Is Sarah Palin a conservative evangelical Christian? Or is she something quite a bit more exotic than that? It’s an important question, because she herself has suggested she holds some peculiar beliefs that could affect the way she executes her duties as a public official.
The two best stories I’ve come across on Palin’s religious beliefs are this piece on NPR, by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, and one in today’s Anchorage Daily News by George Bryson and Richard Mauer.
First, the NPR story. Hagerty, who’s been described as a conservative Christian herself (though I can’t find a relevant link), does Palin the favor of taking her faith seriously, describing Palin’s beliefs as those of a Pentacostal. Here’s an excerpt for you to chew over:
“Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” Palin 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.”
Poloma [Margaret Poloma, a scholar of Pentacostalism who is a Pentacostal herself] says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war.
“I would think it’s fair to say. Yes,” Poloma says.
One reason, Poloma says, is that most Pentecostals believe Islam is a false religion.
Let’s turn next to the Anchorage Daily News story, which describes her visit to her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, last June. That’s the appearance at which she made the comments about God’s will and the war, as well as her suggestion that Alaskans should pray for a natural-gas pipeline. Now consider this:
Later, senior pastor Ed Kalnins — with Palin standing at his side — spoke about tapping into Alaska’s natural resource wealth in order to fulfill the state’s destiny of serving as a shelter for Christians at the end of the world.
“I believe that Alaska is one of the ‘refuge states’ — come on you guys — in the Last Days,” Kalnins said, raising his arm to underscore his point. “And hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge. And the church has to be ready to minister to them.”
Oh, my.
So what are Palin’s own beliefs? It’s hard to say, given that neither she nor the McCain campaign is talking about her religion. (And try to remember the last time a Republican candidate at the national level didn’t go on about his religious beliefs at great length.)
The Daily News story does hint that perhaps she’s not as out-there as some of her activities make it sound — noting, for example, that she advocates but has not pushed for teaching creationism in schools and banning state benefits for same-sex couples. But I’m not sure if I’m supposed to feel better if someone prays for a gas pipeline but doesn’t actually mean it.
And what about her apparent acquiescence when Pastor Kalnins went off about Alaska’s role in a post-Apocalypse world? Does she think he was on to something, or was she just being polite? I would argue that Americans have a right to know if the woman who may be our next vice president uses the Book of Revelations as a guide to forming public policy.
Purely by coincidence, I wrote about the Constitution’s lack of a religious test a week before Palin was named. As I argued then, the government may not disqualify a candidate for religious reasons, but we the people are free to judge a candidate on any criteria we like, including religion. We all have our religious test.
Quite frankly, anyone who prays for a gas pipeline violates my religious test. (I’ll give her a pass on the war, since her remarks could be construed as merely praying for the safety of the troops.)
How long does the McCain campaign plan on keeping Sarah Palin under wraps? When is she going to answer legitimate questions about her career, her qualifications and her beliefs?
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The pipeline is God’s will, she asserted, in a rather abruptly clipped YouTube video … but it still seems to prove the point:“I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.”From the abruptness of the clip, I’m not certain exactly to the extent I should be praying. Should I support the welding companies? The catering and food management companies? The companies that supply the food management companies? The companies that actually run commercial agriculture?Because I wonder at some point if my prayers should extent to, say, Archer Daniel Midlands, which ultimately could supply the corn muffins needed to get the gas pipeline built, at the same time they’re producing ethanol that will compete with the natural gas.But surely when God wills a pipeline to be built, he wants His workers to be well fed.
How long does the McCain campaign plan on keeping Sarah Palin under wraps?I’m sure all your questions will be answered on November 5th, Dan. 🙂
I worry about people thinking they are hearing divine guidance when what they are actually hearing originates within themselves. I think it’s a common pitfall for religious people in the West — you gotta pull back that ego when you’re looking into your heart!As for Palin, I want people in public office who try to transcend their everyday language and shortcomings, not wallow in them. To work effectively with other public officials, including from other countries, I think you need a more cosmopolitan attitude than congratulating yourself on being a “hockey mom” and a “pit bull.” Such talk comes across to me as pandering to the American electorate that fell for George W. Bush.
Let’s consider the very real possibility that, if elected, McCain is unable to finish his term due to poor health.Should a radical, evangelical christian be vested with ultimate responsibility for deploying U.S. nuclear weapons, now that the relationship between Russia and the U.S. / Europe is fractured?John McCain capitulated to the far-right religious element of his party when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.Doug Shugarts
Doug, I’d suggest being careful with your terminology.radical, for instance — Martin Luther was a radical and not very well liked by all at the time … Martin Luther King Jr., similarly. The terms you cite are not necessary indicative of someone who can’t be trusted with nuclear weapon authority.Now, Dan did raise the point that she’s been hanging out with a minister who’s convinced the end is near and that might not be a bad thing, which _does_ make me nervous.Another worry is that people who believe the world is about to end are less likely to take a long-term approach, e.g., “Even if global warming exists and would have some effects in 50 years, we won’t be here, who cares?” or “Peak oil? Who cares?” and the like. By that viewpoint, the world is ours to be used up as quickly and efficiently as possible before the end.For those of us who believe our children are quite likely to inherit our mistakes, that sort of thinking, er, scares, er, the beJesus outta me.Good conversation for a Sunday morning, eh? =)
As long as the McCain campaign feels that this strategy is working, they’ll keep her from answering questions. Until then, all we’ll get is her tossing sarcastic bombs at Obama.
Doug posted:*****Let’s consider the very real possibility that, if elected, McCain is unable to finish his term due to poor health.*****I have been operating that way all along, and that’s while I thought his vice presidential pick was crucial.And he absolutely flubbed it. I do not thinkl he could have done worse, based on all the issues she brings with her.As I have said before, I loathe Mitt Romney, but he would have been a far better choice.What bothers me is that McCain and his advisers had to react quickly and under pressure to Obama naming Biden, and I do not feel as though they reacted well at all.
Dan, Are you looking for answers from Gov.Palin that might persuade you to vote for her and Sen. McCain?Or are you trying to persuade others not to? I’m not buying your just asking schtick.
Liam St. Liam wrote: “I have been operating that way all along, and that’s while I thought his [McCain’s] vice presidential pick was crucial.And he absolutely flubbed it. I do not thinkl he could have done worse, based on all the issues she brings with her.”—Liam, I don’t think he could have done better. Look how angry the pick has made Dan! Even the usually indifferent to McCain Rush Limbaugh is calling him John McBrilliant!Zogby today:McCain-Palin 49.7%Obama-Biden 45.9%Pollster John Zogby: “Clearly, Palin is helping the McCain ticket. She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party. The striking thing here in this poll is that McCain has pulled ahead among Catholics by double-digits.”
O-Fish Remember, the only poll that counts is the election.I never trust polls from anyone.
Rick: Having injured my stomach from laughter on Election Day 2004 when Kerry and family were waltzing around the MA State House accepting congratulations as “President Elect”, only to have the plug pulled on his “victory” party a few hours later, I agree with you on the polls.That said, I thought it appropriate to cite Zogby’s latest in response to Liam’s absurd assertion that McCain flubbed the pick. The numbers are particularly relevant given the relentless attacks by Obama’s surrogates, the media.
Either you believe that nonsense about “separation of church and state,” or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways. Did JFK’s Catholicism ruin the country? Actually his philandering disregard for the concept of sin might have, if we’d known.
Don: You need a civics lesson. Separation of church and state applies to the government, not to the people. The government may not favor or penalize any particular belief or non-belief. But the people are free to believe what they wish, and to act upon their beliefs.
John McCain, speaking in 2000 during his first campaign for the presidency:Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.— and —We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson.— and —The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are…(APPLAUSE)They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.McCain must explain why his choice of Palin is consistent with his stated views on religion in politics.Doug Shugarts
Doug, McCain has since changed his mind about Falwell, at least.
methesheeple:What’s especially obnoxious about McCain’s capitulation to the religious right is that his newfound admiration for Falwell occurred after the good reverend’s notorious statements on 9-11:“The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’ “The fact that citizens must still argue for reason and modernity nearly 400 years after the Age of Enlightenment is a sad commentary on our culture.Doug Shugarts
Why is it that so many conservative commentators, and bloggers, adopt such an angry, in-your-face attitude? My own guess is that it’s because the Christian right and the Republican Party no longer look upon an election as simply one component of a larger political process. Instead, they view it as part of a culture war, “us against the devil,” or at least “us against the world.” And that is why during the recent history of this country, and especially over the last four years, people can’t have a discussion of the political scene without ending up screaming at each other. Too bad, and not at all good for the country.
fish reports:Zogby today:McCain-Palin 49.7%Obama-Biden 45.9%andThe numbers are particularly relevant given the relentless attacks by Obama’s surrogates, the media.Gallop Daily confirms 10 pt convention bump:M/P 48O/B 45And they are still blissfully unaware of the “electorate nullification” that they have sparked. Two generations of an occupation dreaming that they will write the next “All the President’s Men” but with the “even” pages missing.
Wow, leave for a couple hours and . . . O-FISH-L: I highly respect your opinion, and I look forward to your posts, and I am a little disappointed you felt you needed to use the word “absurd.”He certainly blew his chance to get my vote. The right VP — someone I could see as president — would have done that.I think you are going to find a lot of people who thought it was a great pick and a lot of people who thought it was not good.I think the sources you read look at it one way, and the sources I read look at it another.I have a lot of issues with her on a lot of topics, but mostly I can come up with a number of Republicans who would are far better qualified to be president than than she would.As far as the poll goes, let’s do this. Let’s look at it on Oct. 1 after the bounce effect is completed.
My wife pointed out an interesting word used to describe Sarah Palin’s religion — Dominionist.I have only read the Wikipedia entry, but it’s pretty scary.This is reading more and more like a political thriller. And I am not sure it’s a good one.
Highlighting quotes like “most Pentecostals believe..” to profile Palin is, I think, treading on low ground that I thought we left behind in the 1960 election. Let’s find out more about her policies before making general inferences based on her religion.I’m much more concerned about specifics, such as her stance on creationism.
The ground we left in 1960 was the fear that Rome would be on a direct hot line to Kennedy ordering him to enact certain policies–Kennedy was making the point he could distinguish between the will of his church and the governance of the United States. There certainly wasn’t a Roman Catholic faction crucial to his election to whom he had made political promises. Palin’s situation is much different. Given the ecstatic approval of Palin by religious conservatives, the teachings of her church, and her own statements, we don’t need to make general inferences based on her religion–we have over twenty years of specific Christian right belief that has been laid down into the highest levels of our government. Unlike Kennedy, the point for most religious conservatives is to have their religion written into policy.
Yes, the situation is different but the principles aren’t. Joe Biden is Roman Catholic but does that define his position on choice? Let’s hear what Palin’s positions are, not what her religion is. I’m as uncomfortable with fundamentalism as the next guy and I’m uncomfortable with religion playing a role in politics. But prejudice is still prejudice, even if it is in a good cause.
She represents an ink blot right now. Many of these opinions come out of prejudices out of their own feelings about religion rather than Ms. Palin’s actual practice or experience.
boston, that may be true, but until Palin is properly vetted by the American people — which happens, of course, by way of the media — we just won’t know, will we?
DK – When did a GOP candidate not blater on about religion? Without looking it up, what denomination is Bob Dole?WHERE is the religion talk coming from? Why, left-leaning blogs who are seeking to discedit her. Not from Palin, not from the GOP. I heard a screed on the radio this morning about the Assembly of God denomination that matches the most bigoted cult accusations about Mormons that the Democrats were able to offer a few months ago.Explain to me – why are Protestants and Evangelicals characterized as robot-like followers of every tenet of their faith, while John Kerry and other Catholic Democrats are allowed to skate on Catholic teachings about abortion and gay rights? Their CHURCH is calling them immoral, while they bask in their Cafeteria Catholicism, with approving nods from the media.None of you know WHAT theological tenets Gov. Palin believes, do you?
PP:You are missing a fundamental(ist) point and also painting with far to wide a brush. “Protestants and evangelicals [are] characterized as robot-like followers of every tenet of their faith”? I have never seen anyone claim that of all Protestants and evangelicals. On the other hand, evangelicals do have a specific charge as to how they approach the world and one does not get unqualified endorsements from someone like Dobson without clearly indicating simpatico beliefs. The Christian right is often unable to distinguish between personal belief and official state doctrine. Palin’s own answers to questions on abortion show that she cleaves strictly to the fundamentalist line, her willingness to consider introducing creationism into school curricula is another red flag. Her public statements are filled with fundamentalist code words, going so far as to religiously politicize her first mayoral race in Alaska. This, taken with the tenets of the church she attends are a pretty strong indication of where she stands. To suggest we don’t know what theological tenets she believes is ludicrous–she’s tried to put them into public policy.
And, to be honest, I don’t personally care if she believes the Bible is the literal word of God or if the world is 6000 years old. That’s her business and no one should ask her about it. Trying to recreate American law in the image of her religion is where I draw the line and frankly, the willingness of some conservatives to go along with this in order to simply win an election is appalling. That John McCain would do an about face on this question to further his own ambitions disgusts me.
PP, why wouldn’t you want to know about things like how a presidential candidate’s religion plays into their thinking? We know as much about McCain, Obama and Biden. Why do you think Palin should be off limits? You’re coming at this from completely the wrong angle. Instead of complaining that no one is talking about this stuff but the blogs, your criticism should be 1) Why isn’t the MSM going harder after this? and 2) Why is the McCain campaign — aka Mr. Straight Talk — not disclosing it?
Mike – what are Joe Biden’s theological beliefs? Is he a transubstantion man? Where does he stand on open table?I really don’t care because I don’t think religious belief has much to do with governance. Consider this – Hillary Clinton and George Bush are both Methodists…does it follow that they would govern in the same way?How could MSM go at it much harder? For now, it’s all they got. Personally, I think much of the invective and spleen stems fom the fact that they were prepared for Romney or Pawlenty, and were caught off-guard until 10 minutes before the announcement – no small accomplishment in this leak-driven age. It goes hand in hand with DK’s asertion that she is ‘under wraps’ – there’s only BEEN one Sunday since she accepted the nomination – maybe THAT’S why she hasn’t been on Meet the Press? Because, face it, until this week MTP was dedicated to the principle that there ARE no conservative women…what chance did a mere Alaskan Governor have?
What Dot Lane just said. Trying to recreate American law in the image of her religion is where I draw the line…. Her concern is at the crux of the separation of church and state concept, which is the use of the power and authority of government to force particular religious beliefs on the citizenry, and also to prevent the ability of that same citizenry to worship, or not, as they see fit, even if it is in opposition to government policy. If a McCain administration, with a religious right Sarah Palin actively trying to force her religious beliefs into government policy is the result of this election , then this is something we have the right to know and the duty to oppose.
ACF – please advise where any such attempt is proposed, outside the fevered imaginations of those who hear ‘code words’ like they do those voices in their heads…
Well, PP, this certainly qualifies:”Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.”Dismissing a librarian for refusing to ban books in a public library is an abuse of power in my book.
Steve – holes in story:The librarian was NOT fired, was she?The letter she received was part of a group of such letters that went to managers appointed by her opponents, wasn’t it? “Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to Police Chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.“Please fill me in – what were the theological ramifications of asking for the the DPW chief’s resignation? Refusal to build a Stairway to Heaven?You are a generally sane poster – so for you to gulp down the notion that a politician’s every move is theologically driven, based on a rehash of a 14 year old news story that admits that Palin wasn’t contacted, is depressing. Is that REALLY all you can find?
Roman Catholic priests are celibate, Catholics do not abort or support those who do, and Catholics do not commit adultery. Who among us is actually a Catholic? Now let’s start on Methodists. . .
McCain/Palin have already vowed to install “strict constructionists” who “won’t legislate from the bench”. Now, despite this, I’m sure McCain/Palin will keep an open mind if and when a new Supreme Court justice is nominated, and will be satisfied with letting said justice decide a case involving Roe v. Wade or gay marriage on its merits, not on any preconceived assurances of how that nominee might vote. And I certainly wouldn’t expect conservative religious leaders who are now supporting McCain/Palin to have inquired about the ticket’s interest in supporting certain policy positions on the religious right wish list and then have received assurances that McCain/Palin will do as they wish. Because that isn’t how the political world works at all. Exactly who are you trying to kid?
Ms. Lane – have you ever heard of Earl Warren? Predicting the future opinions of supreme court justices is an exceptionally losing game for Presidents.And I am glad that you recognize that supporters of politicians generally hold the same opinions as those politicians on issues – without Divine Intervention being necessary. Which makes your religious bigotry much more reprehensible – rather like saying Obama is unfit becuse he is black…
PP, step back from the ledge. You are assuming, wrongly so, that everyone here believes politician’s motives are driven by their religion. Not so. We don’t know what to think about Palin, because the GOP strategy has been to hide her. And that should be an embarrassment to those of you who buy McCain’s “Straight Talk” crap or open government ideals. You complained that her religion has nothing to do with her governing and therefore voters and the media should give her a pass. The obvious flaw in that is that no one knows dick about her yet, and therefore we don’t know whether religion (or something else) informs her beliefs, and whether she can (or should) be trusted. You want to parse every word others write, but don’t believe the same intensity should be applied to the candidate for the second highest position in the land — just because she’s your pick? And especially after an Administration that did almost nothing consistent with the platform it set out in not one but two elections? Incredible.You’re deft at changing the subject. But I know how to change it right back.
“Predicting the future opinions of supreme court justices is an exceptionally losing game for Presidents.”You’re very amusing when you deliberately play naive. The confirmation has changed substantially from the time of Earl Warren and you know it.Furthermore, you just crossed a major line, Mr. Porcupine. My religious bigotry?Pardon me while I quote myself: “I don’t personally care if she believes the Bible is the literal word of God or if the world is 6000 years old. That’s her business and no one should ask her about it. Trying to recreate American law in the image of her religion is where I draw the line and frankly, the willingness of some conservatives to go along with this in order to simply win an election is appalling. That John McCain would do an about face on this question to further his own ambitions disgusts me.”I didn’t say her religious beliefs disqualified her. I said her willingness to write them into law did. There is a big difference, so watch who you accuse of bigotry.
The point, PP, is that Palin demanded of the librarian a willingness to censor books and the ideas they contain. She acted as a fundamentalist, either sincerely or in an effort to pander to her constituents, and displayed a moral cowardice that is threatened by ideas which lie beyond the limits of a fixed religious imagination, be it christian, muslim or any other.Doug Shugarts
Mr. Shugarts – please read the story which Steve linked to. No such demand was made – the librarian was asked how she would react to such a hypothetical, and suffered no penalty for her response. Frankly, the question could just as easily have pertained to a homeland security inquiry as a religious one.What is cowardly is to enhance a 12 year old story with no direct quotes or corroboration into ‘proof’ of a person’s bigotry.
PP:Do you equate managing homeland security needs with intimidating librarians who refuse to remove books deemed ‘unacceptable’ by fundamentalists?Doug Shugarts
“What is cowardly is to enhance a 12 year old story with no direct quotes or corroboration into ‘proof’ of a person’s bigotry.”Oh, like the GOP did to Clinton in 1992 when it brought forward claims he met with communists on a college trip to the USSR?Or repeated attempts by the GOP to suggest (wrongly) Obama is Muslim, thus playing on the (unfounded) fears of Americans? That’s not bigoted?Again, all this shows is that the GOP can dish it out, but it can’t take it.
Mike – find me one example of where the GOP suggested Obama was a Muslim. Not an Obama despiser, not a conservative fellow traveller – a Republican. Repeated attempts? Tht would be like me accusing Obama of starting the story that Palin’ child was really her daughter’s child – just because some deluded progressives wanted to start a smear.Why should we ‘take’ deliberate falsehoods like yours without pointing out that they are untrue?
PP: That didn’t take long. From the Republican Convention:”Besides Obama-Osama placards, there will be such sly statements as that of Dick Amery, former House leader, who said at the convention that Obama’s ‘funny name’ raises concerns that he could ‘have been too much influenced by Muslims, which is a great threat now.’ “http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/491829
PP: The librarian was NOT fired, was she?No, PP, but she only kept her job after a wave of public support made Palin relent in her crusade to fire the librarian upholding freedom of speech.But it’s the censorious attitude itself that’s dangerous. I don’t know or care what engendered it – whether it was her religious beliefs or if she was scared by Stephen King as a child – she believes that once she gets elected, she is empowered to limit what people can read.That’s as un-American as it gets, as far as I’m concerned, and she shouldn’t be allowed anywhere NEAR the White House.I’m sorry you seem to believe otherwise.BTW, what’s this sudden belief in a time horizon for issues of character? McCain’s whole political career is based on a story almost 40 years old. So we can go back 40 years for something good, but going back 12 to reveal a character flaw is out of bounds? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.
Mike – Yes, COMMENTS on a story – here’s another from the same thread – “So Siddiqui’s bias always shows. What about other journalists in other newspapers who are also bias towards the Republicans? There’s no big deal there!”I was there. There were NOT any such signs in the convention hall. This is another lie you are attempting to disseminate. I repeat – not from a blog or a comment – where did a Republican say any such thing? I’ll have the transcript of Armey’s (not Amery) remarks in a couple of days, and be able to refute that as well. In the meantime, I’m sceptical of a third hand comment from somebody who cannot spell his name.
Refute away, my prickly friend. I’ll be here, waiting … waiting … waiting …
PP was there at the convention and he saw *everything* and can swear there were no Obama-Osama placards. Don’t you get it Mike? Conservatives have omniscience, which allows them to make unchallengeable definitive statements.From USA Today:”The Bubba vote is there, and it’s very real, and it is everywhere,” Armey told USA TODAY and Gannett News Service. “There’s an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man.”It’s deplorable, but it is real,” said Armey, adding that he believes “Republicans would not encourage” such prejudices. He said the “Bubba vote” is “invisible” in pre-election opinion polls, because voters do not admit they would oppose a candidate because of race.Armey said Obama’s “funny name” — a phrase the Illinois senator uses himself — could “give people concerns that he could be or has been too much influenced by Muslims, which is a great threat now.” Obama is Christian.”These are handicaps he has that translate into real-number outcomes,” said Armey, an architect of the “Republican revolution” that won the House majority in the 1994 election. The Texas congressman retired in 2003.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-armey_N.htm*****So Dick Armey, in a neat little trick, gets to repeat a rumor while appearing just to be offering commentary on Obama’s electoral chances. At least he’s willing to admit that there are Republicans swayed by the crypto-Muslim argument who refuse to vote for a black man and that such things are being said about Barack Obama.I also like the “bless their heart” comment, as if racists are just these quaint folk with slightly different beliefs than the rest of the United States. He also believes Republicans wouldn’t encourage such prejudices but I do have to wonder about the sources of the “Obama is a muslim” rumors. Or are you distinguishing between conservatives and Republicans?And I still don’t have an apology PP for you calling me a bigot. I’m waiting…..
Ms. Lane – the convention had an unusual and VERY strict policy about signs. Just ask any of the Ron Paul delegates who had signs taken away by a Signage SWAT Team. It was not omniscience, but a familiarity with the venue and events that allowed me to state there were no such signs.YOU came up with a respectable quote – something beyond Mike’s ken. And in posting it, you confirmed what I thought, that the matter was spoken about – similar to Obama’s own comments about his ‘Muslim faith’ – but Mike was distorting context in order to enable a lie.You may wonder away to your heart’s content about the GOP alleged ‘cleverness’. FWIW, I am told not to conflate the activities of the anarchists and protestors festooned with Obama buttons with the Democratic Party, so I assume you must return that courtesy. And as I said to Mike earlier – YES, there ARE differences between conservatives and Republicans – he stated that REPUBLICANS were making these statements.I have not read anything from you that convinces me that you are not a bigot, or that an apology is due you.
It was the same quote, PP. In fact, they probably picked up the same wire story.
Ah, I see. So you will continue to smear me with unfounded comments after I explicitly stated that Ms. Palin’s religious beliefs are her own business and she shouldn’t be questioned on them but rather judged on her public statements and policies. Such bigotry on my part! I will repeat my earlier comment:'”I don’t personally care if she believes the Bible is the literal word of God or if the world is 6000 years old. That’s her business and no one should ask her about it. Trying to recreate American law in the image of her religion is where I draw the line and frankly, the willingness of some conservatives to go along with this in order to simply win an election is appalling. That John McCain would do an about face on this question to further his own ambitions disgusts me.”I didn’t say her religious beliefs disqualified her. I said her willingness to write them into law did. There is a big difference, so watch who you accuse of bigotry.’
Perhaps this Newsweek story from FactCheck.org will help you evaluate if there is any basis for your repeated assertion that Gov. Palin has tried to push her religious beliefs – unknown to us all except by rumor and insinuation – into law.http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986Your willingness to believe such assertions absent any confirmation except the spite of fellow progressives makes me question your claimed ‘tolerance’.
I’m sorry, PP. I’m not particularly interested in the rumors Newsweek analyzed. What I am interested in are facts. You must have missed the part where she refused to consider an abortion because of her religion and then wrote, after her son’s birth, a letter signed “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father” explaining her decision. Furthermore, Palin wrote in response to a conservative organization in Alaska’s questionnaire prior to the 2006 election for Governor, “I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.” You also must have missed the bills in the Alaska legislature designed to reduce the availability of abortion, bills which Sarah Palin supported.So you tell me PP, how is my claim that she has attempted to put her religious beliefs into law an assertion absent confirmation?
Ms. Lane – you could make the same claim about ‘putting religious beliefs into law’ about Tom Finneran, given the ever expanding criteria for your belief. Indeed, you could include Kennedy, whom you exempted early on from consideration as a religionist in office.I bet she’s against murder and theft based on her creepy religion as well.I admire her decision to have her child, as I happen to be pro-choice. I also do not fall for the Roe v. Wade boogeyman, as if the decision IS overturned, control reverts to the states, who will exercise local control over such a decision.And before you get into the fact that some states might have the temerity to disagree with you and outlaw abortion, to me it comes back to the old liberal saw about ‘If you don’t want abortion, don’t have one’. With RvW repealed, you could also say, ‘If you can’t get an abortion in Kansas – don’t move there’.
There is no need to advise you, or anyone else, of proposed changes in laws based on the religious beliefs of Sarah Palin. It’s within my rights to know if a politician intends, or is likely to, try and apply their religious beliefs to laws affecting me.
PP: Why do you take the elitist attitude that women in Kansas should enjoy fewer rights than women in other states?
Ah, that’s what I thought. You can’t prove my assertion was made absent confirmation. So long and thanks for all the red herring!
I’ll be blunt:I am freaking out that in this 2-year race of unbelievable media scrutiny on everyone’s records, past statements, beliefs, associations – we might end up with someone who could be President of the United States in 4 1/2 months that we know almost nothing about.(And McCain knew almost nothing about when he chose her. WTF!?! He chose someone he’d met ONCE before and then briefly again before offering the ticket – which he’d scheduled to announce hours after that second meeting. Guess that meeting had to go well!)Sarah Palin has had a public life that was isolated from most of the MSM. But we do know that she’s been a big hit among evangelicals such as Dobson, who want to enact laws that enshrine their religious beliefs – for a while.Why is that, we MUST ask!There has been a mad scramble to tear through Sarah Palin’s record because WE DON’T HAVE MUCH TIME to figure out who she is. Some of the digging has had some messy results. Well jeez louise, the media is just doing the job McCain should have done in the first place. And second, the McCain camp is deliberately shielding her from much inquiry at all.How dare they????So I don’t care how messy the discovery process is. That’s what happens when you pick someone for the second-highest job in the land who may have the most important job in the whole world that almost nobody knows anything about – with a 60-day clock that’s ticking on making a decision.We have to know – we deserve to know – how Sarah Palin thinks.I have an evangelical Christian friend who describes every thought he has in his head as having come from God. If he feels thirsty, that’s God telling him to drink a glass of water.Does Sarah Palin believe that every thought that flits across the transom of her brain has been placed there directly by God? What evidence does she consult when making decisions? Whom does Palin consider an authority – both people and source material?Frankly, asking Palin what her “positions” doesn’t necessarily help give us the information we need about who she is and how she thinks if she (a) tailors her answers to make them palatable; and (b) doesn’t illuminate how she arrived at her opinions.What we’re after is how she thinks, which is the only way we can possibly have any guide as to what she’ll do in the future.Once he was in office, people learned that Bush was entirely motivated by ideology: it’s one thing to think that tax cuts are warranted when there was a treasury surplus. It’s quite another to learn that he thinks that tax cuts are always the answer: if the economy is robust, if growth is too slow, if it’s a Tuesday, if it’s raining. Most people would probably prefer that their leaders are motivated by a set of principles but that they actually examine the data in each particular instance rather than having their ideology spit out the same answer for any decision, regardless of context, changed circumstances, or past unsuccessful attempts to apply the same remedy. What you have then is not a thinking, reasoning person – but an ideological automaton who refuses to actually look at the world as it exists.We know the answers to none of these questions.
“Why do you take the elitist attitude that women in Kansas should enjoy fewer rights than women in other states?”Mr. Shugarts – For the same reason progressives in Mass. feel it’s OK to deny voters the right to decide issues based upon petitions submitted? I’ve been listending to the smug liberal rejoinder about not having an abortion for decades. Both sides of any issue can make a case that the other side is ‘elitist’ for disagreeing with them. As liberals have become increasingly reliant on courts to superimpose progressive dicta upon votes and legislation, they may regret creating these precedents as a more conservative court comes back to bite them – watch, we’ll be hearing how we MUST vote, it’s a CIVIL RIGHT in a couple of years, based on the judiciary no longer being on the ‘correct’ side.Mr. Lee – as I said earlier about Joe Biden – who cares? What is the motivation of ANY politician or public figure? It is the results of their thoughts, not the thoughts themselves, which are improtant. Is Deval Patrick motivated by religious fervor, greed, self-aggrandizement, pure love or pragmatism when he puts forth a casino agenda?Or is it OK if it’s greed, and creepy if it’s religion?
Well, PP, here’s a thought: Is the country headed in the right direction? If so, then vote McCain, because he truly is more of the same. And if not, well, don’t. But don’t try to make McCain (Bush lite) something he’s not. He’s never had good judgment and he’s never really accomplished anything. Other than that, I’m sure he’s a great guy to crack open a Bud with out on the deck.Just don’t forget the SPF 50.
Mr. Lee – as I said earlier about Joe Biden – who cares? What is the motivation of ANY politician or public figure? It is the results of their thoughts, not the thoughts themselves, which are improtant. Is Deval Patrick motivated by religious fervor, greed, self-aggrandizement, pure love or pragmatism when he puts forth a casino agenda?Or is it OK if it’s greed, and creepy if it’s religion?It’s not about “creepy” or “OK.” It’s about whether someone is persuadable – and via what means – that is important.What we need is a civic dialogue & means of arriving at compromise. If you believe that all of your policy decisions have been approved by God, why would you ever even listen to the other side, much less compromise?
Mr. Lee – Personally, I try hard to discuss civic issues with those I disagree with, as talking to those of like mind rarely teaches you anything.I sometimes wonder about progressives, though, who seem disposed to dismiss other points of view as ‘against their personal interest’, or ‘unenlightened’, or even ‘Fascist’. Nobody has written a book called ‘What’s the Matter With Arlington’, although there is material aplenty.I haven’t seen anything which would suggest that Palin refuses to compromise – I noticed in her abortion statement she made exception for the life of the mother, for instance. that may not be ENOUGH of a compromise, in your opinion, but it indicates that there is a rational capacity to make distinctions.OTOH, reading this thread might convince you that people of faith are unfit for public office – and I haven’t seen any indication that Palin’s opponents are particularly ‘persuadeable’ themselves.
“He’s never had good judgment and he’s never really accomplished anything”There’s another candidate in the race that would more likely to be identified with that statement.
Ms. PP wrote: Both sides of any issue can make a case that the other side is ‘elitist’ for disagreeing with them.I can’t imagine a more elitist viewpoint than the high rock of moral certitude from which religious conservatives look down on all us poor sinners. Their arrogance is stunning: they alone will decide if you will be born, what you will learn as a child, where you will attend school, whom you will marry, what you may choose as a career, how you will vote, how you will suffer in old age and how, and when, you may die.Which freedoms will citizens no longer enjoy if the religious right makes camp in a McCain or Palin administration and banishes the rest of us from the promised land?Doug Shugarts
PP: If you’re suggesting Palin is actually a man, well, it may be the first time we have ever agreed.
“they alone will decide if you will be born, what you will learn as a child, where you will attend school, whom you will marry, what you may choose as a career, how you will vote, how you will suffer in old age and how, and when, you may die.”Mr. Shugarts – your description made me smile, as it also accurately describes the attitudes of Byron Rushing, Jarret Barrios, Jay Kaufman, Alice Wolf, and other members of the Progressive Caucus.Which is exactly what I meant about both side.
Ms. PP:Wrong. The ‘progressives’ you mentioned favor the expansion of rights without regard to any particular religious view.Fundamentalists invoke religious dogma to restrict rights (and neighborhoods, schools, governments, etc.).McCain and the GOP fall squarely into the second camp.Doug Shugarts
Old Man McCain’s religion is the military. Electing McCain would be like putting Mushareff in the Oval Office. Eisenhower is turning over in his grave.