Subject:
|
Re: American intelligentsia and the American electorate (WAS Re: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:51:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> It seems that there is an agreement between Larry and Scott to not participate
> in the same threads. Whether this is totally informal, or even fictional, is
> irrelevent. It's been nice having no sniping between Scott and Larry. Thanks
> to both of you for the restraint! But this note worries me...
This is not a snipe(?). Am I not supporting his argument? I can't ever
remember agreeing not to "participate in the same threads" as Larry.
Further, I am pretty sure he has posted in the same threads as me – he is
welcome to.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > So does Dawkins have it right? Does intolerance mean that religious freedoms
> > are being curtailed by the unsophisticated Christians masses?
>
> Well, yes. Didn't you read the thread. John, et al, want the right not to
> practice religion curtailed.
Are John's view’s really representative? ;)
> It's commonplace. Is it really nonexistant over
> there?
In the UK there is far less political/religious overlap. Sure religious
types express political views. However, political types very rarely directly
canvas any religion. I can't think of any major item of recent UK foreign or
domestic policy which has a religious basis. Can you say the same of the USA?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
