In a message dated 9/23/2001 7:39:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Jon, I'd like to thank you for your answers. You tried to explain the cultural background of your president words for the foreigner I am, and I am sure it's a difficult exercise in a few sentences. You tried to do it with observer-like/detached/neutral eyes and I thank you for that because it's the way civilised people do. I've the feeling that it's the "from outside" tone that triggered JDG reaction against you and I'm sorry for it.>> First of all, thank you. It's always good to be appreciated! :) Second, don't be sorry. I'm always quite happy to defend my points of view :) Usually I do so in large, bold capital letters. :))) The media here last week made some noise about President Bush's use of the term 'crusade'. So, it _was_ an issue to at least a few people who were concerned about the historical implications. << I'm just reading Bush September 20 address to Congress and I see nothing in it that can hurt an european ear, contrary to his earlier addresses and interviews. I have the illusion Blair and Chirac are for something in it.>> This is hard to explain. (And will probably get me flamed ;) ) From experience, and to an American, I can tell you that our president is a good, charismatic off-the-cuff speaker in person. He gets his point across well. This seems especially strange to people who only hear him on the radio or read his words. His speaking style at times probably also seems strange to people for whom English is a second language. It no doubt seems especially strange to hear me say this when so many of his grammatical errors have been documented. But while the man's speech patterns may seem to be disjointed, his messages are not. It may help (and I mean this in all seriousness) to read him as if English was not his first language. Certain phrases and words may not perfectly fit what he is trying to say, but in greater context his point gets across loud and clear. I'm referring here to his off-the-cuff, improvised speeches and not his scripted ones. Ah well, I've probably bumbled my point. Rather than flaming me, if you have a problem with what I've said, please be nice! << I give here, in my turn, with the poor English proficiency of mine, some insights that can explain my reaction. France is a lay state, by law, since the 1905 Church and State Split Act. Not a political man would mention something religious in his speeches, it's simply not politically correct here. Even Chirac who's a rather right wing catholic. No prayers at school, no visible religious signs allowed at school. Only civil wedding is recognized by law and so on.>> Well, considering France's history, y'all have been ingrained with the concept of separation of Church and State for the last 2 centuries. Politics in America isn't always about the issues of the day, and even when it is, those issues usually have religious undertones. << However something like 90% of the people are catholics, simply things are not mixed up, law and government on one side, religion and mysticism on another.>> I was unaware of this.... and was even more interested in reading kneem's info on France's religious laws. I can tell you that Americans find the line separating church and state to be a little more blurry. The first amendment to our constitution indicates that the US government cannot interfere with organized religion: Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Yet our religious beliefs often dictate the way we lead our lives. And many of the political issues our country has faced in the past 50 years have had some religious undertones. It's not so black-and-white in practice, but basic religious rights are, for the most part, respected and defended. The *law* defends your right to do as you please as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The one question I have is over your use of the word 'mysticism'. (I'm unsure... are you using this word in a way to also have it refer to organized religions? Jon
