"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
Now explain "anathema" without mentioning religion.

Lose your dictionary? Try something that is loathed, or shunned,
neither of which has to be religious. I loathe George Bush and shun
those with his hypocritical attitudes.


Narrow definitions are "learning by rote." A _teacher_ would mention the
Jewish custom, relate it to "ostracism" and maybe even "shunning" or cliques
in school. In short, a teacher would not be one-dimensional . Nor, of
course, would they add their gratuitous and bigoted opinion.

Actually, most of them couldn't major in English without a looooooooong
running start and a new brain. They wouldn't know a Greek myth from a
Christian myth, but they're thoroughly conversant with redneckisms.

And yes, I know this is far too general, but you do seem to like
silly-assed generalities that have little meaning.


There's an example of _your_ narrow, biased non-think. Knowledge has
intrinsic value. It is used to acquire and interpret other knowledge, which
can then hopefully lead to understanding. The broader the base, the
greater the potential height, just as in building a physical structure.

You're really no better than the "fundamentalists" you despise when you
reject others' interpretations with prejudice and pejorative. No wonder we
have so many undereducated kids when we have people who say you don't need
to know this, and further, that anyone who says you do is to be loathed and
shunned. Have a little respect for something broader than your politics, or
are you afraid that if others are exposed to the things you loathe, they may
chose them instead?

I'll suggest that the business of "generalities" is only "silly" to someone
whose mind is closed. It's on the basis of specifics that Darwin and
Wallace generalized - and evolved a theory of evolution. That theory is
continually modified by using the generalities to explain specifics.

Amazing.