nice try, rl... but let's look at your charge that my contribution to this thread is dogmatic.
first of all, i say that manifiest destiny is terrible/excessive. this is an opinion, it's not dogma. it's based on the actions of those that act on a belief in manifest destiny throughout history, but it's an opinion nonetheless.
second, my solution to the problem is a dogma of sorts, i guess, but what makes something a dogma?
* concrete and not open to debate
* exclusive to those who believe
* based on some authority, often infallible, especially one that might not be based on empirical evidence
the irony of your protest is that your position is also dogmatic. i would think far more dogmatic than mine, let's go point for point:
* your position is the dogma of your personal interpretation of the bible, where mine would try to find balance between your position and others- do i have to explain how finding the balance between all other positions is by nature *not* concrete?
* yours flatout excludes everyone that doesn't believe yours, while mine at least tries to include everyone (i'm not saying a perfect job of it is possible, but the attempt is built into the premise)
* yours is based on a god that can't be wrong and can't be proven to exist. mine is based on me, a person, i can prove (to the satisfaction of most, or at least relatively speaking,) that i do exist, and i admit i can always be wrong.
you're complaining about "dogma," do you have any room to point fingers about it? is your position less dogmatic than mine, or more?
pfft
that should be a real challenge.
