In a message dated 9/22/01 1:22:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <<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.>> OK. I sat down last week and showed the two posts to a couple of friends for an objective opinion. (I was annoyed, and gave them a 'can you believe this?' attitude.) Both of them thought that what *I* said sounded inflammatory enough along the exact same lines you pointed out that you were justified in reacting the way you did. So, if I wasn't clear enough, I'm very sorry. I definitely did not mean to badmouth Texans (seeing as how I lived in the TX Panhandle for over a decade!), Christians or rural Americans (again, I *was* one, even though I now live in NY.) So.... I will clarify at each point. Also, truth be told, I've spent a lot of time talking to friends and family over the past week or so, and I've had something of a change of heart on this subject as well. So.... if I sound somewhat split on the issue as I clarify, don't mind me. <<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.">> Aye, and I did, but *exactly* the way I wrote it. Politics and religion are very much entwined in Texas in my personal experience. It wasn't unusual for political rallies to be held in churches. Texan politicians frequently did, and probably still do quote scripture within their speeches. They do this not to prove their loyalts the way things are / ought to be. I mean, you want the person you elect to lead and make the laws that help and protect you to be a moral person with an established set of values not unlike your own, right? And while this is part of the American experience in some parts of the country, (maybe most of it,) it is certainly not the way things are here in New York. Can you imagine Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton referring to themselves as "godfearing"? I heard Bush describe himself this way at a speech he gave several years ago in Houston. Schumer and Clinton don't wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves when they speak to NY'ers, (well perhaps Schumer does, but I think more through who he is seen with than what he says in speeches) and that was what I was trying to convey. <<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. >> Ack Ack ACK! no no no. This was certainly *not* a slur against Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans or anybody else! I meant this in a very simple, very basic sense. Christians (in varying degrees of faith) make up a majority of the American population. The majority looks for a candidate that will uphold their own values. Their values are set by their belief systems, which are, in turn, Christian. A nice circular argument. Here's a simple example: Someone's religious beliefs tell them that abortion is a sin because it kills an unborn fetus. They then vote for someone who is against pro-abortion laws. They have voted for a candidate who upholds their own values. That's all I meant. And, by excluding one or more minority groups from that statement I didn't mean to thereby implicate them, and I don't believe that I did. << 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. >> AHA! Here was the crux of my argument. I WAS referring to the majority of the country. I believe that Bush was also speaking to the majority. Do I think that by doing so he was also trying to exclude the minority? No. But I do believe that as a *Texan* politician out of experience will naturally use and utilize language that may have religious undertones. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I do believe that it's there. Regarding the other points you mentioned: (God Bless America, Lee Greenwood, etc.,): In the past week I've seen "God Bless America" signs EVERYWHERE. They are on the sides of apartment buildings, hanging off bridges, on firehouses and on roadwork signs -- all over the place. There are flags in pretty much every single window or outside every home or apartment in Queens (where I live.) I hadn't noticed them. I was too busy carefully watching the people around me. I have a friend who went to a Mets game who said that they sang God Bless America during the Seventh inning stretch. So perhaps I was too wrapped up in the immediacy of everything that has been happening to see that what you were saying was true on many levels. I also didn't like being put in the role of 'blame it on the rednecks' by your post, and ignored some good points you made. <<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.") >> Actually, I didn't know that about the term "coasts", but for the sake of argument I'll agree with it. Chicago and St. Louis are not rural. And just for an FYI: I understand that this might be an insult made by liberals, but I'm not one. I'm pretty much either on the fence or leaning right for most political issues. << 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. >> This wasn't my intention. But I can see your point. I was trying to make a social comment about the entire system that failed. And I do feel a lot of politicians in office today are hypocritical in their stances and motivated by self-interest. >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. >> The reply was critical about a point in words. I tried to clarify that by pointing out the greater context behind Bush's political experience. I was certainly not apologizing for anyone or thing, and I did not mean to say, imply or otherwise indicate that 'ignorant Christians insist on this sort of rhetoric from their leaders'. However, I can see where misinterpretation could arise. For that, I'm sorry. <<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 got that impression from what you were saying. << 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 CERTAINLY didn't say this, or mean to imply it. But I can see, looking at the post taken as a whole, how this could have been an interpretation. For the record, that wasn't what I meant, and while there are a couple of 700 Club members I'd like to see roasting on a spit over an open flame right now, they're about it. ;) <<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.>> More now than before. For the record, I can understand how you might have interpreted my post that way. I wanted to mention... your piece on "The War of Love" was excellent. Thank you for that. I forwarded it to more than a few people -- it gave a voice to a lot of my own unformed thoughts, and brought up very relevant issues. Jon
