Home› A Moving Train

Palin: A religious fundamentalist

puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
Why is Palin's injection of GOD told me [God talks to her], and GOD wants me to do this [God instructed her to build a pipeline], and only GOD judges me [she doesn't answer to the American people only the republican party] not considered the ramblings of a religious fanatic?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Smellyman2Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    she is the definition of insanity.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    because God only talks to hot MILF christians, not bearded brown folk.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    _outlaw wrote:
    because God only talks to hot MILF christians, not bearded brown folk.
    heh i would too if i were god.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    puremagic wrote:
    Why is Palin's injection of GOD told me [God talks to her], and GOD wants me to do this [God instructed her to build a pipeline], and only GOD judges me [she doesn't answer to the American people only the republican party] not considered the ramblings of a religious fanatic?

    Some of us think it is. I'm worried anytime people in power claim to hear supernatural voices or talk about divine guidance.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    puremagic wrote:
    Why is Palin's injection of GOD told me [God talks to her], and GOD wants me to do this [God instructed her to build a pipeline], and only GOD judges me [she doesn't answer to the American people only the republican party] not considered the ramblings of a religious fanatic?

    Because the majority of America thinks like her.

    Nothing wrong with having a belief system.

    (BTW I am a non-believer)
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    puremagic wrote:
    Why is Palin's injection of GOD told me [God talks to her], and GOD wants me to do this [God instructed her to build a pipeline], and only GOD judges me [she doesn't answer to the American people only the republican party] not considered the ramblings of a religious fanatic?
    ...
    God also talks to that homeless guy who lives on Fairfax Blvd.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    69charger wrote:
    Because the majority of America thinks like her.

    Nothing wrong with having a belief system.

    (BTW I am a non-believer)


    It is when that religious belief allows you to mobilize a military to kill and destroy behind a flag and a Constitution that believes religion should have no policy say in politics.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • Piper At The GatesPiper At The Gates Posts: 460
    She is VERY SCARY. She "Speaks in tongues', and wants to ban books in libraries.
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    69charger wrote:
    Because the majority of America thinks like her.

    Nothing wrong with having a belief system.
    There's nothing wrong with normal, sentient beings having a belief system.

    It's the crazies who end up like David Koresh that worry me.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    puremagic wrote:
    It is when that religious belief allows you to mobilize a military to kill and destroy behind a flag and a Constitution that believes religion should have no policy say in politics.

    You need to check yourself.

    One nation, under God...

    Our forefathers were 'fundamentalists' who knew religion, Christianity in particular, played a huge role in our society. It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    There's nothing wrong with normal, sentient beings having a belief system.

    It's the crazies who end up like David Koresh that worry me.

    Clearly Sarah Palin = David Koresh

    Frequent poster to the DU?
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    puremagic wrote:
    and a Constitution that believes religion should have no policy say in politics.

    WRONG.

    It does not matter where a person's beliefs come from. Someone non religious could just as easily support the Iraq war.

    Plus, nowhere in the Constitution does it say a politician cant have any religious beliefs. All it says is Freedom of Religion, which means that a religion cannot be imposed on anyone by law, something that Palin has not demonstrated any interest in doing.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • wcsmithwcsmith Posts: 165
    69charger wrote:

    Our forefathers were 'fundamentalists' who knew religion, Christianity in particular, played a huge role in our society. It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

    The American forefathers were most certainly not "fundamentalist". At best, with the possible exception of Patrick Henry, they were deists in fine Enlightenment tradition. Fundamentalism, as it currently exists, did not exist until the late 1800's/early 1900's. To claim that the forefathers shared the faith of Sarah Palin, Dobson, Robertson, et al is absolutely incorrect. They did know that Christianity/religion played a huge role in society, but one major thrust of the American democracy was an attempt to avoid the religious conflicts so prevalent in European history. The founding fathers were not Christians in the Pentecostal/holiness tradition of which Sarah Palin is a part. If you're gonna make that claim (that Palin and the founding fathers represent the same theological tradition), you might want to actually know something about the history of American theological development...
    "I'll ride the wave where it takes me"
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    69charger wrote:
    You need to check yourself.

    One nation, under God...

    Our forefathers were 'fundamentalists' who knew religion, Christianity in particular, played a huge role in our society. It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
    Forefathers? "Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge until 1954.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,295
    hey it's not so bad we could end up with

    SHE DEVIL = PALIN

    hell we've had the dark angel himself for the last 8yrs in ..

    CHENEY who says AMERICANS don't love the dark side ....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    Freedom From Religion? Who's forcing you to practice a certain religion that you need Freedom From Religion?
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Freedom From Religion? Who's forcing you to practice a certain religion that you need Freedom From Religion?
    she would be forcing her religion on us through her policies.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Think about the Pledge for a second. Originally the words were "One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All." Nice ring to it, right? One that says "we are all Americans."

    Now take a look at the modified version: "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All." Now the implication is that the nation and God are indivisible. Sure, the liberty and justice bit is still there - but now this nation cannot be separate from God. It no longer says "we are all Americans" but "we Americans are all Believers."
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    she would be forcing her religion on us through her policies.

    So she'd be forcing you to go to Church? And pray?
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    So she'd be forcing you to go to Church? And pray?
    No, but she would be sending friends of mine off to wars that are 'tasks from God'.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    There is nothing wrong with a politician being deeply religious. There is nothing wrong with a politician finding strength or guidance through their religion. There is definitely something wrong when a politician states that a war is just because we are carrying out God's work. I mean isn't that basically what the Crusaders believed. Weren't horrific acts like the Spanish Inquisition based on the same idea of using violence to do God's work. If you want to thank God for prosperity or look to him through difficult times that is fine but using your religion to give legitemacy to a policy or an act of war is simply unacceptable.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Smellyman2Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    MattyJoe wrote:
    So she'd be forcing you to go to Church? And pray?

    Are you being dense on purpose? Sarcastic?
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    Smellyman wrote:
    Are you being dense on purpose? Sarcastic?

    Not at all. That's what a violation of freedom of religion would entail. A war, even if supported for that reason, would not be a violation of that right because it is not a decision that is necessarily directly related to religion (like, only religious people would support it, no exceptions, which most likely wouldn't happen).
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Palin is indeed dangerous. Matt Damon says so.
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Not at all. That's what a violation of freedom of religion would entail. A war, even if supported for that reason, would not be a violation of that right because it is not a decision that is necessarily directly related to religion (like, only religious people would support it, no exceptions, which most likely wouldn't happen).
    Every hardline republican policy is informed by christianity, or their dubious interpretations of it.

    Palin's (and indeed most republicans') beliefs on war, same-sex marriage, abortion, these aren't socially informed beliefs, they're religious doctrines.

    Bush famously claimed to have God's guiding hand in the war in Iraq, remember?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Not at all. That's what a violation of freedom of religion would entail. A war, even if supported for that reason, would not be a violation of that right because it is not a decision that is necessarily directly related to religion (like, only religious people would support it, no exceptions, which most likely wouldn't happen).
    are you kidding? of course it's a violation of that right. just because other psychopaths would support a war does not mean that she has no right to take us to war based on god's will.

    of course you are just a hypocrite though. we all know that if a Muslim were to want to go to war based on God, you would be completely outraged...
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    we all know that if a Muslim were to want to go to war based on God, you would be completely outraged...

    Really? You know me that well, eh?

    Anyway, maybe I would feel threatened by that, but mostly because Muslims have a history of blowing themselves up in the name of God. I don't know many Christians who are willing to blow themselves up for God. I'm not racist against Muslims believe me. There's a Muslim who married into my family, actually, originally from Iran. I have a very good relationship with him and never feel threatened by him. But yeah, in a situation like that I might feel a little antsy at first, I'll admit it. I don't feel that way about Palin. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's just my natural feeling. And I'd never consider not voting for someone purely on the fact that they're Muslim, or black, or anything. It's all about the issues for me.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Really? You know me that well, eh?

    Anyway, maybe I would feel threatened by that, but mostly because Muslims have a history of blowing themselves up in the name of God. I don't know many Christians who are willing to blow themselves up for God. I'm not racist against Muslims believe me. There's a Muslim who married into my family, actually, originally from Iran. I have a very good relationship with him and never feel threatened by him. But yeah, in a situation like that I might feel a little antsy at first, I'll admit it. I don't feel that way about Palin. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's just my natural feeling. And I'd never consider not voting for someone purely on the fact that they're Muslim, or black, or anything. It's all about the issues for me.

    Pretty much ... Well said.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Really? You know me that well, eh?

    Anyway, maybe I would feel threatened by that, but mostly because Muslims have a history of blowing themselves up in the name of God. I don't know many Christians who are willing to blow themselves up for God. I'm not racist against Muslims believe me. There's a Muslim who married into my family, actually, originally from Iran. I have a very good relationship with him and never feel threatened by him. But yeah, in a situation like that I might feel a little antsy at first, I'll admit it. I don't feel that way about Palin. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's just my natural feeling. And I'd never consider not voting for someone purely on the fact that they're Muslim, or black, or anything. It's all about the issues for me.
    ...
    I think you missed Outlaw's point...
    You would be outraged if we had a Muslim President that took us to War because he felt it was in Allah's Name...
    But, you have no problem going to War under a Christian President who is doing God's will, in Jesus' name.
    Is that true?
    ...
    At least... that what I got from his text... but, yeah... I could be wrong.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I think you missed Outlaw's point...
    You would be outraged if we had a Muslim President that took us to War because he felt it was in Allah's Name...
    But, you have no problem going to War under a Christian President who is doing God's will, in Jesus' name.
    Is that true?

    I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a war in that circumstance. It would depend mostly on where and why we were going to war. I'm not totally turned away by the notion that it's God's will, as long as the real issues are discussed, which I believe they would, even if such a comment were made. Maybe they wouldn't, who knows, but that'd definitely be a first. We've had plenty of Christian Presidents and Vice Presidents in the past and nothing like that has ever happened, where someone claimed God told them to invade a country, without any other reason.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
Sign In or Register to comment.