Although the secular interpretation of Kant is widespread, it is belied by a significant share of the Critical corpus. Not only do we find powerful defenses of religious belief in all three Critique s, but a considerable share of Kant's work in the 1790s is devoted to the positive side of his philosophy of religion. This includes his 1791 “Theodicy” essay, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason , “The End of All Things,” “Real Progress,” and the Conflict of the Faculties . Moreover, his lectures on logic, Reflexionen , and the Jäsche Logic present a robust account of the nature of religious belief/faith [ Glaube ]. So, while Kant does deny the possibility of religious knowledge (as well as opinion), he considers this denial necessary to safeguard faith, as the proper mode of religious assent. One must, therefore, understand the negative elements in his philosophy of religion, such as his infamous objections to the traditional proofs for God's existence, in this context. As stated in the B-Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason , a central goal of the Critical project is to establish the limits to knowledge “in order to make room for faith” (Bxxx).
I believe that the use of this inherently religious terminology (in the context of 9/11) -- something FDR did not feel the need to do in his " "date which will live in infamy " speech, asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor -- was a tone-deaf mistake of the greatest magnitude. Bush was speaking not only to residents of the USA, but to the whole world, and his language failed to adequately take that into account. In that moment, Bush lost the "war against terrorism" even as he was declaring it. And every time he repeated it, he exponentially multiplied the original error until the world's solidarity and support was shattered. No matter how often thereafter Bush would claim that he was not declaring war on Islam, the damage (reinforced by the administration's self-undermining actions) was done, and would prove to be irreversible. A more powerful condemnation under the circumstances would have avoided applying the label to an act that was meant to be religiously polarizing. It only helped frame the conflict the way al Qaeda wanted it framed to begin with.
Ex: The “joke” sprayed graffiti on robin suit (yellow) and written in newspaper (red) : The yellow and red colors are intrinsically linked to Robin (not to joker) and this is a signal that was robin who, did it. Following this line of reasoning we realize that when Liam neeson was issued as Henry Ducard (and he was the Ras al ghul) he wore in the movie clothes with style and color equal to the Ras al ghul in comics and so did Marion Cotillard. So, we should look at the colors and types of clothing that Ben Affleck is using and all the time is blue. Even has children’s version in light blue, but Batman is classically gray and black ,but ben affleck uses too much blue in the movie and we know that blue is the color of Deathstroke (Slade Wilson) .Similarly, jeremy irons is always greenish tones and green is the color of Wintergreen . Confirm in the comparison below: