From the 5:40 min mark...

Heavy, I think really worth the listen.



The 2nd part of the topic is at the 29 min mark, skip there if you want.

At 36:34 “so here we are 2018, we do not know how to define anything…we cannot define who we are”
“When you don’t/can’t have any definitions , how are you going to deal with reality?”

Some "religion" in there, I don't think enough to warrant marking it "religion"?

At 29 minutes and 28 seconds, Ravi Zacharias said:

quote and what we are told now is you can believe whatever you want to believe, but believe it in private. Do not bring it out in public. The moment you bring it out into public, you are violating the public space, and you are now infringing upon the rights of somebody else.

First, there is the disambiguation of "what we are told now..." How are we told? When are we told? Who is doing the telling? And who are "we"..?

But leaving that aside, the rest of this "snip" (from a larger presentation) falls on my ears like a common, but not particularly useful or enlightening thought--it's a thought that is too incomplete--about the Establishment Clause at the beginning of the First Amendment:

quote Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

If there were not frequent and recurring arguments and even litigation in the United States related to the Establishment Clause, it would only be for one of two overarching reasons: Either the United States had become an almost perfect society, or there had arisen some irreducible or intractable obstacle--almost universal apathy?--the republican (with a small "r") implementation of democracy having succumbed to some irreversibly fatal pathology?--preventing any further betterment of the United States.

I don't think either of those conditions is currently in force.


Did you know that there is literally a "Lemon Test" for judging whether a particular governing law or practice is in violation of the Establishment Clause? I certainly didn't. Not until, in my preparation of this latest public serving of my Word Saiad D'Jour, I stumbled upon this:

"The Establishment Clause"
Marci A. Hamilton and Michael McConnell for the National Constitution Center
undated, but at least as recent as 2005

This short essay--it's like two or three pages (maybe four) from a book--ends with this:

quote The Establishment Clause provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in our increasingly pluralistic republic.

https://constitutioncenter....milton-and-mcconnell


This latest serving of "rinselberg", very dispositive of what's inside my head, but does it do justice to Ravi Zacharias?

Perhaps other voices will join the conversation.


This message has been supported by a grant of uncompensated play time from the Word Salad Foundation.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2019).]

I was under the impression that I cannot handle the truth...

"Increasingly pluralistic"

Thats a big part of his point.

In regard to your other points I think applying this to individuals and families, asking what they think, if there is no truth, is a good place to start, and how I took the video.

"E pluribus unum."

Finding more "unum"... I don't think anyone (hardly) would argue with that.

That is the only part of the video segment that I listened to or thought about. Just that one sentence. Or that particular 30 seconds or one minute, from the entire presentation.

I make no claim to understand the totality of what he said, or to have any basis for reacting to the totality of it. Just that one "snip."

I was hoping that by getting onboard with it, even in such a very small way, that there could be reaction by some other members that would be looking in here to see what's going on.

I won't say that I will not return for more of Ravi Zacharias. It's not been ruled out or declared Off The Table. But it's not at the Top Of The (my) Agenda.