On Jan 25, 8:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The entire ceremony was sandwiched between an "invocation" and a<
> >"benediction".<
>
> You know I love a good sandwich! lol
>
> It's true that necessity was not a factor in the ceremony. Religious
> undertone is a wedge that is driven by those in power who have the
> ability to abuse that power. Constitutional or not the oath is taken
> with hand on "bible", separation of church and state simply remains a
> term of convenience to be used when the occasion arises. Obama is a
> politician and a smart one, he stirred up the melting pot of the
> country, and if I remember (though trying very hard to forget) Barrack
> also had a pre-inaugural invocation by some bishop. You are right
> that the whole of it is contradictory to constitutional law. However,
> my point was simply that I don't really see much fallout from it as it
> is not something that just sprung up this year. What you are riled up
> about has been going on for years.
>
> Aside from my disdain for politics I do see a serious danger of
> pervasive religious groups having influence in political policy. If
> left unchecked it could lead to our doom just based on some moronic
> fundamentalist trying to fulfill some apocalyptic prophecy. Is our
> rotting environment somehow connected to the government ignoring
> ecological issues due to prophetic end times influence?
>
> Having to endure the election process every four years, for me, is as
> bad as having to endure the xmas holiday season. I can only be glad
> that it is all over and I can resume living my peaceful life, which
> has not change much on the account of politics.
Well good luck in the dark times ahead. And let us hope that the price
of a loaf of bread does not exceed $200 next year.
I actually have no
> need for the whole shebang and don't want to have anything to do with
> it.
>
> On Jan 24, 6:15 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
