Liberals take away minority rights?

Except for the occasional arrogant, if well-meaning, attempt at speaking for people other than themselves, liberals have generally been the progressive party in American politics (ie they support equal rights for all god's chillen).

It's one thing to speak out for the interests of the disenfranchised...it's another to speak out against them, attack their ability to compete on a level playing field, and then try to erase all traces of the conversation and subsequent attack.

White people, as a group, have been many things, but nice or fair is not one of them. If it weren't for progressive whites, the Chinese would have wiped us out a long time ago.

They're probably regretting not having done so up to this point.

...overlooks the purpose of language in the first place.

The map is not the territory; the language, not the actual experience. What we're trying to ferret out is not the language but the actual experience. Philosophically speaking. Language and logic are only tools and we are successful in using them when we have made an actual connection between people sharing a similar experience. Most of the time we're shooting in the dark.

What if, like the Sun, we are all individual rays shooting forth? From one perspective, we can see individual rays; from the majority of perspectives, however, there is energy eminating from a central core that has no particular individual identity. The notion of identity completely evaporates.

Perception is a very limiting exposure to perspectives (thank goodness). The experience of limitation is necessary for the experience of limitlessness to have a need for meaning.

At some level, the annihilation of personality and uniqueness is very frightening. Yet the relaxation of personal boundaries that happens in "community" is what we all seek, even crave. The synergy of being a part of a whole that is greater than the understood sum of its component parts -- this is the rush, the joy and the happiness. And the sorrow, and the pain, and the misery.

Then there's that whole pesky annihilation thing looming in the corner, seemingly waiting to strike out against our desire to defend ourselves with vulnerability and innocence.

No wonder atheists and agnostics doubt the existence of a supreme being...who would WANT to trust their will and their lives to a being that seeks to trick them into handing over the joys of human experience (...along with the attendant miseries, too)?

And that, my friends, is the BIG DEAL. If God were easy to trust to be loving, kind and gentle, the air would be taken out of all doubter's sails. We'd be staring at atheists and agnostics like they now stare at those of us who believe. Are they out of their friggin' minds?

But that's NOT the case; God is not EASY to love and trust. But God is SIMPLE to love and trust. Easy at first and hard in the followthrough, just like the parable of the prodigal son. It's as if we are being lead into some form of madness by a delusional belief system that seems to work for us, but to the astonishment of those who do not share our belief system.

Some might suggest that it's not, "as if," at all...we are all quite nuts to believe in a supreme being that gives a lick about our well being and our agency.

Those same folks who declare the believers, "insane," for the most part, are either ferociously angry at the authority figures entrusted with communicating the spiritual experience to them, or they are people who have yet to see a real need for a loving higher power in their lives. And until you've had one of those, "jumping off," places come up in your life, all the words in the world won't change your mind.

The "Fool" is the first major arcana card in the Tarot Deck for good reason: he is the one who has not seen, but who believes to the fright of those about him.