Dominic wrote:
>>
>> I think it's dangerously stupid to focus on Bush in this way:
>> it hardens the hearts of those who sympathise with his persona against
>> any cogent criticism of his actions.
>
I think the mistake in this reasoning is the assumption the Bush
"sympathizers" might ever listen to a logical argument. Yes, that's a
huge generalization but walk a day in my shoes and you might well
understand where it's derived. Those who defame Bush on a personal level
*may* believe their attacks will change the opinion of his supporters.
My belief (I want to say: my despairing sense) is that Bush is
sacrosanct *because* he is an icon. Neither logic or defamation is going
to dislodge this position, and as long as he retains that position, he
will continue to install his belief system. I am depairing!
>>
>> I'm prepared to bet
>> that if you asked all the people who responded to that survey about
>> belief in the divine authorship and literal truth of the Bible a few
>> carefully-worded questions about a couple of other things, you'd find
>> that their answers contradicted each other pretty sharply.
>
Again, you are making the incorrect assumption that logic is a guiding
principle here and it just ain't so! You could shove those
inconsistencies right down the black hole of the surveyees, and it
wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. That is the whole point!
>> Affirming
>> the divine origin, inerrancy and literal truth of the Bible is pretty
>> much a matter of social politeness in some circles: a default position
>> for those who aren't especially strongly-minded about such things).
>>
Well maybe. Where I live and work, it's not social nicety, and it's not
a default response of the hapless. It is a given, and in many cases,
agreed upon with full awareness of the consequences. (And I work in a
college setting!)
As far as I'm concerned Bush is mining a vein and he won't stop until
he's sucked it dry or he is forcibly removed from the blubbering teat of
ignorance.
Ann
|