>So because for instance since the ruling strata using Christian
>ideas in one way, it is impossible for other parts of the society to
>interpret Christian ideas in a different that undermines the
>position of the ruling strata (cf. civil rights movement).
How do you get there from what Miles actually wrote? Here's Miles:
>(Simple example: the liberal Northern college students who
>participated in the freedom marches did not have to have their minds
>changed to participate; given their family and religious
>backgrounds, they were already on board!)
I understand this to say that liberal Northern members of the ruling strata were predisposed by family and religion to challenge other members of the ruling strata. That's pretty much the opposite of the interpretation you give of what Miles is saying.
>I would be curious as to how you reached these conclusions from
>Miles' arguments. I personally don't see how you could reach these
>conclusions, especially in regards to the second argument. robert wood
What he said.