Teasing out Palin’s religious views

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.

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.

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? =)

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Doug, McCain has since changed his mind about Falwell, at least.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. . .

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…

“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.

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.

“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.

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

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.

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…..

It was the same quote, PP. In fact, they probably picked up the same wire story.

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’.

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’.

PP: Why do you take the elitist attitude that women in Kansas should enjoy fewer rights than women in other states?

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.

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 – 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.

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

“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.

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.