Posted by James on 9/4/2007, 12:41 pm, in reply to "Re: --I dunno--Can God lose a lawsuit?" This fails to address the fundamental question of how these men can remain in positions of authority within the Christian right when so many of the evangelical masses do not agree with their intentions. If your contention that the masses disagree with the leadership, then it should hold true that the disgruntled masses would throw off the chains of this particular leadership. That these men continue to stay in power speaks directly against your argument. Therefore, in order to rectify the disjunction between your assertion that the evangelical masses do not agree with their theocratic leadership, you will have to provide more than simply your opinion alone. It is not ample evidence to prove your point. "All I am saying is something very limited: these guys have no real power. If given power, they would abuse it." How can you say this when these men have the power to sway a mass of people within society with a single broadcast? How can you say this when they have the power and opportunity to greatly influence our elected representatives on the national level and do so regularly? In other words, we have another disjunction between your assertion and observable reality. You will have to rectify this one as well for your argument to be feasible. "Just as socially leftist college administrators who DO HAVE power are abusing it." For the umpteenth time, they have nothing to do with this conversation. An attack on them is not a defense of your position. Stop trying to redirect the discussion. "Which is why I trust ideologues of neither the right nor the left. I can agree with them on some specific issues, but not all." This discussion is not solely about your opinion, but how you can make your assertions mesh with observations. Thus far, you have not done this. You have restated the same generalizations ad nauseum without getting into the specifics. In fact, instead of dealing with verified specific observations, you have attacked liberals and college administrations. You have failed to make your case in almost all respects. "I strongly believe in both religious clauses of the First Amendment. Government should have no role in advancing any particular religion. Government should have no role in restricting any particular religion. Right and left are in too many cases defined by acceptance of the one, and rejection of the other." Other than being yet another overly diluted generalization, what exactly does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
199.80.67.240
"I'm not avoiding it, I have clearly stated that I do not trust these guys either, neither their politics nor their theology, neither those of the right, nor those of the left."
