Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (32697)	2/8/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The broad thrust of tradition? As in, separation of church and state, perhaps? Again, I understand you argue from a philosophical point of view, not a theological one. I said that at the start. But the moral reformation wing of the Republican party certainly contains plenty of elements more aligned with theology than philosophy. William Bennett doesn't exactly disavow religion, does he? The "Christian Nation" line would no doubt be considered curious by the Founding Fathers, who were vaguely deist at best, and the "under God" / "In God we Trust" "tradition" dates all the way back to the 1950's. On this particular argumentative thrust, I am in agreement with Les Horowitz, who provided me with a nice URL on the topic. I'm not religious either, though as a lapsed Catholic I have some residual affection for the Mother Church. I apologize for appearing to mock people of faith in general, which is of course not my intent. I only mean to mock fundamentalist inerrant theologians, who get to pick and choose the story they want out of the Bible. I admit to some cruelty there, I stumbled across an old post of mine recently where I looked up chapter and verse on "spare the rod" in a concordance, and it was pretty mean. But philosophically speaking, I don't believe in hitting children, no matter what the Old Testament says. What is "patristic literature" anyway? Though I attended the Chicago school, I gravitated toward the sciences, which mercifully were no longer taught from the original sources when I attended. Modern textbooks have a much clearer presentation of classical physics than Newton's.