More Palin Lies

[GoS]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

That statement isn't true. Most of the evangelicals I know believe gay marriage would destroy America because they believe it would weaken the family, which causes crime, etc. I do agree that the view is misguided, as marriage is already weakened by other cultural forces much more powerful than gay marriage. Also, statistics don't bear the view out, as children of gay marriages are not more likely to commit crimes, however they do report lower levels of happiness and contentment. To me gay marriage is irrelavent because I don't think that the government has any business in relationships one way or the other. The evangelical argument is that government has a vested interest in the success of marriage because stable families are more likely to rear children that are law abiding citizens. I disagree with that point, but calling that view "extreme" IS extreme, IMO. Certainly there are SOME who hold the view you describe as much as there might be some on the left who hold views, like Nancy Pelosi has admitted, where they believe that redistribution was mandated by Jesus, which I think also misstates Jesus' actual teachings. The basic point is that evangelicals do want what they think is best for America. My view is that Jesus never commanded government to do anything, but commanded us to do things individually.

I completely agree that Jesus never commanded the government to to anything, and that he told us how we should live. It is also true that government has no business interfering here; this is just as personal a decision as religion or political party. I may not like the way you live, but I have no place telling you who to marry, what to believe, what music to like etc. I certainly am not saying that everyone who is Christian, and is against gay marriage is only like that because they have been told that by the Church. I just do not think that it is fair to say there is not a relation between church and party (I can only imagine what what percentage of certain religions like Christianity must be Republican, and there are religions that lean to the left). The values associated with the Republican party line up more closely with those of the Christian church, some of those people can back up their beliefs with facts (like you) and others cannot, which is what I have a problem with.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

BTW thank you for having a respectful debate with me.

Well we can't have a respectful debate unless both sides are doing so !

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

That could be that most American actually attend churches that aren't that much different from this and don't believe that reason has been replaced by faith. The two are not exclusory.

I agree that the two are certainly not mutually exclusive but I have to tack "to a degree" onto the end of it.

If faith itself is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things unseen" (Heb.11:1), then certain aspects of all religions end up inherently not based in reason - for the essence of reason is based in the search for truth utilizing rational means, regardless of the destination that search leads us to.

So, for our purposes, the ability of reason and faith to remain mutually exclusive in regards to government rests on the ability of people to rationally examine what's going on and to be capable of discerning what's best for us as a whole as opposed to what's best for us as compartmentalized, separate individuals or small groups.

I may personally think Palin's religious proclivities are frackin' goofy, and Palin may think I'm going to burn forever in a fiery pit or whatever, but that's fine. What I worry about is our leaders not being able to set aside things like that in order to accomplish things that benefit ALL of us. I am not convinced that's something Palin is capable of, whether it's by direct conscious choice or just because her mental warehouse was never stocked with the tools to get that done in the first place.

And that, at base, is what alarms me most about her.

Extremism hurts everyone, even the extremists.

In fact, it's likely the extremists themselves that are hurt the most.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by GoS

The values associated with the Republican party line up more closely with those of the Christian church, some of those people can back up their beliefs with facts (like you) and others cannot, which is what I have a problem with.

That might be true now, but it wouldn't be if the GOP still embraced the tenets it originally stood for rather than saying it does without actually doing anything crazy like also behaving like it does.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by Zombie

That might be true now, but it wouldn't be if the GOP still embraced the tenets it originally stood for rather than saying it does without actually doing anything crazy like also behaving like it does.

As for the behaving, touché. Foley,Stevens, What-ever's-his-name-in-the-airport-bathroom, and their friends make sure of that.

As for the first part, both parties have flipped several times on who stands for what. If you remember Lincoln and the original Republicans founded the party to be anti-slavery and thus got African-American support. But how many non-white people were there when McCain gave his acceptance speech? 10? And it would be nice if eople actually did what they said that they were going to do. Bush said he was going to unite the country and all that other stuff and got basically none of it done. Fine, 911 did disrupt his first term and set a very important agenda for him, but that was not mutually exclusive with his original plans. And okay he did unite 75% or so of the country, just not on the side he had hoped for. I'm off to watch the debate.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by GoS

As for the behaving, touché. Foley,Stevens, What-ever's-his-name-in-the-airport-bathroom, and their friends make sure of that.

As for the first part, both parties have flipped several times on who stands for what. If you remember Lincoln and the original Republicans founded the party to be anti-slavery and thus got African-American support. But how many non-white people were there when McCain gave his acceptance speech? 10? And it would be nice if eople actually did what they said that they were going to do. Bush said he was going to unite the country and all that other stuff and got basically none of it done. Fine, 911 did disrupt his first term and set a very important agenda for him, but that was not mutually exclusive with his original plans. And okay he did unite 75% or so of the country, just not on the side he had hoped for. I'm off to watch the debate.

Oh, I know they've all flipped - that wasn't intended to sound like some pinko liberal slam against the GOP. I'm actually more of a Republican than anything else - just the kind of Republican that sticks closer to the days of yore - less government, fiscally conservative, blah blah.

Also off to watch the debates!

Everybody Wang Chung Tonight,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Overly Wordy Person

[Sorceress]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Can you find anyone who actually said this that actually holds a public high office? No, because no one has. It's a xenophobic remark by someone who is afraid of religious people. As far as you are concerned, there is no distiction between your local church and the Taliban. According to people who think like you, fundamentalists are waiting in the wings with suicide bombs to take out abortion clinics and are waiting for Jesus to return to do it. I see faith (on your part) replacing reason here.

An example of an elected politician using her religion to justify policy decisions that affect everyone?
I'm sure you're more familiar than you pretend to be:
Sarah Palin: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that."
Sarah Palin: (regarding the soldiers fighting in Iraq) "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."


Come on, ajm, you're being disingenuous here. Why this inflammatory post based on 1. A premise that even you must know is easily disproven
and, 2. erroneous assumptions about me and what I believe? I took the time to provide contrary evidence to your assertions earlier in the thread, yet you have nothing to say about that. You'd rather call me names and mischaracterize what I'm saying.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by Sorceress

An example of an elected politician using her religion to justify policy decisions that effect everyone?
I'm sure you're more familiar than you pretend to be:
Sarah Palin: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that."
Sarah Palin: (regarding the soldiers fighting in Iraq) "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."


Come on, ajm, you're being disingenuous here. Why this inflammatory post based on 1. A premise that even you must know is easily disproven
and, 2. erroneous assumptions about me and what I believe? I took the time to provide contrary evidence to your assertions earlier in the thread, yet you have nothing to say about that. You'd rather call me names and mischaracterize what I'm saying.

There's also the exciting video footage from her church where she talks about how Bishop Muthee, the witch hunter guy, didn't know anything about her but prayed and prayed that she'd win her spot as Governor, and look! She did! Amazing.

That's the guy that also later prayed over her to protect her from witches.


Not a major Olbermann fan, but the piece pulls from both videos and the CS Monitor piece, so it's a good summary. If those videos don't give everyone pause regardless of religious affiliation, then all hope is gone, y'all. To the Prayer Cave!