"Olga Bourlin" <fauxever@sprynet.com> writes:
> From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>
> > Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Michael M. Butler wrote:
> > >
> > > > I consciously adopt the language of my audience. At the end of a
> > > > recent post, I mentioned God even though I'm an agnostic. Was the rest
> > > > of the content valuable, or rendered valueless?
> > >
> > > The latter. To cite a recent case, a superficially reasonable email on
> > > post-WTC policy sailed into my inbox a few days ago. It made sense right
> > > unto the final sentence, which read "God bless America". Now, I don't
> > > trust people basically driven by inscrutable motivations. One might
> > > support points of policy, warily so, but certainly not the person
> pushing
> > > it. Sooner or later, the dissonance must surface.
> >
> > What is the big deal here? Saying "God bless America" speaks quite
> directly
> > to the 90% of Americans according to polls who have some level of theistic
> > belief. To ask for God's blessing on America in the face of 9/11 and that
> > level of belief is almost mandatory if you want to reach the people and
> speak
> > to their hearts. Why should those who are not theistic make such a big
> deal
> > about this?
>
> Well, then, what about the remaining 10% - are we chopped liver? When a
> President speaks to all the "American people," how does it compromise
> anything he may need to say if he simply talks about the business at hand?
Presidents speak to majorities quite often. I do understand your point I
just think it is not terribly relevant at this time.
> (In fact, he compromises what he has to say every time he mentions God,
> because that's coo-coo and childish, e.g., just like having an "Invisible
> Friend," you know, except for grownups.) Certainly it's the President's
> right to mention God, just as it is his right to mention that he believes
> the earth is flat (althouth even if he and 90% of Americans believed THAT,
> it would still not make it true). But, and this is the most important
> issue, he would still be excluding 90% of his audience. Neutrality
> regarding the God issue is a better idea, IMHO - we are supposed to be a
> secular government, after all. However, it may be more appropriate for the
> President to talk about "God" to a captive audience of churchgoers, for
> instance (although it would still be coo-coo).
In these circumstances such neutrality would not speak to what moves
90% of the people and would fee very strange to them. We are a secular
government. That does not mean that relgious concepts never get mentioned.
I really have what I believe are more pressing things to talk about right
now.
Lashing out becauce the G word was used at a time like this is imho tremendously
counterproductive. As a friend of mine would say "Very true but irrelevant at
this time."
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT