Palin: Another super-religiously motivated Bush?

[Ashliana]

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain's running mate.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin's comments.

"I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches," he said. "The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God."

The section of the church's Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site "was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war;_ylt=ArrBC6MvKTzbXUCNPPAZ1EWs0N UE



Looks like if McCain/Palin are elected, we're in for four more years of religious encroachment upon government. Any thoughts?

[Warriorbird]

Of course we will. McCain sold out post 2000.

[Khariz]

My thoughts? Good.

I like people who have a high sense of morals and conviction in the office. If their prayerful consideration of the decisions they make causes them think longer and harder on the decisions, I have no problem with that.

[Warriorbird]

A lot of folks don't seem to appreciate the separation of church and state so they'll move against it, Ashliana, just like the Bill of Rights.

[Ashliana]

Morals and conviction are one thing. My problem comes when we label secular, government efforts (like building a pipe) as the "will of God." Like Bush claiming that God wanted him elected.

It also doesn't help our image in the world when a candidate for vice president is saying our presence and mission in Iraq are a "task from God." What does that mindset justify in the minds of the terrorists? That we're fighting a crusade. Poor choice of words, reflecting a poor understanding of foreign affairs.

[Khariz]

Morals and conviction are one thing. My problem comes when we label secular, government efforts (like building a pipe) as the "will of God." Like Bush claiming that God wanted him elected.



Yeah, I understand. I think that's stupid too.

[Keller]

My thoughts? Good.

I like people who have a high sense of morals and conviction in the office. If their prayerful consideration of the decisions they make causes them think longer and harder on the decisions, I have no problem with that.

Why do those morals, the conviction, and the consideration (prayerful or just plain thoughtful) need to be based on a religion? It's governing from a religious posture that is the problem -- obviously not those things you mention.

[crb]

Someone praying to god in a church, quick! Call the media!

I'm waiting for the debates, and I suggest you all do to. Just because someone believes in god, and uses words like "god" and "pray" when talking to other believers, does not necessarily mean they want to have the government force religion down our throats. Lets not forget Obama is very religious (or so he claims).

We do not require that our politicians are athiest. The issue at hand is not what a politician believes, but what they view as the proper role of government in religion.

So, wait for the debates. There will obvious be at least one question about this, probably more than one. See how she answers. See if she says "I love my faith, my faith helps me, and I want to use the power of the government to make more people join my faith." OR "I love my faith, my faith helps me, though I believe in religious freedom and believe government should stay out of the religion business."

I say all this as an atheist myself, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt until the debate. Making a judgement now is just relying on spin.

[Ashliana]

I don't think it's spin when she's labeling our military efforts as tasks given by God, nor efforts in her own state as the will of God. This isn't a report that says "Oh, she goes to Church" or "belongs to a Church."

The religious right is thrilled about Palin being chosen specifically because of this.

[Clove]

Why do those morals, the conviction, and the consideration (prayerful or just plain thoughtful) need to be based on a religion?No reason. Just as there's no reason religion should be excluded from them. As far as an elected official believing and/or publicly stating their belief in this, or that being the will of God; I consider it their right to believe whatever they like and I don't consider it our right to deny them public expression of same. As long as I'm not denied my right to publicly express that they're full of shit, or retarded and as long as I'm not required to agree with their belief, I'm good.

Put simply I don't beleive religious tolerance or separation of church and state requires us to fear and crush public expression of private, religious beliefs by public servants (or indeed anyone). If anything I encourage that expression, from as many people with as many different beliefs as possible.

[crb]

Its spin to take what she says in church or other people of faith and to construe that as an inference that she wants to turn the US into a theocracy.

Furthermore, it is not controversial for religious people to see everything as God's well, if they believe in fate and god working in mysterious ways and him having a grand plan, etc. That is just how religious people are.

But what someone believes privately isn't what matters. What matters is their view as to the proper role of religion in government, and government in religion. So wait for the debates before passing judgement.

[Jorddyn]

So, wait for the debates. There will obvious be at least one question about this, probably more than one. See how she answers. See if she says "I love my faith, my faith helps me, and I want to use the power of the government to make more people join my faith." OR "I love my faith, my faith helps me, though I believe in religious freedom and believe government should stay out of the religion business."

I'd also like to hear her say that religion should stay out of the government business.

[Gelston]

Everyone has their ideas about what God wants and religion and all that stuff. To say it won't influence how you make decisions is bullshit, no matter who you are. Some people, however, are able to keep it out of their work better than others. Does Palin?

[Keller]

Its spin to take what she says in church or other people of faith and to construe that as an inference that she wants to turn the US into a theocracy.


Will she put her will above the will of God?

Because either she is (1) insincere when addressing her church or other people of faith; or (2) believes it is the will of God.

If (2) then she will either (a) follow the will of God (and since rational people believe God doesn't speak to you in explicit terms -- she'll be relying on her religion to find God's will); or (b) disobey the will of God.

If she'll do (b) in the interest of personal freedom and the American way -- then I'm fine with it. I doubt that is the case.

[Gan]

I dont see how a McCain/Palin executive branch and a Democrat controlled Congress will result in 4 more years of religious encroachment on govt.

Now if the GOP gains control of both houses again... then I agree and also think thats not a good thing.

[Clove]

Will she put her will above the will of God?

Because either she is (1) insincere when addressing her church or other people of faith; or (2) believes it is the will of God.

If (2) then she will either (a) follow the will of God (and since rational people believe God doesn't speak to you in explicit terms -- she'll be relying on her religion to find God's will); or (b) disobey the will of God.

If she'll do (b) in the interest of personal freedom and the American way -- then I'm fine with it. I doubt that is the case.I think you make a lot of assumptions about what is and is not rational about faith and beliefs that can neither be supported or refuted.

[ClydeR]

Looks like if McCain/Palin are elected, we're in for four more years of religious encroachment upon government. Any thoughts?

Encroachment? Way to spin.
:spin2:

[thefarmer]

What happens if her God doesn't believe the same thing as your God (if you have one, if not then I suppose it would piss you off regardless)?

[Parkbandit]

I believe she also wrote this once:

"Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of Your will."

Obviously a clear indication she will be channeling God's will through her. I agree with Ashliana.. there is no place in government for people who write shit like this.

[Gan]

So she wants to be a laser?

[Clove]

Obviously a clear indication she will be channeling God's will through her. I agree with Ashliana.. there is no place in government for people who write shit like this.I know that ever since Palin was selected, I've been getting splitting headaches whenever I consider sleeping in on Sunday instead of going to church. No, wait- I believe those are just the hangovers from Saturday. Nevermind.

[Parkbandit]

I was actually being serious.

[Keller]

I think you make a lot of assumptions about what is and is not rational about faith and beliefs that can neither be supported or refuted.

I refuse to believe anyone has heard the actual voice of god and that person wasn't on a cocktail of drugs.

Other than that - it is a person believing a message is tom god and it is not possible for that message to not becolored by their religious teachings.

[Clove]

I refuse to believe anyone has heard the actual voice of god and that person wasn't on a cocktail of drugs.
And I believe that in an infinite universe anything is possible (however unlikely). If a God (or gods) exist, then he, she, it or they may express themselves to anyone in any way. I can question someone's sanity and reason for claiming they've "heard God" but I can't flatly declare anyone irrational simply on the claim alone.

And even if I did consider such a claim intrinsically irrational, I couldn't bring myself to judge their whole behavior as irrational simply because they held (in my opinion) an irrational belief or superstition. I know a few computer programmers that sincerely believe in astrology (they even develop astrological software) and while I scoff at the concept, they're very reasonable, reliable people in most other respects. I seek their advice regularly on a variety of subjects and I'd trust them with anything, including public office.

We all have the capacity to be irrational in our beliefs, it's a human condition and in of itself is not a flaw (uncommon to the best of us).

[Keller]

And I believe that in an infinite universe anything is possible (however unlikely). If a God (or gods) exist, then he, she, it or they may express themselves to anyone in any way. I can question someone's sanity and reason for claiming they've "heard God" but I can't flatly declare anyone irrational simply on the claim alone.

And even if I did consider such a claim intrinsically irrational, I couldn't bring myself to judge their whole behavior as irrational simply because they held (in my opinion) an irrational belief or superstition. I know a few computer programmers that sincerely believe in astrology (they even develop astrological software) and while I scoff at the concept, they're very reasonable, reliable people in most other respects. I seek their advice regularly on a variety of subjects and I'd trust them with anything, including public office.

We all have the capacity to be irrational in our beliefs, it's a human condition and in of itself is not a flaw (uncommon to the best of us).

Would you feel ok with those astrologists calling matters of public policy the will of <insert astrological deity>?

Would you continue to be comfortable if astrology had a very paternalistic approach to living ones daily life such that not following the will of said deity would have severe consequences?

[Clove]

Would you feel ok with those astrologists calling matters of public policy the will of <insert astrological deity>?

Would you continue to be comfortable if astrology had a very paternalistic approach to living ones daily life such that not following the will of said deity would have severe consequences?If it was a good policy, I wouldn't care what they thought about its origins. I wouldn't care if a Hindu official said his new balanced budget was inspired by Ganesh; as long as the budget was sound. Etc, etc, etc.

I don't care about people's personal belief's, or their interpretation or explanation of the universe. I care about the results of their behavior and choices.

I consider questioning people's competency (in anything) because of what faith they express (or how loudly) to be the direct opposite of religious freedom and tolerance. It is in fact, oppressive. "Well believe what you want, but just make sure we don't hear about it or you might get some funny looks. Oh and don't bother running for town treasurer... we don't think your kind is rational enough for that job."

[CrystalTears]

Christ, not even what you say at CHURCH is sacred anymore.

[Ashliana]

Christ, not even what you say at CHURCH is sacred anymore.

She was obviously talking about politics and public policy. The Iraq War? Construction of state pipelines? Somehow they don't seem like "sacred, Church matters not up for scrutiny."

[Keller]

If it was a good policy, I wouldn't care what they thought about its origins. I wouldn't care if a Hindu official said his new balanced budget was inspired by Ganesh; as long as the budget was sound. Etc, etc, etc.

I don't care about people's personal belief's, or their interpretation or explanation of the universe. I care about the results of their behavior and choices.

I believe that questioning people's competency (in anything) because of what faith they express (or how loudly) to be the direct opposite of religious freedom and tolerance. It is in fact, oppressive. "Well believe what you want, but just make sure we don't hear about it or you might get some funny looks. Oh and don't bother running for town treasurer... we don't think your kind is rational enough for that job."

You're missing that it is NOT judgment independant of religious teachings that produce her stated public policy. You keep working under the assumption that policy based on this teaching will be good policy. What if it is not? Will she be able to divorce her own religious background from effective public policy (such as teaching sexual education or protecting a woman's right to control her body)?

[CrystalTears]

She was obviously talking about politics and public policy. The Iraq War? Construction of state pipelines? Somehow they don't seem like "sacred, Church matters not up for scrutiny."
So what? She was speaking to her own congregation, not atheists or PC people for that matter. Who cares what she believes or preaches to her own faith as long as her decisions are sound and good for the country.

[CrystalTears]

You're missing that it is NOT judgment independant of religious teachings that produce her stated public policy. You keep working under the assumption that policy based on this teaching will be good policy. What if it is not? Will she be able to divorce her own religious background from effective public policy (such as teaching sexual education or protecting a woman's right to control her body)?
If it's not good policy, it won't get passed. This isn't the king and queen ruling the country.

[Keller]

Christ, not even what you say at CHURCH is sacred anymore.

see: Jeremiah Wright and the ignorant knee-jerk reaction to Liberation Theology.

I see couching public policy in terms of a deity's will (think historically, nothing good comes from a leader claiming religious authority for political actions) is worse than preaching that America is not immune to the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Liberation Theology.

[Keller]

If it's not good policy, it won't get passed. This isn't the king and queen ruling the country.

Unless other people believe, like she does, that creation should be taught in public schools, abortions should be denied to victim's of rape and incest, etc. . . all based on their religion. Then all of a sudden, based on religious foundation, it becomes "good" policy.

There is no room for that kind of thinking in government. I'll have to agree with ParkBandit here.

[Clove]

You're missing that it is NOT judgment independant of religious teachings that produce her stated public policy. You keep working under the assumption that policy based on this teaching will be good policy. What if it is not? Will she be able to divorce her own religious background from effective public policy (such as teaching sexual education or protecting a woman's right to control her body)?What if it isn't? What if it is? What basis do you have to assume that people of faith are any more or less likely to make appropriate decisions for the public good? I don't know how you can assume that such a person would necessarily make decisions contrary to the public good simply because they're deeply religious.

I don't believe our Constitution ever intended to forbid public officials from making decisions motivated by their beliefs or religious points of view. It forbids them for making laws concerning religion and its expression.

I don't think being openly religious is an indictment on a person's good judgement. Additionally, I think when you have such a person who has held prior public offices, it isn't difficult to review their public decisions and see if there is a trend of solid decision making for the public good. If there is; you have no reason to suspect that they won't continue to do otherwise.

[Clove]

Unless the majority of people believe, like she does, that creation should be taught in public schools, abortions should be denied to victim's of rape and incest, etc. . . all based on their religion. Then all of a sudden, based on majority opinion, it becomes "good" policy.Fixed it for you.

[Keller]

I don't know how you can assume that such a person would necessarily make decisions contrary to the public good simply because they're deeply religious. I also think that you can look at the trend of their public decisions if you need more assurance.

Our history, let alone the history of the world, is riddled with poor public policy decisions founded upon religious justification. I'd prefer it had no part in public policy.

Maybe I'm alone in that believe.

[Gan]

see: Jeremiah Wright and the ignorant knee-jerk reaction to Liberation Theology.

I see couching public policy in terms of a deity's will (think historically, nothing good comes from a leader claiming religious authority for political actions) is worse than preaching that America is not immune to the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Liberation Theology.

The sad part is we now have candidates on both sides of the fence who now espouse this type of rhetoric.

There's no escape it seems, from the strings of religion.

I suppose the bright side is that Palin's [religious] view is coming from the VP seat and not the President's seat.

[crb]

see: Jeremiah Wright and the ignorant knee-jerk reaction to Liberation Theology.

I see couching public policy in terms of a deity's will (think historically, nothing good comes from a leader claiming religious authority for political actions) is worse than preaching that America is not immune to the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Liberation Theology.
Umm... you fail at life if you think that is a fair comparison.

Palin did not say the black people invented the aids virus to kill whitey.

[crb]

Will she put her will above the will of God?

Because either she is (1) insincere when addressing her church or other people of faith; or (2) believes it is the will of God.

If (2) then she will either (a) follow the will of God (and since rational people believe God doesn't speak to you in explicit terms -- she'll be relying on her religion to find God's will); or (b) disobey the will of God.

If she'll do (b) in the interest of personal freedom and the American way -- then I'm fine with it. I doubt that is the case.
Wait for the debate or an interview where she answers these questions directly, stop just trying to read the tea leaves within liberal spin to form your opinion.

[Keller]

Umm... you fail at life if you think that is a fair comparison.

Palin did not say the black people invented the aids virus to kill whitey.

The point I was making is that, if anything, the theology should be sacred and not the belief that you, as a public servant, are fulfilling God's (and not your constituents) will.

[Clove]

Our history, let alone the history of the world, is riddled with poor public policy decisions founded upon religious justification. I'd prefer it had no part in public policy.

Maybe I'm alone in that believe.Our history is riddled with poor public policy decisions founded upon all sorts of rationals, religious and non; I don't see how arbitrarily singling out the religious will change that one iota.

Our history is also riddled with horrors commited by religious intolerance and persecution. If I have to error, I'll error on the side of tolerance.

[Keller]

Wait for the debate or an interview where she answers these questions directly, stop just trying to read the tea leaves within liberal spin to form your opinion.

Refute the logic of what I wrote -- don't just accuse me of being a liberal because you don't like the conclusion.

[Gan]

The point I was making is that, if anything, the theology should be sacred and not the belief that you, as a public servant, are fulfilling God's (and not your constituents) will.

Would that be a major or minor factor in your decision making process for candidacy and office?

For me, its major but on the social side, which is minor to economic issues. (minor-major rather than major-major).

[Keller]

Our history is riddled with poor public policy decisions founded upon all sorts of rationals, religious and non; I don't see how arbitrarily singling out the religious will change that one iota.

Our history is also riddled with horrors commited by religious intolerance and persecution. If I have to error, I'll error on the side of tolerance.

I am advocating no horror -- in fact, if I have concrete examples of the specific issues I have with the Christian right's policy agenda it is PRECISELY their intolerence of the freedoms which citizens of the USA ought to enjoy.

[Keller]

Would that be a major or minor factor in your decision making process for candidacy and office?

For me, its major but on the social side, which is minor to economic issues. (minor-major rather than major-major).

It depends on the candidate. If it were James Dobson? Huge issue. Sarah Palin? So far, minor issue. The rhetoric bothers me -- but I'm not sure that it's not insincere. That doesn't make the rhetoric defensable -- just not as offensive to me.

[Keller]

Our history is riddled with poor public policy decisions founded upon all sorts of rationals, religious and non; I don't see how arbitrarily singling out the religious will change that one iota.

Our history is also riddled with horrors commited by religious intolerance and persecution. If I have to error, I'll error on the side of tolerance.

Hypothetical situation.

Two people both making the same decision with the exact same information. Voter positions, economic effects, social effects, etc. One has a a religious doctrine that heavily suggests the deities policy and the other does not. Which one will make the choice (notice it is neither a good nor bad judgment) based solely on the information without regard to the religious judgment.

[Clove]

I am advocating no horror -- in fact, if I have concrete examples of the specific issues I have with the Christian right's policy agenda it is PRECISELY their intolerence of the freedoms which citizens of the USA ought to enjoy.You have problems with some Christian's and their agenda but it is their agenda you object to, not their religion and (I would hope) you would object to such agendas regardless of what their promoters worshiped. If you can point to Palin supporting such agendas, then her beliefs about what is or isn't the will of God don't enter into it at all. If you can't, you're merely being bigoted based on a stereotype.

[Daniel]

So what? She was speaking to her own congregation, not atheists or PC people for that matter. Who cares what she believes or preaches to her own faith as long as her decisions are sound and good for the country.

I hope you appreciate the irony of all this.

[CrystalTears]

I hope you appreciate the irony of all this.
I said the same when it was about Obama and giving him shit because of Wright.

[Ashliana]

You have problems with some Christian's and their agenda but it is their agenda you object to, not their religion and (I would hope) you would object to such agendas regardless of what their promoters worshiped. If you can point to Palin supporting such agendas, then her beliefs about what is or isn't the will of God don't enter into it at all. If you can't, you're merely being bigoted based on a stereotype.

What I'm concerned about is a vice presidential candidate labeling a war with Islamic extremists that recruit others by saying they're defending their religion and we're on a crusade, as "a task from God."

It shows a complete lack of understanding foreign policy. It's irresponsible. Additionally, using religion to refer to both mundane and controversial matters with religious overtones, combined with her already super-social-conservative positions, doesn't bode well for me in considering the McCain ticket.

[Keller]

You have problems with some Christian's and their agenda but it is their agenda you object to, not their religion and (I would hope) you would object to such agendas regardless of what their promoters worshiped. If you can point to Palin supporting such agendas, then her beliefs about what is or isn't the will of God don't enter into it at all. If you can't, you're merely being bigoted based on a stereotype.

I OBJECT TO THEIR AGENDA BEING IN A PRODUCT OF THEIR RELIGION. Make public policy on behalf of the public and not the colloquial interpretation of an 1800 year old text.

[CrystalTears]

So it's all because the religion was mentioned. If was never mentioned, would it still matter where the policy idea came from?

[Keller]

I said the same when it was about Obama and giving him shit because of Wright.

While this is true . . . I would appreciate if you'd return to arguing with me.

I've been patiently waiting for the right time to call you a former former-semi-conservative because you disagree with me.

[Daniel]

I said the same when it was about Obama and giving him shit because of Wright.

Which is why I said I hope you appreciate the Irony here.

[Keller]

So it's all because the religion was mentioned. If was never mentioned, would it still matter where the policy idea came from?

Yes, it would.

[Gan]

Would that be a major or minor factor in your decision making process for candidacy and office?

For me, its major but on the social side, which is minor to economic issues. (minor-major rather than major-major).

I'll repeat the question. Directed to Keller.

This is in reference to PB's post about the prayer and "Gods will".

[Keller]

It depends on the candidate. If it were James Dobson? Huge issue. Sarah Palin? So far, minor issue. The rhetoric bothers me -- but I'm not sure that it's not insincere. That doesn't make the rhetoric defensable -- just not as offensive to me.

I'll repeat the answer.

[Gan]

I'll repeat the answer.

My bad. I missed the response.

What about if McCain said it? Or Obama?

I'll consider a Biden question the same as a Palin answer.

[Clove]

I OBJECT TO THEIR AGENDA BEING IN A PRODUCT OF THEIR RELIGION. Make public policy on behalf of the public and not the colloquial interpretation of an 1800 year old text.I don't think you can call those agendas a product of "their religion", any more than you can call al-Queada's agenda a product of Islam. It is the product of their ignorance and ignorant people will use whatever medium is available to them to promote their filfth.

Do you believe Palin is ignorant simply because she believes in God and believes (at times) she is doing her will? What if she publicly proclaimed that "serving the people" was "God's will"? Would a sound policy suddenly be tainted because it came with the condition that its promoter believed it to be the will of God?

[CrystalTears]

Yes, it would.
And for me, I don't see what difference it makes HOW one gets to the sound and logical conclusion, as long as they get there.

[Keller]

My bad. I missed the response.

What about if McCain said it? Or Obama?

I'll consider a Biden question the same as a Palin answer.

I think McCain's religion is a product of public service. He couldn't be where he's at now without belonging to a church. I don't fault him for that in the least and I don't think it's an issue for me in the least. I disagree with his stance on a woman's right to control her body -- but I don't believe it's influenced by his religion. There is, of course, a meta issue of whether the Christian faith has influenced our communities view -- but that's an entirely different issue.

I think Obama's religion is more sincere to him -- but only because of the community it offers. I think he, too, uses the religion shit to his political advantage and it is not his justification for policy decisions.

So in brief -- not an issue w/r/t either Presidential candidate.

[Keller]

I don't think you can call those agendas a product of "their religion", any more than you can call al-Queada's agenda a product of Islam. It is the product of their ignorance and ignorant people will use whatever medium is available to them to promote their filfth.

Do you believe Palin is ignorant simply because she believes in God and believes (at times) she is doing her will? What if she publicly proclaimed that "serving the people" was "God's will"? Would a sound policy suddenly be tainted because it came with the condition that its promoter believed it to be the will of God?

Couple of things.

We're talking about a public servant fulfilling the will of God and not a terrorist. Why didn't you analogize to Iran? It's about the imposition of outside factors (religion) to restrict the freedom of individuals in a free society.

"Serving the people" is pretty vague. It would depend on what she followed that up with.

Finally, that's a tough question you ended with. Would it be tainted? For me -- yes. I would be suspect of that policy from the get-go if the person proclaimed it to be God's will. Would be automatically be poor policy? No. I would prefer that the justification for the policy lie outside of religious justification.

[Keller]

And for me, I don't see what difference it makes HOW one gets to the sound and logical conclusion, as long as they get there.

Don't you see, as a former-former-semi-conservative, that when one basis their decision on a premise OTHER than relevant information pertinent to the policy that the policy is less likely to be sound and logical?

[Keller]

Gotta get ready for dinner. I'll be out for a while. This has been fun.

[CrystalTears]

Don't you see, as a former-former-semi-conservative, that when one basis their decision on a premise OTHER than relevant information pertinent to the policy that the policy is less likely to be sound and logical?
Because God forbid it was information AND God's will?

U C wut I did thar?

[Clove]

Couple of things.

We're talking about a public servant fulfilling the will of God and not a terrorist. Why didn't you analogize to Iran? It's about the imposition of outside factors (religion) to restrict the freedom of individuals in a free society.I believe you're missing my point which is:

Ignorance is the determining factor here, not religion.

Religion is the excuse that ignorant people sometimes use to oppress others. A non-religious excuse can be wielded just as easily by those same ignorant people. It isn't Christianity (or Buddhism, or Islam, or fill in your religion) that seeks to oppress people.

How a person sees the universe, or what religion or sect they belong to, or whether or not they express their beliefs about the will of God is not an indictment of malice, ignorance or dogma.

You can prove out a person's competency, sincerety, and intent in public office by judging their decisions and policies; not where they go (or don't go) to church or what they say (or don't say) about God.

[Parkbandit]

I believe she also wrote this once:

"Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of Your will."

Obviously a clear indication she will be channeling God's will through her. I agree with Ashliana.. there is no place in government for people who write shit like this.

No one has even addressed this obvious religious zealotry. It's comparable to Bush's claim that he talks to God and God wanted him to win the election.

[Daniel]

No one has even addressed this obvious religious zealotry. It's comparable to Bush's claim that he talks to God and God wanted him to win the election.

Maybe because one is an obvious prayer for guidance and one is a justification of policy or events?

I'm just saying.

[Gan]

I believe she also wrote this once:

"Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of Your will."

Obviously a clear indication she will be channeling God's will through her. I agree with Ashliana.. there is no place in government for people who write shit like this.


Unless other people believe, like she does, that creation should be taught in public schools, abortions should be denied to victim's of rape and incest, etc. . . all based on their religion. Then all of a sudden, based on religious foundation, it becomes "good" policy.

There is no room for that kind of thinking in government. I'll have to agree with ParkBandit here.

I completely missed this earlier. I had to quote this to record it in history that you're in agreement with PB. :lol:

[Parkbandit]

Maybe because one is an obvious prayer for guidance and one is a justification of policy or events?

I'm just saying.

"Make me an instrument of your will"?

I see Palin's religious views very much like Obama's.. except without the political bullshit associated with the Black Liberation Theology.

Black Liberation Theology is a religion, based in politics... something preached to Obama for 20+ years.

I'm amazed that anyone would have an issue with Palin's religion and give Obama a free pass on it.

[Parkbandit]

I completely missed this earlier. I had to quote this to record it in history that you're in agreement with PB. :lol:

:rofl:

I knew some idiot would fall for it. Now let's watch him flail around in the bottom of the boat, trying to get unhooked.

[Daniel]

"Make me an instrument of your will"?

I see Palin's religious views very much like Obama's.. except without the political bullshit associated with the Black Liberation Theology.

Black Liberation Theology is a religion, based in politics... something preached to Obama for 20+ years.

I'm amazed that anyone would have an issue with Palin's religion and give Obama a free pass on it.

Your mischaracterization of BLT aside. I don't think anyone has a problem with her religion. The problem is when people create policies as a way to exert their religion on other people.

If Obama said "my religion mandates" that I do "x" therefore I'm going to try and make everyone do X, then I'd undoubtedly have an issue with that.

[Warriorbird]

I remember a President who 'Talks to God' before he makes every foreign policy decision. Oh, right, he's still President! PB voted for him twice.

[Gan]

I remember a President who 'Talks to God' before he makes every foreign policy decision. Oh, right, he's still President! PB voted for him twice.

Is that like 'talking to God' before every meal? Before every bedtime? Before every challenge or trial? Sports event?

I believe some people call this prayer. And while I'm not a huge advocate of religion, I have no problem with someone praying before they do things. We did that before every game.

Now if someone says that "God told them to do it this way"... now thats a very different story.

[Parkbandit]

I remember a President who 'Talks to God' before he makes every foreign policy decision. Oh, right, he's still President! PB voted for him twice.


I did vote for him twice.. what was your point again? Should I have somehow voted for Gore because of this? Or Kerry?

Grats on being stupid once again.

[Warriorbird]

Merely suggesting that despite your complaints you don't seem to care about it too much when a candidate does it.

[Gan]

Merely suggesting that despite your complaints you don't seem to care about it too much when a candidate does it.

Is this even a sentence?

:wtf:

*Edit... Ok, with a comma (twice) inserted I think I see what you're trying to say.

[Parkbandit]

Merely suggesting that despite your complaints you don't seem to care about it too much when a candidate does it.

What complaints? Religion plays no role in my life, why would I give two shits about it in politics?

I was merely using a quote from Obama to show how hypocritical some of these liberals are on this board.

[TheEschaton]

My problem isn't that Palin is religious, or even what I consider a religious whacko, it's that she professes to know God's Will, and that, furthermore, God is political. I had a Jesuit priest for Con Law who was an ardent separationist (of Church and State) for this very reason - he didn't think God should ever be politicized.

IOW, I expect politicians to make "informed" decisions in drafting legislation and policy. I don't preclude the idea that religious or moral notions can inform such decisions. What I object to is making policy and legislation, arbitrarily declaring it "the Will of God," and duping people into supporting it on blind faith, which is a major component of many religions. Unless, of course, someone can find for me, anywhere in the NT, or in modern theology, where it says Jesus is in favor of gas pipelines and war.

As to what Clove said about ignorance, and not religion, driving these people, let me posit this: many people consider religion to be a form of ignorance itself. Furthermore, it's not merely the opinion of athiests who believe that, many religions will readily admit that at the base is faith, the idea that some things are unknowable and we should just accept as fact supposed "truths" about these "unknowables" as based on ancient texts, literally ignoring new scientific evidence to the contrary. I would particularly posit that the Christian Coalition promote a "religion" which is not only ignorant of reality (which is bad enough, but most faiths do that), but ignorant of what Christianity itself says; IE, their "truths" are based neither on the "truth" of reality, or the "truth" of Christianity (which can and should inform Christians), but the "truth" of the hugely flawed men preaching such things.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

My problem isn't that Palin is religious, or even what I consider a religious whacko, it's that she professes to know God's Will, and that, furthermore, God is political. I had a Jesuit priest for Con Law who was an ardent separationist (of Church and State) for this very reason - he didn't think God should ever be politicized.

IOW, I expect politicians to make "informed" decisions in drafting legislation and policy. I don't preclude the idea that religious or moral notions can inform such decisions. What I object to is making policy and legislation, arbitrarily declaring it "the Will of God," and duping people into supporting it on blind faith, which is a major component of many religions. Unless, of course, someone can find for me, anywhere in the NT, or in modern theology, where it says Jesus is in favor of gas pipelines and war.

As to what Clove said about ignorance, and not religion, driving these people, let me posit this: many people consider religion to be a form of ignorance itself. Furthermore, it's not merely the opinion of athiests who believe that, many religions will readily admit that at the base is faith, the idea that some things are unknowable and we should just accept as fact supposed "truths" about these "unknowables" as based on ancient texts, literally ignoring new scientific evidence to the contrary. I would particularly posit that the Christian Coalition promote a "religion" which is not only ignorant of reality (which is bad enough, but most faiths do that), but ignorant of what Christianity itself says; IE, their "truths" are based neither on the "truth" of reality, or the "truth" of Christianity (which can and should inform Christians), but the "truth" of the hugely flawed men preaching such things.

-TheE-


So your disdain for Palin is the same as your disdain for Obama? Because that is exactly how I read this.. yet never heard you complain about Obama regarding this before.

I must have used a treble hook.

[Gan]

Soon you're going to have to graduate to leaders.

[Parkbandit]

Soon you're going to have to graduate to leaders.


Bitch please.. these fish have no teeth... they just jaw.

[Clove]

As to what Clove said about ignorance, and not religion, driving these people, let me posit this: many people consider religion to be a form of ignorance itself.And many people think Asians are bad drivers, and black people play good basketball, etc., etc. It isn't difficult to identify people who think ignorantly and they don't have to be religious to be ignorant. There are people who deny that we landed on the moon (without any religious motivation at all). But to hold as a blanket philosophy that because a person professes faith or says they think something is the will of God makes them ignorant is simply not fair and frankly bigoted.

Yes religions often claim that certain things cannot be proven and must be accepted by faith. Like perhaps the existence of God, or that people are born with a certain nature etc. Not 2+2=5, or people ought have fair and equal standards in the work place, or that laws ought to be fair and impartial, etc.

You and Keller keep pointing out specific beliefs and attitudes and agendas all of which can be promoted with or without religion. I say leave religion out of it; shun those that promote those agendas. To say that the religion is bad or its followers are ignorant because ignorant people used that religion as an excuse promote their agendas is simply stereotypical bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

I think religion is an often convenient justification for idiocy.

[TheEschaton]

A) To PB: I feel relatively confident in thinking that Obama isn't portraying himself or his policy as the Will of God despite idiots like Oprah and Backlash.

B) To Clove: I consider myself a devout Catholic. And once, Catholics believed that God created the world 6,000 years ago, in 6 days. However, when science said "Evolution explains this" the Church eventually submitted that the Creation story isn't literal truth, but an allegory, and instead sought to find God in evolution (which is very possible). I think, categorically, that religion (or at least Christianity, which I am most familiar with), requires a certain ignorance - whether it be of "social norms" or "reality", or what have you. It wouldn't be a religion if it simply said "everything that is observable is the truth," it would be science. What I am NOT saying is that such an ignorance is necessarily bad - what I am saying is that the CC's categorical ignorance of reality, replaced by political beliefs (and not Christianity's actual moral system), is wrong, both in regards to its truth in the real world, and to Christianity.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

I think many of you non-religious people misunderstand how a typical person uses their religion/prayer to aid them in making decisions. If Palin has given herself up to God's Will, it doesn't mean that she is "claiming to know what God's Will is".

Typically, a Christian will use Biblical principles to aid them in making decisions, as the Word of God in the Bible is the only evidence of His Will that we have.

So when Palin sits down to make a decisions, and has enough factual evidence to choose either choice A or choice B, she is going to consider Biblical principles when deciding which of two alternate choices to take, in addition to other evidence.

That's not any different from any non-religious person taking their own morals and values into consideration when having to choose between two outcomes. She just happens to have a Book sitting around to remind her of what hers are.

PB, if you really have a problem with the quote of hers that you keep repeating, it can only because you have a severe misunderstanding of what is meant by that particular prayer.

[ClydeR]

I think many of you non-religious people misunderstand how a typical person uses their religion/prayer to aid them in making decisions. If Palin has given herself up to God's Will, it doesn't mean that she is "claiming to know what God's Will is".

Typically, a Christian will use Biblical principles to aid them in making decisions, as the Word of God in the Bible is the only evidence of His Will that we have.

So when Palin sits down to make a decisions, and has enough factual evidence to choose either choice A or choice B, she is going to consider Biblical principles when deciding which of two alternate choices to take, in addition to other evidence.

Well said and well reasoned. The quote that Ashliana posted, which was completely out of context (not Ashliana's fault, since she was just posting the article), was an example of inappropriately pretending to know God's will. But the quote to which PB objected was merely a humble plea for guidance from God.


That's not any different from any non-religious person taking their own morals and values into consideration when having to choose between two outcomes. She just happens to have a Book sitting around to remind her of what hers are.

Oh no! You were doing so well. Not any different?! Of course it's different. One set of values was laid down by an omnipotent being. The other set of values was laid down by who knows whom, probably some liberal Democrat ethicist.

[Khariz]

Ahh come on, you know what I mean. I mean one person has an actual source to consult their principals on, and the other searches their conscience in a different way.

Either way, personal beliefs and morals come into it.

[Keller]

You and Keller keep pointing out specific beliefs and attitudes and agendas all of which can be promoted with or without religion. I say leave religion out of it; shun those that promote those agendas. To say that the religion is bad or its followers are ignorant because ignorant people used that religion as an excuse promote their agendas is simply stereotypical bullshit.

Wrong.

You can say, "we should feed the poor because it is the will of God" and I'm going to have an issue.

Feed the poor because they are fucking hungry and need food -- not because some ancient text gives you the idea you should be doing it.

It doesn't matter how good your idea is -- my problem is that your personal judgment is subjected to the ancient writings.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think religion is an often convenient justification for idiocy.

Hey something I agree with you on. I took a course in college that inspired me to read many books throughout my adult life. It was "Religion and War", an upper level history course. Just about every major war through out recorded history could be tied directly to religion.

I do think a lot of good comes from religion though, even if I'm far and away frmo being a devote follower of any specific one. For every bad example, there are just as many good ones. The problem starts when people become fanatical about it (I'm king of the obvious).

[Clove]

Wrong.

You can say, "we should feed the poor because it is the will of God" and I'm going to have an issue.

Feed the poor because they are fucking hungry and need food -- not because some ancient text gives you the idea you should be doing it.

It doesn't matter how good your idea is -- my problem is that your personal judgment is subjected to the ancient writings.Ah like the philosophy of politicians that lived 200 years ago?

Or maybe we shouldn't be influenced by the Code of Hammurabi. Or Greek philosophy? What about Confuscious? Or Roman law? It's okay, as long as your tender ears aren't offended by an utterance of "God".

I'm afraid you jumped the shark. You really have no just basis for saying all things being equal, two people make wise, thoughtful, good decisions but one is suspect because they believe in God, or that they're led by God or that they believe the good things that they do are the will of God.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. It's an openly bigoted point of view.

[Keller]

When you subject your reason to the will of God -- there is a problem.

If you don't think so -- rest assured I, too, am disappointed in you.

[Clove]

When you subject your reason to the will of God -- there is a problem.

If you don't think so -- rest assured I, too, am disappointed in you.Perhaps you're disappointed in men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. too (or maybe he was expressing a desire to do God's will without having any clue what that was).


I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Or maybe he's just the exception; there haven't been other great men and women of faith and conviction who believed the great things they did for humanity was God's will. They were ignorant, crazy people who only sought to take rights and impose their beliefs on the world.

[Keller]

He's no exception.

I've admitted multiple times that what one perceives to be God's will can be an amazing cause -- but I don't commend them for couching it in those terms.

If MLK had done the exact same work out of respect for humanity and not because it was God's will -- I would respect him that much more for his sacrafices.

[Clove]

He's no exception.

I've admitted multiple times that what one perceives to be God's will can be an amazing cause -- but I don't commend them for couching it in those terms.

If MLK had done the exact same work out of respect for humanity and not because it was God's will -- I would respect him that much more for his sacrafices.I've never asked you to commend them for their beliefs; but up until now you've been quick to damn others for not sharing yours.

[Keller]

I've never asked you to commend them for their beliefs; but up until now you've been quick to damn others for not sharing yours.

It has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs.

I've said I believe John McCain is anti-choice because of his rational belief and not his religious dogma. And I am fine with that. I disagree -- but that's not what this argument is about.

It's about valuing God's will (as discerned through the ancient text) above rational thought. Share my beliefs or not -- fine. Just don't justify your actions based on God's will.

[Clove]

It's about valuing God's will (as discerned through the ancient text) above rational thought. Share my beliefs or not -- fine. Just don't justify your actions based on God's will.You don't have to agree with how they justify their decisions; if you agree with their decisions.

You don't have to agree that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was doing God's will, but you have no right to question his judgment because he believed that he was (based in part by his understanding of ancient texts) when he fought for Civil Rights in this country. To automatically lump people into the category of ignorant, or irrational soley because of their religious beliefs is (I'll say it again) bigoted.

[Gan]

I think religion is an often convenient justification for idiocy.
QFT



PB, if you really have a problem with the quote of hers that you keep repeating, it can only because you have a severe misunderstanding of what is meant by that particular prayer.
Let me help you here...
That quote that PB posted on the previous page was not from Palin. It was Obama's prayer at the Wall in Jerusalem.


I believe she also wrote this once:

"Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of Your will."

Obviously a clear indication she will be channeling God's will through her. I agree with Ashliana.. there is no place in government for people who write shit like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/israeli-newspaper-publish_n_114944.html?page=6

[Parkbandit]

A) To PB: I feel relatively confident in thinking that Obama isn't portraying himself or his policy as the Will of God despite idiots like Oprah and Backlash.


It's amazing how you want to think that, especially using the word "Will of God" in your post...

Given that Obama claims to have written this just this past summer.

"Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of Your will."

I bolded the part where you claim that he isn't portraying himself as the "Will of God" yet used those words when asking for guidance.

[Parkbandit]

When you subject your reason to the will of God -- there is a problem.

If you don't think so -- rest assured I, too, am disappointed in you.

Yet.. you have not brought up this against Obama... only Palin.

Illustrates your complete bias perfectly.

Thanks.

[Daniel]

QFT


Let me help you here...
That quote that PB posted on the previous page was not from Palin. It was Obama's prayer at the Wall in Jerusalem.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/israeli-newspaper-publish_n_114944.html?page=6

Yea. Because the pronoun changes the substance of the comment.

[Keller]

You don't have to agree with how they justify their decisions; if you agree with their decisions.

You don't have to agree that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was doing God's will, but you have no right to question his judgment because he believed that he was (based in part by his understanding of ancient texts) when he fought for Civil Rights in this country. To automatically lump people into the category of ignorant, or irrational soley because of their religious beliefs is (I'll say it again) bigoted.

So if I had a superstitialbelief in and made policy decisions based in part on the anarchists cookbook you would be cool with that?

[CrystalTears]

I would. As long as the policy decision was a good one.

[Gan]

I would. As long as the policy decision was a good one.

LOL

I see what you did there.

[Keller]

I would. As long as the policy decision was a good one.


You're dangerously close to becoming a semi-former former-semi conservative.

Watch it!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

So if I had a superstitialbelief in and made policy decisions based in part on the anarchists cookbook you would be cool with that?

If those beliefs and policy decisions also could be supported by non-superstitious or religious beliefs then yes.

I do get what you're saying-- I feel a bit edgy about a politician saying they're doing God's will because to me that sets off an alarm that they may not be flexible in various situations.

But Clove's point (I think) is that their decision or opinion is not automatically incorrect because there is some religious motivation in there. And to discount someone's opinion because it's in part supported by their spirituality is a bigoted thing to do, just as it would be bigoted on their part to discount your point of view because you don't include religion in it.

[Clove]

So if I had a superstitialbelief in and made policy decisions based in part on the anarchists cookbook you would be cool with that?I may if it were proven that you had a superstitious belief in it, but only if you were following the ancient text versions.

[Stanley Burrell]

I may if it were proven that you had a superstitious belief in it

I see nothing wrong with that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalomancy)