Well, Micah wants us to think about the Pope and Anglicanism. This is a good thing, I think. I just hope that the Anglican Communion (as schitzo as it be) does not reunite too quickly. It needs to think of its own ecclesial children like the ABC/USA.
The Corner is asking for book recommendations. This is a good thing. Chime in.
Upyernoz has some thoughts about the State of the Union address that he has shared. What are other people thinking? I did not watch it. I have been paying attention to the news, however, and from what I have gleaned none are too impressed, but he did not embarass anyone...I think.
Jennifer is worried that she does not sound like she would rather.
By the way, do I sound even remotely Wesleyan anymore? I'm not sure I completely agree with what I just wrote - just putting it out there for argument's sake - but on the cooperation with grace scale I'm sliding down quite a bit lately.
Ah, how I know this slippery slope.
Posted by tripp at January 21, 2004 09:48 AMI thought Bush's speech was absolutely one of
the most stupid speeches I've ever heard. I was
laughing hysterically. I felt he didn't really
say anything. I was relieved when the newsperson
followed the speech by commenting, "The speech
was well delivered but it was flat. He offered
no iniatives." Exactly. Athletes are to get off
of steroids! Say thank you to our soldiers!
I believe in the sanctity of marraige between a
man and a woman! (is he really saying NO gay marraiges?) More incentives for religious groups!
And his continued antagonistical statements towards other countries and the United Nations that continues to alienate us was outright arrogance. I was very impressed by the comments
by the minority leader, democrat Nancy Pelosi.
She looked at all issues -- healthcare, education, international relations, military,
the budget in a more intelligent, diplomatic way.
More and more, Bush appears as a mild dictator
to me than a democratic leader. He imposes his
values on others. That is autocracy, not democracy. And I guess you could go further, in the fact that he is so "Divinely" led, that he
could assume a monarchy. Weren't they "divinely" predestinated also?
Anyway, he plucked my last nerve, as one can tell.
I am, however, all for the program he proposed
for rehabilitating the prisoners that are being
released this year. However, I was thinking to
myself, with what money? Again, the newsperson,
when bringing up this new program Bush plans,
brought up that Bush had already stated that only
4% of funds can go to new programs -- I didn't
get the verbage on that exactly -- but he was
driving at the same thing I was thinking -- with
what money?
Was his comments about the sanctity of marriage a throwaway line, a bit of red meat to the James Dobson folk? I don't know. But it scares me that he is willing to so casually amend the constitution on this issue.
The whole marriage language has a distinct Orwellian tone to it, much like the previous Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s. Are marriages protected by these laws? Are marriages defended?
No, of course not. But a whole class of people are made second-class in law, and gay and lesbian families again lose. Greatest democracy on earth? Not when laws like this codify inequalities.
Posted by: Don at January 21, 2004 12:23 PMWhat gripes me most about this issue is the language that he used. "The sanctity of marriage." This is a common issue I have with most of his language. Sancitiy belongs in the church. Marriage in a legal sense is a civil union between two people. A contract. That is why a judge or justice of the peace can marry people, legally.
Using a word like sactity throws the religion, and a very relevant part, into the equation. This is a slippery slope. Very.
When I post my response to the speech on my blog I will get more into this.
Posted by: justin at January 21, 2004 12:33 PMOne of the things that creeps me out most about his use of the word "sanctity" is the whole idea that sanctity is some kind of finite value, and that the government can control its distribution. If I were on the religious right, I'd wonder why President Bush has gone from "a charge to keep" (answering to God) to "a charge to enforce" (God answering to him).
Posted by: Tom Head at January 27, 2004 12:02 PM