It's actually nice to have someone think critically about something I've written, even if they then mischaracterize it. But perhaps I'm less than clear. You'll note a link on my blog to "The Right Christians," now the Village Gate. Originally the creation of Allen Brill a lawyer and ordained minister, the subtitle to the blog used to read, "It's time the Christian Right met the right Christians." I don't mock Christianity, I mock fundamentalism, which I contend now represents mainstream American protestantism. I don't presume to know whether there will be "divine punishment for evil acts," although for the first 35 years of my life, I took that proposition most literally. Now I believe that if there is divine punishment for evil, first in line will be the leaders of the beyond hypocritical religious right.
Speaking of hubris, the book "Imperial Hubris, Why America is Losing the War on Terror," is instructive. I don't see how any one, regardless of their political ideology could see our foreign policy as anything less than unspeakably arrogant.
I had a discussion with Puddle Pirate once regarding Clarence Thomas, and whether or not he is truly Scalia's lapdog. (I posit that he is trying desperately to shake that reputation, and finds creative and disingenuous ways to "prove" he's his own man.) We (Puddle Pirate and I) both lost interest rather quickly, but he seems to some knowledge of the judicial system.
As I recall, Scalia in the past was quite critical of citing foreign law, and that his recent comments are somewhat of a change in direction for him. As to incosistency, he has his own issues, eg., his reliance on equal protection in Bush v. Gore, and his inconsistency on the issue of states' rights, depending on which political ox is being gored. A recent redistric
redistricting case comes to mind, but I can't recall a name or a cite right now.
Your response did a very good job of explaining your stance on "fundamentalist Christians." I would consider myself a fundamentalist but my feeling is that I have moderated the way I express my views enough that you would not consider me a "hypocritical religious" person.
To my "mischaracterization" of your use of Dr. King's quote, I do think I understood your intent and I actually can see how you came to the decision to use the quote on your blog. I also feel that, just as with the word "fundamentalist," King’s quote carries a lot of additional meaning, most of which you were not intending to convey as your main point.
To explain my point, we can use the notion of putting a water fountain outside of a home. If the home is located in the Amazon, a place with plenty of rain, the fountain conveys a connection with nature. If the home is in Saudi Arabia, a much dryer environment, the fountain shows wealth (and sometimes arrogance) because water is scarce.
Your quote of King was like you saying “it highlights arrogance” when I read “it shows a connection with nature.” This is my point with quoting Scalia because he was emphasizing the dropping of the unintended meaning behind citing foreign law.
I sometimes feel that liberals and conservatives both use the term “inconsistent” naively. You obviously felt the use of King’s quote was consistent with your beliefs. The problem arises when I interpret the quote consistent with my beliefs because our belief systems are different. So, fair warning, I sometimes use “inconsistent” in an intentionally provocative manner so that I may learn how my opponent feels the statement is “consistent.”
"opponent"? And here I thought we'd all been united by Bush's all-inclusive empty rhetoric.
Commenting by HaloScan
