Re: Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)
"Peter T. Chattaway" <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Karl Swenson wrote: >>> Nothing about the sacred constitution means this is a religion. >> >> Apart from that thing called Civil Religion, of course. > > ***reaching. And if true, that just diminishes the dangers and helps > explain the context. Except when you see what a nation like the U.S. *does* with those sentiments. >> And, as we have noted repeatedly, Palin and her ilk are making common >> cause with Mormons like Glenn Beck, for whom the Constitution *is* >> apparently divinely inspired, as per the tenets of their faith. > > **I think that is also a stretch. Which part? The Mormons-believe-it's-divinely-inspired part, or the Palin-and-Beck-take-part-in-promoting-religious-sentiments-together part? Because as far as I can tell, both of those statements of fact are pretty much indisputable. http://lds.org/ensign/1987/11/our-divine-constitution?lang=eng https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot