On Jan 23, 9:45 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> It may have been immensely preferable for you, gruff, but a non
> religious ceremony would have sent a stark message which essentially
> would have been the wrong message.
Perhaps you had not read the foregoing statements. Often it is
painfully necessary to remind Americans of their own constitution
which is supposed to guarantee a strict separation of church and
state.
The ceremony was just another in a
> long line of presidential ceremonies. The right thing to do in this
> climate of chaos is not to throw a wrench into the workings but to
> give people the sense that things are relatively calm. Radical
> changes may take place in the future but to use a inaugural ceremony
> to make a statement seems to me, bad timing. That segment of the
> ceremony was so insignificant and probably forgotten 10 minutes later
> by the majority of people. It is no longer a news tidbit in the least
> sense and I think it's a dead issue. I started a thread awhile back
> about the Warren pick for invocation in which chaz responded with: "I
> agree and I would not give it a single thought. Personally I doubt
> that a man of his intelligence give much thought to god except as a
> vehicle for political credibility. I would not be surprised if he is
> an atheist." Therefore I would agree with chaz that the choice is not
> indicative of Obama's personal views but more so, as politicians go,
> indicative of his ability to perform as a top notch politician, none
> of which I personally have any use for. Plus I say that Obama must,
> in every sense of the word, apply serious discernment in every
> decision, as it is at this point in history always going to be a
> critical decision. People respond from their own personal stance.
> First there were the squawking gay proponents and now it's the
> squawking atheists. In this type of political arena there will always
> be some group that will squawk, no matter what the decisions are. As
> it has been said "you can please some of the people some of the time
> but you can't please all of the people all of the time". I hope you
> are pleased with my post, at least some of it, lol.
Would that you were not Squawking quite so much, otherwise fine.
>
> On Jan 23, 2:10 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "... On Jan 23, 10:53 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
>
> > > Apparently the particular choice of the "invocator" was controversial,
> > > him being some kind of born-again type. With 20,000 Christian sects
> > > across the world, as well as other religions, any choice must alienate
> > > the majority in some way.This make my point well that to have had a
> > > non religious ceremony would have been preferable.
>
> > Without doubt a non-religious ceremony would have been immensely
> > preferable but Obama was reaching out to that mass of religious
> > ideologues who supported Bush -- there were quite a few of them. I
> > recall one of my favorite headlines in 2004 which came from a Kingdom
> > newsrag -- The Daily Mirror -- on November 2, 2004: "How can
> > 59,084,087 people be so stupid?"
>
> > I'm hoping November 4, 2008, elicited a much better headline.
>
> > /e
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
