What's so great about America?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

More nonsense. He said this is the only country in which he has been where people will call someone (who elsewhere is assumed to be a social inferior) sir or ma'am. Is it required that this be done in every nook and cranny of the country for it to be a valid statement? Is it required of D'Souza to point to this or that region? The fact remains that a large section of the country does precisely what D'Souza claims. His statement is valid with or without regional attribution.

by your logic, i can say America is a country in which people will not call waiters sir or ma'am, and be equally correct, since i'm not specifically claiming that Americans in every nook & cranny of the country never do so.

But of course you didn't write an op-ed piece which claimed this. You criticized one which said the opposite. Your criticism is not valid simply because it holds true in the few places with which you are familiar.

D'Sousa's comments require only that in a sizeable section of the country his contention holds true. (Requirement met). Your comments require that there not be any section of the US where his contention holds true (Requirement not met).

Quote:

If the Founders were religious men as D'Souza claims, they would hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and therefore they would have scorned the accumulation of wealth.

no, that's not my tortured logic. I assume that a *Christian* pretty much has to regard the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as the inerrant word of God, but if I'm wrong about that, i stand corrected. Fundamentalists in addition extend this to every word of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Well, you stand corrected then because all Christians (and in fact I would argue most) do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. See how ignorance can be a detriment to clear thought?

I would, Nick.

Finn, dear. Can't you think of a more eloquent word choice than "idiot"? That is soooooo trite.

[quote="yitwail]

Quote:

If the Founders were religious men as D'Souza claims, they would hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and therefore they would have scorned the accumulation of wealth.

no, that's not my tortured logic. I assume that a *Christian* pretty much has to regard the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as the inerrant word of God, but if I'm wrong about that, i stand corrected. Fundamentalists in addition extend this to every word of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Well, you stand corrected then because all Christians (and in fact I would argue most) do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. See how ignorance can be a detriment to clear thought?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

[quote="yitwail]

Quote:

If the Founders were religious men as D'Souza claims, they would hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and therefore they would have scorned the accumulation of wealth.

no, that's not my tortured logic. I assume that a *Christian* pretty much has to regard the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as the inerrant word of God, but if I'm wrong about that, i stand corrected. Fundamentalists in addition extend this to every word of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Well, you stand corrected then because all Christians (and in fact I would argue most) do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. See how ignorance can be a detriment to clear thought?

Well, you stated that if all Christians were not fundamentalist you stood corrected. They are not, and so you stand, by your own words, corrected, and yet you seem to still want to defend the comments that they acknowledged might be untrue.

I assume that a *Christian* pretty much has to regard the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as the inerrant word of God, but if I'm wrong about that, i stand corrected. Fundamentalists in addition extend this to every word of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Spew on, but I, for one, will no longer engage you in your silly arguments.