Re: not playing so nice

All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself --
that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because
the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper
stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in
the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to
the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies
in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be
brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will
continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly
impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed
down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who
conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how
to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
-Adolf Hitler

This is my beloved Son; listen to him
Mark 9:7

Hmmmm.......
tina

>I think there's a bit of difference between the two claims. Most people I
>know (but not all) accept that "calling someone the only begotten son of an
>invisible god" isn't something that's self-evident -- it's not like walking
>under a tree and noticing the shade. No one (or very few, and they're
>weirdos) is saying, "Come, here, I will show you Christ and you can see for
>yourself. He's living in Peoria -- just a short plane trip away." If they
>do claim to be able to show you Christ, it would be through a mystical
>experience of some sort you'd have to be open to from the beginning, and
>one that you'd have to judge for yourself. Still not a slam dunk. And
>even beyond that, people are perfectly free to say it's all irrelevant to
>them as you have. I really don't see too many people preaching on these
>boards. Daniel almost does, but honestly I have a hard time making out
>what he says sometimes too.
>
>However, making accusations of bigotry in a public official should be
>something that's self evident, once the relevant proof has been offered.
>It's also immediately relevant to everyone who is a US citizen. If this
>guy really is a flaming bigot and is in a nationally prominent public
>office, we should be calling for his resignation. There shouldn't be any
>question about that.
>
>I'm only speaking, of course, from the point of view of the bland civic
>morality that passes around US society as our ethical lingua franca. It
>seems like the easiest middle ground to establish in a discussion like
>this.
>
>Anyway, I know some evidence about Ashcroft is out there. I've heard the
>stories. I think there's one about a judge in a state he used to govern.
>And another about a study conducted of the US judicial system that
>concluded there's no racism in it. I'm pretty sure you have too...just a
>little bit of web browsing should pull up the news articles. I'm curious
>why you don't bother. Very little effort.
>
>Jim
>
>Omlor@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Luke writes:
>>
>>"...if you're going to call a person "sleazy" and a "bigot," you'd better
>>damn well prove it..."
>>
>>But I have faith.
>>
>>Man, you call someone the only begotten son of an invisible god and you
>>don't have to prove any of it. But you call them a sleazy sheep-fucker
>>and suddenly faith isn't good enough.
>>
>>Oh, well...
>>
>>--John (on the road somewhere in Central Florida)
>

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 7 21:36:47 2003