My fears about Obama probably lie in having been conned by Blair. The inauguration was truly awful and should be banned on grounds of taste.
On 25 Jan, 00:17, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 24, 7:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Obama has already repealed some Bush religious idiocy. {What has > > happened to the e in religious back there?} If he isn't genuinely > > religionous (sounds like poisonous so no typo), then he is very > > manipulative. The moral questions that underlie such manipulations > > are complex and we should not forget that the myths of origin in all > > societies are a lie, and that even to consider big bang as origin is a > > mistake born from the very notion of "origin". I hope Obama is an > > atheist using religious crud. Not sure about Chaz's negative field - > > I'm sure it bites, but so does my pussycat. > > Don't be swayed by Slip Disc's anti-chaz polemic. I reserve the right > of every American to render critique to my country of birth. > I think Obama is the best thing that has happened to the USA in a long > time, that does not change the fact that the inauguration ceremony is > unconstitutional and panders to the worst aspects of the American > delusion. > > > On 24 Jan, 00:35, 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
