At 12:41 PM 9/22/01 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >While he may not be the most eloquent President we've ever had, (his
father
> >was the same way) at the moment, he's definitely speaking for a majority
of
> >Americans right now. Bush is from Texas. Quoting scripture is one of the
> >ways, historically, that Texan politicians get elected and stay elected.
> The
> >others are a) being pro-big business concerns, and b) being tough on
crime.
> >
> >In addition, a large majority of our country is made up of religious
> >Christians who like to know that their elected leaders are also, in the
> >thought that they will therefore conform to a certain moral and ethical
> code.
> > Most American politicans who are not from either coast can quote
scripture
> >passages to fit any situation.
>
> <<Oh please do not try and blame this on Texans, Christians, and rural
> Americans from the Heartland. To do so smacks of exactly the sort of
> contempt for "otherness" that so marks the very extremists that we are
> fighting.>>
>
>You didn't read my post.
>
>What *you* did right here however, is tell me that I'm being contemptuous of
>religious people, Texans and rural Americans. I was not, and did not say
>that, or anything like it anywhere in my post.
I'm not quite sure how you can accuse me not reading your post, since
obviously *something* had to inspire me to write what you did.
Please let me explain how exactly I could arrive at the conclusions that I
did.
You wrote:
"Bush is from Texas. Quoting scripture is one of the ways, historically,
that Texan politicians get elected and stay elected."
When I read this, it looked unmistakably to me like you were connecting
"Texanness" with "quoting Scripture."
You then wrote:
"In addition, a large majority of our country is made up of religious
Christians who like to know that their elected leaders are also, in the
thought that they will therefore conform to a certain moral and ethical code."
When I read this it looked to me like you were connecting "being a
religious Christian" with "wanting moral and ethical leaders." I'm not
sure why you wrote something that seemed to indicate that Jews, Muslims,
and even atheists in this country do not want moral and ethical leaders,
but it was greatly disturbing to me. Nevertheless, the defintie
impression this comment leaves is that Bush would not have made the remarks
that Jean-Marc found so disturbing, were it not for the religious
Christians.
Finally, you wrote:
"Most American politicans who are not from either coast can quote scripture
passages to fit any situation. Sadly, many of our politicians are very
good at quoting scripture, but not too good at following it."
To me, this seemed like an unmistakable swipe at Americans from the largely
rural Heartland. (Its the sort of insult thats applied often enough by
liberals, such that it is understood that places like Chicago and St. Louis
are included in "coasts.") Based on your earlier comments, "rural
heartland" seems very connected to "Christian" and "Texan." Yet, your
comments basically suggest that these people are dupes, easily won over by
politicians who talk a nice talk, but are essentially hypocrites.
>I did not excuse or take exception to or have a problem with anything our
>President said, and I did not say anything to that effect anywhere in my
>post.
Not directly, of course, but your comments are embedded in the larger
context of a reply to the highly critical post by Jean-Marc. In this
context, the definite impression I received from your post was that you
were apologizing for the ignorant Christians from the American Heartland
who insist upon this sort of rhetoric from their leaders, even if their
actions to do not match their words.
I hope that you could look back at what you wrote and realize how your
remarks might have been interpreted as I did above.
>Nothing I said indicated that Americans from any background don't have the
>right to be religious.
No you definitely did not say that, and I don't believe that I ever accused
you of such. I just sort of had the impression that you might have felt
that we'd be better off without a few of those "Christian Heartland-types
from Texas."
I'm guessing, based on your later posts that this is not what you
meant..... and I'll accept that. I just hope that you see that my
comments were not based upon malice on my part, but based on how I
sincerely was reading your words at that time.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
