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

Wait, you say you DO understand her use in context, then you say 
 
“incorrectly ascribing a spiritual blessing on admittedly important national
documents that is not technically correct”
 
So which is it, did you understand or not?
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Johne Cook
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:47 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] 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