On 18 Sep 2006 at 20:00, Dave Land wrote: > Folks, > > Time and time again, the charge is leveled by one Brineller against > another that the accused would not be so outraged (at least to the point > of posting to Brin-L) over some political or religious shenanigans if > the result had favored his or her position.
> It doesn't matter whether the preacher was saying something that I agree > with or was holding forth with the kind of dominionist stuff that I > would rather just go away: the principle needs to stand, or the bargain > between these two highly powerful forces in our lives will go wildly out > of balance. Dave, I hope you're aware that you, with your last paragraph did precisely what you complain about with your first? Just because it's an issue relevent to all America doesn't mean all of us are American. The "principle" you're upholding is used, in every case I can find about this, as a shield to push - usually religious - views in a way which defys criticism on those grounds. Nothing else. Britian has had an established, religious monarchy for centuries, and has no principle of seperation whatsoever. There are candidates who are Christian, and talk about Christian values. A few. In fact, it's considered basically counterproductive because people who dislike "christian values" can openly discuss the views and the candidate. "But we have seperation, he's not going to push them as Christian values" means nothing when he pushes the same thing with the religious tag stripped off, with a whole branch of criticism not avaliable entirely due to the tag stripping. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
