Yael wrote:
> Kakki wrote, about Reagan and religion:
> >I'm still not convinced.
>
> In some ways I think that is the problem - not with Kakki per se (this is
> no attack on you, Kakki!) - most of the articulate and vocal people
> (whether civil or downright rude) about politics and social issues on this
> list - and I include myself in this philosophical wondering - seem like we
> are not open or willing to accept information that makes us reconsider our
> positions.
You say you are not singling me out yet you are using me as an example of
something (of which I'm not quite clear). You quoted me in response to my
statement that I am not convinced that Reagan and his wife Nancy ran the
country based solely on their beliefs in Armageddon and astrology. (By the
way, fundamentalist Christianity firmly condemns belief in astrology as a
"sin" so right off there is a big conflict between calling them true
"fundamentalists" and serious followers of astrology in the same breath).
I'm still not convinced of that, just as I would never be convinced that
Bill Clinton ran the country based solely on the beliefs of Hillary's guru
at one time, Jean Houston. Some of you may recall the news and magazine
reports of Hillary having helpful imaginary conversations with Eleanor
Rooseveldt to help guide her as First Lady. When the news stories became
controversial, Hillary tried to downplay her interactions with Jean Houston,
stating emphatically that she is an "old fashioned Methodist" and otherwise
emphasizing her hard core Christian beliefs. In the interest of fairness to
present Jean's response to the Hillary controversy here is a link to Jean
Houston's "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton" from her website
"Spiritwalk." http://www.spiritwalk.org/houston.htm
My point is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of people's beliefs but
just to illustrate how any news reports can be manipulated or taken out of
context to create a myth.
Kakki
