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: iandiareii who wrote (36365)	3/2/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

First, it is true that I have but a dim recollection of what you refer to as WWJD, although as you described it it rang an ever so faint bell. I am not sure that it is apropos, however, since it means trying to apply Biblical standards in one's personal behavior, not channeling. Also, it is not particularly mainline. In the particular case of Senator Inhofe, it is indeed normal enough for people of faith, including Jews and Muslims, to ask God for guidance, which is certainly reasonable if you believe in God. It is still not quite the same as channeling. In addition, as far as I know, Eleanor Roosevelt is not a deity, not has she even been canonized by a recognized authority. Also, Mrs. Clinton professes to be a Methodist, which I assure you is not traditionally prone to this sort of thing, and she makes much of the meaningfulness of her faith. Finally, on this matter, I might be more inclined to be indulgent if Democrats had not been cruel about Nancy Reagan's astrology, as I made clear, or if there were not such a pronounced hostility on the part of many liberals towards traditional religious expression. I do not support sitting through a "ritual", but a short non- sectarian benediction designed to be inoffensive and to refrain from proselytizing. If inviting the leader of the local coven to participate in the rotation of clergy needs to be made a precondition of such exercises by the courts, that is fine with me. The original understanding of the first Amendment did not, in fact, prohibit the states from establishing churches, which several did for a time. Nor was it intended to ban all public expressions of religious belief even at events sponsored by the Federal Government, as in the tradition of opening a new congress with a benediction, or ending oaths of office with the phrase "so help me God". Plainly, the majoritarian position I espoused is also the position of the Founding, for the Founders were not so foolish as to think that modest displays of religious sentiment under public auspices amounted to Establishment. By the way, is that the "we" of MPD?