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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Karl Swenson wrote:

>> Except when you see what a nation like the U.S. *does* with those
>> sentiments.
>
> **Like?  The constitution itself limits that.

The Constitution says nothing about sentiments.

>>> **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.
>
> **only because . . .

I didn't say "Why?", I said "Which part?"

> . . . you refuse to accept that sacred in her context may not have been 
> meant as religions.

Oh, I accept that she might not have *meant* that.  I just don't think it 
matters, *in this context*.  (And the context, of course, is not just 
about her.  If it were, she wouldn't be posting a video for all to see.)

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