Ridiculous Religious Rhetoric

The Ears have been listening and I must say what they hear is quite interesting.  DW signing on here with what I hope is a transcendentally titillating commentary on work by colleague Daniel Payne of Manufacturing Texas.  Mr. Payne brings up an interesting point in his article (hyper-linked over yonder).  The issue of religions' pervasiveness in our history, despite my own views, is unavoidable.  Up until a certain point in our recent history the majority of cultures and societies seem to have been founded with some kind of God fearing majority holding sway.  That said, as Mr. Payne points out, this is not our primary focus.  What appears to be the focus, if I am understanding what you (Mr. Payne) are saying, is more of an issue you have with religious rhetoric.  I believe you're looking at religious rhetoric and thinking that it actually has meaning.  While I would immensely enjoy the comfort that having a politician say what he means would provide I recognize this not to be so.  I whole-heartedly believe that Governor Perry is talking out of his ass.  He knows his constituents (how can he not, he's been in office for so long).  He is like a circus ringleader ramping up a crowd before a freak show.  He knows what buttons to push, what levers to pull, and in what order.  The way he parses his languages is incidental in this case.  I would hardly get my feathers ruffled at the swearing of oaths upon the bibles, the abdication of our destinies to God embossed into our coins, or the fact that the President (whom I like) ends some speeches with "God Bless."  It's just rhetoric and most of the time I believe it to be just that.  It must be picked apart and chopped down to understand the true meaning

This is not to say, however, that I believe all rhetoric is just harmless rhetoric.  I find it truly fearful when you find people who believe their own extreme language (which they may have learned by example or may genuinely believe - lets look to Mr. Green for example here).  It is difficult to tell if these people are entrenched in their own delusions and truly believe what they are saying or if they are high-commitment con-artists.  Language and ideas are dynamic reflections of each other.  Language affects ideas and ideas affect language.  This brings  us to the question - at what point is the way you have framed your ideas (the language you use to give them shape and form; moving from the abstract to the concrete) detrimentally affecting the idea itself.  This is a question that would do well to be applied to more than just ridiculous political rhetoric.  

Unfortunately, I believe there is a threshold for attention and I must bring this to conclusion.  All-in-all I believe that this article pertains mostly to meaningless rhetoric; however, I think that language we (as humans) choose our words, both consciously and subconsciously, and I find that people, if they listen, can often determine what another person is really thinking by listening to their word choice when they are speaking comfortably (not in a speech setting).  This kind of attention can often lead to terrifying realizations.  You may actually hear what a person is saying - the effect can be sobering.  

This is DW, signing off!