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

If I was Muslim, I would consider use of the word to be appropriate. As a
Christian, I don't object to a Muslim using the word in that context, even
though I personally believe I know different. As a Christian American, I
believe there are better words to use to express the intended meaning.

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


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]>wrote:

> Using that logic it is wrong for Muslims to refer to the Koran as sacred?
>
> For me, I'm really uncomfortable with the imposing of religion, or forcing
> uber religious meaning onto words that have a very recognizable and
> understandable non religious meaning.
>
>
> Mike F.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Johne Cook <[email protected]>
> *To:* DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thu, January 13, 2011 5:15:30 PM
> *Subject:* [DADL-OT] 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
>

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