

> I think she would have been better/smarter to remain silent or just 
> issue a public statement expressing sorrow and support over the 
> shooting.

Actually, she did do that, within hours of the shooting happening.  It was 
on her Facebook page, and probably elsewhere as well.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot