Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

I know of precisely one sacred document, the Bible. Unless you can show me
something that indicates that the dove of the spirit descended from heaven
and came to rest on America's most esteemed documents or something, I feel
comfortable asserting that regardless of the hushed and reverent tones
people have for our respected national documents, they are as valuable as
can be but not 'sacred.'

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just do not see how feeling the constitution is a sacred document means
> you:
>
>
>
> “elevate patriotism (love of country) over love of God”
>
>
>
> That has not been demonstrated anywhere.
>
>
>
> Marriage is a sacred vow, does that mean I revere marriage over God?
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Johne Cook
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:43 PM
> *To:* DADL (off topic)
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] just checking...
>
>
>
> Paul's not the only one to wonder about the use of the word 'sacred' as a
> stand-in for 'secular reverence'. The two are related but distinct concepts.
> Peter seems to question Palin's use of the word, as do I.
>
> I relate it to taking patriotism too far. It is well and good to be proud
> of where you were born and live, however, if you are a Christian, it is
> wrong to elevate patriotism (love of country) over love of God. Patriotism
> can turn into worship of country if we are not careful, and I know many are
> not careful about this. As a football fan, I see the same lack of mental
> clarity when it comes to one's fondness for one's team. I really enjoy the
> Green Bay Packers, and in WI, being a Packers fan is essentially a religion.
> That's where simple fondness crosses the line and becomes something
> misguided and wrong.
>
> Johne Cook
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I don't accept your premise that it was insensitive language.  Further the
> analogy is severely flawed - the mosque hasn't been built, but the speech
> has already been given.  It would be one thing if Palin shopped the speech
> around and received a significant amount of *legitimate* feedback saying the
> term blood libel, (sorry, the sacred thing is apparently your personal
> bugaboo so I'm not bothering with that), was insensitive the analogy might
> work.
>
>
>
> The people who claim that they are offended by the blood libel thing are
> the same ones who blame her for inciting the shooter -  why do you find them
> credible?
>
>
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]>
> *To:* Daniel Amos off-topic listserver <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thu, January 13, 2011 4:10:07 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] just checking...
>
>
> So while we're on the topic of loaded rhetoric and the insensitive use of
> symbolic language etc., I was wondering:  Does everyone who defends Palin's
> use of this language (which struck many as the wrong thing in the wrong
> place at the wrong time) also defend the "Ground Zero mosque" (which struck
> many as the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time)?
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/sarah-palin-refudiates-sa_n_808213.html
>
> -- 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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