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

I'm not saying I don't understand her use of the word in context. However,
Paul expressed surprise at the use of the word, and I admit it was my first
thought, as well, incorrectly ascribing a spiritual blessing on admittedly
important national documents that is not technically correct. (And as has
been noted, the secular versions of the definition don't occur until #4 on
the list.)

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


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote:

> So you are also locked into a single definition of the word sacred.  Fair
> enough.
>
>
>
> I am not.  I had no trouble understanding her context.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Johne Cook
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:16 PM
> *To:* DADL (off topic)
>
> *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