Palin: A religious fundamentalist

mammasan

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.

Smellyman2

MattyJoe wrote:

So she'd be forcing you to go to Church? And pray?

Are you being dense on purpose? Sarcastic?

MattyJoe

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).

rebornFixer

Palin is indeed dangerous. Matt Damon says so.

Jeremy1012

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?

fuck

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...

MattyJoe

_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.

rebornFixer

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.

Cosmo

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.

MattyJoe

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.

Cosmo

MattyJoe wrote:

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.

..
You're still skirting the point...
For WHATEVER reason... against whomever is out there... our leader... let's say Muslim... stated that our going to War was because of Allah's will... you wouldn't have a problem with it?
...
Oh... and by the way... G.W. Bush consulted with his 'Higher Father' on going to War with iraq.
Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq.

"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.

The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious beliefs played throughout that time.

"Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness."

Rider

The founding fathers were most certainly not heavy-duty Christians. Ben Franklin and Jefferson were not very religious at all. They only occasionally went to church mostly for appearances sake. Look it up.

Cosmo

Rider wrote:

The founding fathers were most certainly not heavy-duty Christians. Ben Franklin and Jefferson were not very religious at all. They only occasionally went to church mostly for appearances sake. Look it up.

...
True. They had enough of that British Rule where the Church shared power with the State. There's a reason why the seperation of Church and state is in the FIRST Amendment. Because it wasn't so under British Rule in the 1700s. That, along with a restricted press and free speech and public assembly.
And don't you love the whole thing about 'The Creator' in the Declaration of Independence 'must' mean they were Christian. Muslims and Jews share the same One God as the Christians.

fuck

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?
...
At least... that what I got from his text... but, yeah... I could be wrong.

yes, that's correct. thanks.

searchlightsoul

wcsmith wrote:

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...

Nice post. We can't all be experts in everything so it helps when people who know their shit step up to the plate and set things straight.

know1

Just asking a question here -

Does anyone know how often she really talks about God in relation to the issues, etc.? Does she do it at every speech, or did she just do it once or twice (when addressing a church) and it's repeated so many times on message boards and news stories that we think it's continual?

For the record, I do not believe that any war in this day and time is a mission from God. Of course, I also do not believe that would have been the sole reason for going to war anyway. I mean, all of the congress people voted for it and not all of them could have believed that.

chopitdown

Piper At The Gates wrote:

She is VERY SCARY. She "Speaks in tongues', and

Do you have proof beyond her church has people who speak in tongues?? Here's what her pastor had to say ... Palin's former pastor, Tim McGraw, says that like many Pentecostal churches, some members speak in tongues, although he says he's never seen Palin do so.

so i guess YOU really know better than someone who was actually in her church?
Maybe you just want to perpetuate lies and fear that have been spoken about her...theres many more things to be concerned about with Palin than a speaking in tongues accusation, that has no substance.

Piper At The Gates wrote:

wants to ban books in libraries.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

puremagic

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.

You need to UNDERSTAND that people may have given God many names, but there is only ONE God. There are, however, many FAITHS by which people interpret the word of God and therein lies the problem when people mix religion and politics. Our forefathers understood this because they came from countries where religious persecution was the norm. They saw the effects of the Salem Witch hunts. Our forefathers understood the power of the Church on leaders and how easy people abused their power in the name of God, so goes separation of church and State.

puremagic

MattyJoe wrote:

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.

The post, if you would have read it properly was not about anyone not having the right to religious beliefs. The post was about if a politician injects their religious beliefs to use the military to kill and destroy are they any different from any other religious fundamentalist? The Crusades was conducted under a flag, the Spanish Inquisition was conducted under a flag and both were conducted in the name of God.

pateljam

Cosmo wrote:

...
God also talks to that homeless guy who lives on Fairfax Blvd.

You mean that black dude that hangs outside of Canters...