Date: Thu Nov 27 17:11:43 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Thanksgiving
At 04:36 PM 11/26/97 0600, you wrote:
I understand your reluctance or inability to speak for the Jewish community. But I do value your insights into Jewish related topics.
Yup, that's cool. And if I don't know the answer I can always try and look it up. I have a growing Judaica section in my library at home these days. Just bought an outstanding looking book called "The Torah: A Modern Commentary." It has the Hebrew, translations, and commentaries on what various people have said about the Torah over the years, including Christian commentators.
A few emails back you asked a question about why do some Jews have a problem, as I do, with the concept "chosen people." That was a real good way to phrase it, recognizing as is true of Christianity, that different Jews think different things. You ever hear that joke (don't repeat it), that if you get three Jews in a room, you'll get four opinions? Anyway, feel free to ask. If I don't know the answer, it helps me learn to find it. So, if you got a question, fire away and fall back.
I'm trying to look at things without the filters and blinders, but it is hard when it is so "in your face" and overkill. It is hard to find a pony in the pile, if you know what I mean.
Remember that most mis-communication between anyone, males and females, blacks and whites, Jews and gentiles, different nations, is usually premised on a suspicion about the "other side's" motivations in what they say or do. The initial hurdle to overcome is always lowering your own defenses enough to really hear what the "other side" is saying. This is very true in the bigger debate in which you and I are only spectators commenting to one another.
Y'know even when one side approaches the other with an olive branch, the other side will invariably suspect that it's being set up. Oh sure, I drop my defenses, and you'll plant the bomb. It's very natural.
Think back to the early days of your marriage. Ever have an argument with your wife where if you said exactly the same thing in exactly the same tone to a man, it would have been no big thing? And your wife received it and thought you were trying to dominate her or subjugate her, make her feel inferior? But you KNEW you didn't mean to hurt her feelings or convey any "power trip" message? Nowadays, your wife knows full well that your intentions are always good (as I do in our dialog) and she's fully receptive, but in the beginning there were hard feelings and misunderstandings. It's exactly the same thing with every other dispute in the rest of the world.
Now, you've gotten to know me. You know that overall my intentions are good, that I have a legitimate, reasonable basis for some of our disagreements even though you still disagree with some of the end results I may be...endorsing or promoting? ; ) Nevertheless, you know in your heart at least that this liberal named Rob does not want to see the demise of Christianity. That, that is not what I am after when I say I want religion divorced from government. You appreciate that while we differ on what we'd like to see, regardless of what the law says, that I am not "anti-Christian."
Go one step further and you're there. Because I haven't said anything less radical than what the majority "party line" is of the ACLU or most (I say most) liberals on the subject of prayer (and now homosexuality). Sure, there will be extremists on my side who will say that even personal acknowledgment of God should go (which most of us don't), just as there are extremists on your side that think that there should be a cross and picture of Jesus in every public classroom. For the most part, and certainly as it applies to the topics of our debates, the lawyers, courts and ACLU mean no more harm to Christianity than I do.
The point is, your wife learned to listen to you by dropping her defenses and giving you the benefit of the doubt that your intentions were good; you have done the same with me as an individual. Now, simply apply what you've learned from those examples to the larger picture, and revisit to what extent the "left" has ACTUALLY said or done the things that you would instinctively ascribe malevolent motives to.
An important exercise in developing that ability is to see if you can play devil's advocate. See how well you can make the arguments the "other side" is trying to make. I do it all the time in my line of work. I wind up taking the "other side's" arguments and not just regurgitating them, but will put them in their best possible light. If they are right, I say so. If they are wrong, then I can not be accused of mis-construing what their arguments are. I take a sow's ear and try to make a silk purse out of it. I can’t always do it, of course, because when all was said and done it may still be a sow's ear. But you will see me trying to give them the benefit of the doubt on re-articulating their arguments before I shot them down.
That's a very hard thing to do. Because when you do that, you're left without the boxes and the categories and the labels that everyone had conveniently fit into. We all do that, and the hard part is overcoming it. When I talk to my friends about our discussions they're not listening to what I'm saying you're saying, and how well you try to, and in fact do very often, understand. They say, "aw, he's just a right wing fundamentalist Christian whacko." And I say, "you know, for a 'liberal,' you sure are prejudiced." Seriously, I get P.O.'ed that people who profess to be so liberal aren't giving you the same benefit of the doubt I'm trying to get you to give me, and are trying to get you to give to them. So, I'll work on them from my side. But in order for any of us to do that, we have to break down our own barriers to communication first, by giving the other side the benefit of the doubt that while we may disagree with what we understand their ultimate political objectives to be are their intentions and motivations are still honorable.
Perhaps you are right. I've alluded to the "diversity" among "Christians" previously. (I am no longer a member of Christian Coalition, for what its worth.) Also, I don't see this as a Jewish inspired effort.
Well, your stock just went up in my book a couple of points. Any reason in particular you're no longer a member?
Since you are Jewish and use examples of potential harm that seem related to Jews, I usually couch my comments in those terms. BTW, if you've never read Pat Robertson's book "New World Order" you might ought to give it a read. A rather interesting and provocative perspective!
Provocative, I'm sure. It is something I will doubtless pick up, especially if I see it on the reduced for sale table. I think I pick up a lot of the flavor of what he's said by trying to understand his followers. But it's always better to read it in the original.
“Look closely at that leftist propaganda, with an open eye, and see if it doesn't take pains to distinguish who they're talking about. They're not talking about "all Christians," they're only talking about those whose politics are geared toward using the schools and other public places as places to endorse and promote their religion (which only coincidentally happens to one small sect of Christianity).”
Fair enough!
I can ask no more. And if you DO find generic "anti-Christian" sentiment, please point it out to me. Because that will be a group I do not want to be associated with. For example, I don't have any links to the Jewish Defense League web page, because they appear to be blind followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, an ultra-orthodox right wing Jewish leader originally born in Brooklyn who went to Israel and believed all non Jews and arabs should be removed from the country. He was assassinated a few years back. He was a VERY dangerous man to peace between the Jews and the Arabs. Jewish intolerance personified.
Okay, I'll try. But try to not feel put down in some way next time your are in someone's presence who prays a prayer in Jesus' name. See, it is difficult for both of us. Your admonishment to stay focused is universally applicable. t will build our sense of teamwork, as we struggle for "the truth" and solutions for our society.
It's all just a matter of time, place and manner. In any setting but a government setting, I have no problem regardless of who is being prayed to. When it is done in inappropriate places, I don't feel "put down" per se, but it does create an environment of benign neglect and alienation. Although we've discussed it at length before why I feel that way, let's put that one on hold for a bit.
“Ah, but Frank. The question of ‘leading’ is the point of contention. ‘Now, children. Everyone bow your heads as we give thanks to Jesus as the pilgrims did before we eat." That's what we're talking about. It may seem de minimus to you, because you already do that. It's not de minimus to me. And that's the issue. You can't say, ‘oh, it's just a little prayer.’ A prayer's a prayer.”
Yes, I see that is drawing a fine line. And I can see where if she said that, it would be difficult for a Jewish child in the class. Then would it be okay if she had said, "Okay, I'll ask God to bless our food?" Then bowed her head and done so in the name of Jesus (as is her religious custom)? No coercion; no leading?
Not really, because it's not a denominational preference issue, as much as a religion at all question. But perhaps this, and this is off the top of my head: "Now, children, the pilgrims gave thanks to God before they ate. And some of you do too. If any one of you would care to give thanks you are welcome to do so." That way at least the teacher isn't leading it, which the courts have said is OK at least at high school commencement exercises. But it's still problematic particularly in the grade schools, because it sends mixed messages about promotion of prayer generally if the teacher proposes it, and is subject to the possibility of abuse by extremists. I'll have to cogitate on that some more. But there may be an answer in there somewhere....
“I really don't think that's ridiculous. Sure, I meant it in a broader sense, not the specific prayer meeting sense. But if a little bitty prayer's alright, what's wrong with a longer prayer? And if a longer prayer is OK, what's wrong with invoking Jesus' name and requiring everyone to bow their heads? And if that's OK.... I mean, where you gonna' stop it, Frank?You think these people who intentionally twist and deliberately mis read the Supreme Court's opinions and Judge DeMent's and Judge Price's orders, and then say they're ‘confused’ are gonna' know where to draw the line? They don't, they prove it time and time again, which is why Judge DeMent has to go into such lengthy detail about what's not permissible and such lengthy explanation that he shouldn't have to about what still is.”
I see what you are saying. But then you are subscribing the all or nothing mindset that you derided in times past. Isn't that intolerance from those who teach tolerance? You must understand that while you are close to such issues and court decisions, the average citizen and teacher are not. They are just trying to make a living in a world of ever increasing government imposed, court imposed "mine field." You've got to understand that.
It's not so much ascribing all or nothing. Because the issue isn't really black and white, as much as either side may want it to be. It's a slippery slope and those who are prone to extremism will slide the fastest. It's that one thing leads to another that history has shown over and over again that I'm trying to address. As an aside, I have no way of knowing, but I wonder, just wonder, whether my memos back in 1989 to then-Attorney General Don Siegelman may have delayed the present controversy by seven or eight years. We'll never know.
I can appreciate that the average citizen may not understand the nuances. That's why it's imperative that their spiritual leaders and people like Barton, and the lawyers who are on the side of the "right" in modern cases, be intellectually honest with their following and in their arguments. As to teachers, there's really no excuse. They're college educated and in the case of DeMent's orders, they're written very plainly, and DeMent ordered that copies be distributed and that the school devise and implement a "teaching understanding" and sensitivity training curricula for the teachers and administrators.
The "average citizen and teacher" may say they're trying to negotiate court imposed mine fields, but those that say so that are being vocal about it are not average. The law has been very clear for thirty or more years whether or not they agree with the result. Those that have been pushing the envelope claim ignorance of the boundaries of the "mine field," but they're a day late and a dollar short in my book. It's what I said to you about "don't go hitting your head against the wall and tell me you're being attacked." They've intentionally muddied the waters and then claim there's nothing to drink. I dunno. Maybe you're right. I just think there's a certain minimum level of intelligence involved once you get a college degree after which you're not entitled to claim ignorance any longer. Perhaps you are right and my expectations are ... too high. All the more reason for DeMent's order that teachers get sensitivity training. Neither this prayer, prayer before football games, nor any other prayer of the type we've been discussing are designed to MAKE people pray. All are welcome to pray if they so choose. That is another ridiculous expression.
“I could not disagree more. It has never been merely a matter of coercion. You reduce our months of dialog to a simple definition of prayer, religion and establishment to mean only compulsion which you know is not the definition of establishment, promotion or endorsement that I or the courts grappling with such questions have. The issue is far deeper than that, and after you've read the cases, we can go back and discuss that in more detail if need be.”
I was afraid you'd say something like that. It seems that the word/term that we keep misunderstanding is "promote." Let's try to come to a common understanding on that one, otherwise well never get out book completed. You first. Tell me the definition of "promote" as in promotion of religion. Give me Rob the man's definition. I can't get that from court decisions.
I can't give you Rob the man's definition that is not the courts' as well. I think they've said it best, because they've grappled with the logical and didactic conundrums involved. What difficulty are you having with the court decisions? Would it help if you re read my memoranda on the subject with a fresh eye, or are those also still too "legalistic"?
But your focus is good. Recognizing we don't yet have a common definition of promotion and endorsement, let's keep working on that. Have you had a chance to read the cases I sent you? I'd not have thought you'd have had time yet. If you have, and they still aren't making sense, tell me where and we can focus on that. Maybe I haven't sent you the right ones. Engle v. Vitale and the Schempp cases have some good discussion. But keep bringing me back to that until we've discussed what the cases have said, because that's where the answer is for me. The courts' definitions and explanation of promotion and endorsement are my starting points.
“… providence of God. Yes, the lessons is that the pilgrims were thankful, and that the kid should be too. Period. That the pilgrims thanked God in particular, they should learn as well. That the kids SHOULD ALSO thank God for what they've been provided is a lesson to be taught at home and in the church.”
We agree on your last statement. I really mean that. I agree. In this instance, it was what the kid learned in church and at home that emerged in the classroom. And it was in that setting that his religious training met government prohibition. (I'm granting here that the teacher was acting in her official capacity as a government representative (not that I really accept that position as true.))
True, and while it may have been difficult for the child to comprehend at the moment, and awkward for the teacher, the problem resulted in him suggesting her to lead the class in prayer. His instincts were good, there was an inconsistency there; the application of what to do about it was ... awkward. Had I been the teacher and had the presence of mind that comes with hindsight, I might have suggested that he is welcome to say grace over his own meal, as are all the students if they desire. Hindsight is 20/20. I would like to play with this scenario with some of the more extremist liberals on the subject. See what their take is on it. Problem is, I'm not sure I know any.
“Bullshit. Is your faith in God so tenuous that to tell the story of the Pilgrims without praying while you do it is to deny your faith? Are we to construe the constitution through the eyes of people who came and lived here 150 years before it was written? THAT is historical revisionism. And I'm not going to give you a lesson in elementary civics. Well, maybe I will. Congress didn't make the first amendment. The people ratified. Congress doesn't interpret it, the courts do. That is the separation of powers doctrine.”
Wow! Musta touched a hot button! Surely you are not telling me that court decisions (okay interpretations) don't make law?
Sorry. I'm generally very careful in my use of expletives with you. It just seemed like the "BS" word said what I was thinking better than any euphemism, so I let it fly. In the next sentence I was driving at a point that may actually be new to our dialog that is not so new in the legal and political debates generally. There is a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth about what is being taken away from "Christians" by keeping prayer and religion divorced from government. But you have to ask yourself whether, if parents were doing their job at home, you really believe your child will be any less devout or devoted to God because his day at school begins without a prayer (that kids aren't listening too, anyway). If school administrators can't, or more likely refuse to, appreciate 30 years of pretty clear precedent written in plain English, I'm sure not about to trust my child's metaphysical indoctrination to such people. But back to my point in the second sentence.
I'll put on my representative-of-the-Jews hat for a moment. In the face of relentless persecution, and the diaspora, the one thing the Jews never lost, as a people, was their faith. It is what kept them together and unified them, as a people. They did not have to rely on the government to endorse, promote, sanction, approve, bolster or support it in any way. In fact, it was in the face of hostility and officially sanctioned intolerance and discrimination, that the faith of the Jews survived and survives. I was driving home a point that the last thing faith needs is government support, or encouragement, and that's why I jumped you. To make you analyze how seriously you as a Christian really require it to keep your faith alive. And more importantly, are the consequences as dire to your faith as has been argued, that they will suffer so greatly in the absence of government sponsorship of religion in general and Christianity in particular?
As to the civics and history "lesson," I was jumping because I thought you were getting lazy. And, Hey! I was on a roll....
Yes, to answer your question, courts can be said to "make law" when they interpret statutes, the constitution or prior cases. I have pointed that out to other courts in other contexts. Usually they're not interested, particularly in state court. The doctrine of separation of powers is one I litigate and am very familiar with. I can tell you that federal courts adhere to it far more than state courts do. It is, however, too facile to take an opinion from the Supreme Court interpreting the application of a new fact situation to the constitution, the result of which you may not like, and say they're "making law" in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. You have to be able to point out why that is so. The legal arguments tendered by the best legal minds on the "right" have failed to do so yet. The quickie answer, as I've always said, from elementary civics, is: if you don't like the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, amend it. That is the rule of law in our country.
“A child who remains sincere in his religious convictions and learns intellectual honesty in his reading of the law and history will have no problem with what happened in school that day. Such concepts have never been mutually exclusive, except in the minds of the most superficial people who understand neither the law, nor their Bible.”
You are right! But, then he'll be labeled a "right wing, fundamentalist, Christian whacko" when he grows up. ; ) Pity the dumb peons! One might get the feeling that you have little tolerance for "superficial people who understand neither the law, nor their Bible." Be careful. Such feelings, if left unchecked, can lead to... well, you know where I'm going with this familiar line. You aren't gonna come after me now, are you? Remember, you are not a threat to me.
It is true, I have little such tolerance. Of that, I am guilty, guilty, guilty. I have never suffered fools lightly, and this subject attracts them like moths to a flame. They are no sport for me, nor do I think it a game, and I do not have time to waste on such as the likes of them. YOU on the other hand, are not a fool. I "suffer" you gladly. So long as you continue to come at this with intellectual honesty, you have no reason to be threatened by me.
“There never was a ‘turning point’ when it comes to ‘acknowledgment.’ The 'right’ throws that word around when they pray to say they're not praying, they're only ‘acknowledging God.’ That, as they say in my field, is a distinction without a difference. You can't lead a group of people in prayer and then just say, ‘oh, that's not prayer, that's just acknowledging God.’ Utter foolishness.”
My use of the term (and I didn't know is was a catch phrase, thanks) did mean praying and thanking God for his provision. But it also included simple public acknowledgment of God, without any prayer being associated. It just seems that any public mention of "God" is subject to a legal attack.
No, not every public mention. Acknowledgments are generally constitutionally permissible, especially personal acknowledgments. The class valedictorian saying that Jesus helped her is an acknowledgment that the courts would find OK. The word is, in fact, a term of art in these discussions from a legal perspective. The confusion comes in because the "right" has appropriated that word and broadened its lay meaning to include what is, for all legal intents and purposes, prayer.
Not every reference to God by government is prayer. For example, the president saying "I thank God for all the good things in our country...." is a personal acknowledgment, not a prayer. But when he says, "Let us give thanks to God for all the good things..." it is prayer. Subtle difference, but critical in this debate. Acknowledging the assistance of God or Jesus is not the problem. But because the "right" has broadened its own definition of the word to also include prayer, when the courts say "no prayer," the extremists get hysterical and think they've just been ordered that they can't even acknowledge. The courts and the left didn't change the definition of acknowledge, the right did. This is why you really have to examine what the cases and orders say and what they don't. There remains considerable hysteria about things that are *presumed* to be prohibited that in fact are not.
As far a government promoting religion, count me in with you. It is just that we haven't zeroed in on the definition of promotion yet. You know, (Oh how I hate that phrase, "You know?" One of my personal goals is to stop using it in conversation.) I really think we agree with each other on far more that we disagree. But I think we both enjoy the dialog about how we differ. I do, and it is instructive. I'm certain that while we are on the book tour, we'll get even closer to agreement.
That paragraph proves a couple of points I often make, especially about how the differences between groups are fewer than the differences within groups. And that's why the lessons in communication are so vital if we're going to "spread the message" from anything we learn from each other. If we can demonstrate to the world how much progress you and I made, as time consuming as it has been, by dropping our defenses and giving one another the benefit of the doubt, we may just teach the world to sing, yet. My great emotional urge is to say, "Screw the courts!" but I won't.
“Ah! But I think you do still. And it continues to color your analysis. The courts have said what they have said. There's been no change in nearly forty years. Before that, the issue just didn't come up. So it's wrong to say there was some fundamental ‘sea change’ in the 60's. The issue didn't come up. Before the 60's there was less than a 20 year window for the issue to come up because the first amendment wasn't applied to the states before that, and the courts were a little busy with other things at the time, like integration, for one.”
Yes, it does still color my analysis, because I've not studied the issues in Gitlow v. New York enough to fully appreciate the legal points that you're making. Without that information (which most of the "right" don't have), it surely does look like a turning point around then. Can you see that?
Gitlow isn't so significant other than that's when the first amendment was starting to be applied to the states, and that was in dicta. Sure, I see the problem about the lack of information the "right" has. And to the "left" it is exceedingly tiresome having to check every cite and quote from, for example, the people like David Barton. The most intellectually honest legal scholarship I've seen comes from Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is funded by Pat Robertson. Him, at least, I can respect. He's honest if for no other reason than because his legal reputation is on the line. He has, however, a political agenda that he has articulated elsewhere that I have found very troubling, including saying things like "God has opened up a new mission field in the public high schools..." or something very much like that. From where I sit, having read things like what Barton has written, and listened to parts of his tapes, then sought to confirm what he says, it's not that the information isn't out there, but that the information that is being delivered to the "right" through the likes of men like Barton and others, is intellectually and historically dishonest. It's mis- and dis- information. They pass off what I call propaganda in the form of scholarship. So, yes, I see the problem, but I don't think the courts or the left are the root of it.
In my field, if I have bad precedent and facts against me, I don't make them say something they don't say by editorializing them or editing them or discussing them out of context or mis quoting them. I confront the bad facts and bad law head on, and argue either why the facts are distinguishable or why the cases were bad law when they were decided and should be overruled today. If I didn't, my reputation is shot, and no one will ever listen to me. Because it's too easy for the scholars, historians, lawyers and judges to catch. That's what happens with the work of people like Barton. Sekulow, at least, admits up front what the limitations of precedent are, but also shows his reader where he thinks the law is going and how to present the best argument given bad law and bad facts. That, you can respect. For that reason, Wallbuilders' page that advises against the use of certain historical "quotes" is also worthy of my respect (which as you've surmised is not something I dispense lightly).
“Look at the newspaper articles from Pike County again and tell me if my child does not bow his head in school while a prayer to Jesus is said over supper, that he will NEVER be ostracized, or a swastika will not be painted on his locker. And don't tell me ‘kids will be kids’ either. It is the benign neglect of the teachers and administrators that gave those kids the idea in the first place.”
Rob, I understand your concern here, really. I wouldn't want a repetition of that to anyone's kids. But, even though you may not like to hear it, I hardly think children are going to be cognizant nor observant of laws preventing them from kidding one another (as mean as it is). But in saying that, be assured I'm not endorsing laxness on the part of teachers and administrators either. I just think it is the nature of kids to harass each other with any handle they can find.
You are right that kids are mean. But that illustrates the necessity for sensitivity training by the teachers and "tolerance" teaching of the third graders, doesn't it?
“But you make a point that invites closer scrutiny, because it too, makes my point. Being "invited to observe" is very different than being expected to participate. And I made that point clear earlier, that a prayer as part of the drama or re enactment is perfectly fine. People are being invited to observe what happened. The ACLU has no problem with that. The lessons of history are taught in historical context and the religious aspect is not edited out by the politically correct. No problem. If you can see that, what is so imperative about stepping off the stage and leading the children in prayer to drive home the history lesson?”
Unless I misunderstood my friend's letter, that was not the issue. I don't know the kid nor his parents, but I assume, his family prays over their meal at home. He probably just thought they should thank God for their food as the Pilgrims had done.
That's not an unreasonable assumption, but I think it's equally as likely that the child simply understood that to be historically accurate, inasmuch as they were dressing up like pilgrims and indians, that prayer would be involved as well.
“Frank, you can't put blinders on at this point. The essence of first amendment establishment clause jurisprudence and confusion rests on answers to those two questions. Indeed, I ask you repeatedly questions related to the question "why." Don't take the easy way out on me after all this.”
No blinders, no attempt to dodge. I wasn't there, but I suspect the object was to teach a history lesson. No, I don't believe it was a subterfuge to promote religion. The prayer suggestion was brought up by a kid. I am not accusing you of deliberately reading far more into this than existed, but I do think you are stretching the point to even ask such questions. You are suggesting more than is there.
Sure, I'm stretching the point to carry it to its, to me, logical extreme. There's a quote I use from an old Alabama case on statutory construction that admonishes the courts to examine critically the result that flow from certain construction of statutes or the constitutional provisions. Sometimes I'll illustrate the absurdity of an idea by carrying it to its logical extreme, but I always do that in context and within the confines of the example we're dealing with. I say "always," because if I don't my credibility as a logician is shot. Others who are not as adept at it will try to play the "carry it to the extremes" game and return the serve. The problem is, invariably, they omit the "logical" part of that. If when I do that, my hypotheticals do not result in logical potential consequences of the execution of an idea, by all means show me the error of my logic.
I think I'm hearing Rob the lawyer talking a lot more than Rob the man. You are too suspicious, and examining every detail with a microscope trying to find some legal problem with it. Can that de minimus concept apply to Christians occasionally too? It would help in our efforts if you would "walk a mile in my shoes" or "feel my part of the elephant" once in awhile. That don't seem evident in your discussion of this topic. Don't tell me we've lost ground in that area.
Rob the lawyer is Rob the man. My critical analysis skills are what they are. I went to law school for the specific purpose, and no real other objective in mind, of developing them. For the most part here in our discussion we are both examining every detail with a microscope. It may seem like a slow and lugubrious process sometimes, but it can also be, and has been for us, the most rewarding part of the journey. I appreciate your appeal to my humanity as opposed to the lawyer in me. I do try to feel your part of the elephant. I see you endeavoring to do the same with mine. I don't think you're asking me to handicap myself for your sake. If you were I'd tell you I won't do it because I respect your intellect and intellectual honesty too much. I'm not going to make it harder on you than need be, that would be self defeating. Where I'm glossing over something or assuming you already have grasp of a concept (like promotion or endorsement) that you don't, slow me down.
On the subject of what is promotion or endorsement, there are 1/2 dozen cases at the most that are "must reads." What do you think the best way of getting you acquainted with them would be? You tell me. We'll go at whatever pace is most comfortable for you.
I appreciate Thanksgiving's historical religious origins. Nevertheless, it has always been my most favorite holiday, for purely secular reasons. I am, indeed, thankful for many things. My friendship with you is one I am most grateful for these days. May God Bless you and yours today and in the days ahead. Your friend -Rob
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment