On Jan 24, 12:35 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> The invocation was not a religious imposition on the peoples
> government and has not influence whatsoever on governmental function.
> Your outlook is skewed.
The entire ceremony was sandwiched between an "invocation" and a
"benediction". Neither of these parts of the ceremony were part of the
original design of the inauguration; neither should be seen as
necessary for the inauguration of a president. And yet their very
existed is ipso facto seen as a necessary appeal to the most base
mystical nonsense, excluding all other religions in the supposed
"united" states, and is fundamentally unconstitutional by any rational
analysis.
>
> If anything GW's stance on certain issues was a violation of the
> separation of church and state, which I had presented many a post to
> demonstrate my position, which stands against it.
You are missing the point. I am not attacking you or your views, but
the mentality of this hideous ceremony.
>
> I'm not a stranger to your anti american posts and in fact I find most
> of your output an exercise in negativity, which is probably a
> reflection of the negativity that surrounds your persona.
Once again you are far off the mark as per usual. I consider myself a
true patriot, and see the constitution of the USA in the way it was
originally conceived by my fellow atheists. I will not excuse or
suffer fools gladly and will offer tough criticism exactly where it is
due, excusing nothing that brings the US political system into
disrepute.
>
> Now you are thinking, look who is judging, but the fact is your posts
> easily reveal that which is readily apparent. I'm just identifying
> that which already exists.
Duh!
>
> On Jan 23, 5:58 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
