Palin - Iraq war a mission from God

[groverat]

Keep on rollin', holy roller. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html)

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. Church member Caroline Spangler told CNN, "When the spirit comes on you, you utter things that nobody else can understand ... only God can understand what is coming out of our mouths."

Some Pentecostals from Assembly of God also believe in "faith healing" and the "end times" -- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming.

"Our basic belief is that God is God and he knows where history is going and he has a purposeful plan and within the middle of that plan we live in an environment in our world where certain events would take place," says McGraw. "Sarah wasn't taught to look for one particular sign -- a cataclysmic sign. She knew as every Christian does ... that God is sovereign and he is in control."

Well there's something... interesting. The potential Vice President of the United States, speaking in tongues. "GABBA GABBA HEY GABBA GABBA HEY!"

Speaking of the troops in Iraq, Palin says on the video, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. 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."

This woman should be unelectable.

McCain/Palin '08 - If She Can Handle Snakes, She Can Handle Putin

[mydo]

That's not quite what she said. Ready to admit you are wrong?


DID PALIN ACTUALLY SAY THAT IRAQ IS "A TASK . . . FROM GOD"?
(http://volokh.com/posts/1220914092.shtml)


Wow! CNN caught Palin saying on tape that Iraq was a task from God. Ouch!
But then I listended to the clip. Palin actually said: (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/09/02/palin-our-leaders-are-sending-our-troops-to-iraq-on-a-task-from-god/)

“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”


So then you reply where you say "Wow mydo I just watched the video and you're right. Palin was misquoted."

I wont hold my breath.

[groverat]

I said she said, " Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God."

You said she said, " Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

What am I wrong about? The quotes aren't really different at all, and not at all in the relevant bit ("... a task that is from God.").

I wont hold my breath.

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BEING DISHONEST!?!?!? RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

:lol:

[Gilsch]

That's not quite what she said. Ready to admit you are wrong?
I wont hold my breath.

What part of "a task that is from God" are you having problems comprehending?

Where is that wtf?? emoticon when you need it........

[groverat]

Just in case anyone doesn't know what Pentecostal churches are like, or what "speaking in tongues" means...

Watch it in action. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whpHwKlM_8M&feature=related)

Hear that? That's God's language! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-1AVQLlJYE&feature=related)

[hardeeharhar]

Newsweek reports Palin's pastor says she never spoke in tongues. Having experiences with members of my own family involved in this denomination, it is very common for a very small percentage of the Congregation to speak in tongues. Generally, it is regarded as something that is tolerated, by Biblical principle. Some churches discourage it all together.

You should so some research on a subject before you spout off about it. I am sure your belief system could be challenged if you had the courage to share it.
What if groverat has no belief system?

[Outsider]

Newsweek reports (http://www.newsweek.com/id/157696/page/2) Palin's pastor says she never spoke in tongues. Having experiences with members of my own family involved in this denomination, it is very common for a very small percentage of the Congregation to speak in tongues. Generally, it is regarded as something that is tolerated, by Biblical principle. Some churches discourage it all together.

You should so some research on a subject before you spout off about it. I am sure your belief system could be challenged if you had the courage to share it.

OK, Mr. One Post, just look around a bit and you'll see his beliefs (or anyone here that posts extensively on PO) are pretty much laid out.

[john_valentine]

Mydo, can you explain how she was misquoted? It's not apparent at all.

Palin's quote word for word:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.“

Palin is reflecting the hope that what we're doing is right by (her and her Congregation's) God. She's clearly not saying we're on a mission from God. The notion that she is only says you're unable to comprehend English. Given that you and those on your side in this thread are able to type in English, I trust your comprehension skills are adequate. Lincoln, FDR, and John F. Kennedy all said similar things to what Palin said within the context of her congregation's worship service.

I think one side of the Presidential campaign needs for her to have said we're on a Mission from God in Iraq, but, the truth is the truth in this matter. She said nothing of the kind.

[john_valentine]

What if groverat has no belief system?

He has to believe *something*. I didn't say it has to be religion, but we all have some guiding principles in our lives...

[john_valentine]

OK, Mr. One Post, just look around a bit and you'll see his beliefs (or anyone here that posts extensively on PO) are pretty much laid out.

Is this his belief system?

"GABBA GABBA HEY GABBA GABBA HEY!"

All I see here is derision of a Church's belief system and implication that Palin is unelectable because of that. My point is you can make it sound like anyone said anything if you're willing to parse their words...

Yeah, I made my first post in this thread. So what? One has to start somewhere...

[groverat]

He has to believe *something*. I didn't say it has to be religion, but we all have some guiding principles in our lives...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Have fun picking that one apart.

So the defense of Palin going to a batshit-insane church (not just one with unpopular political views, but that fosters babbling insanity) is that she didn't do it herself?

heh

All I see here is derision of a Church's belief system and implication that Palin is unelectable because of that.

It's just one plank in the pile of firewood.

She's a flaming failure.

[john_valentine]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Have fun picking that one apart.

So the defense of Palin going to a batshit-insane church (not just one with unpopular political views, but that fosters babbling insanity) is that she didn't do it herself?

heh



It's just one plank in the pile of firewood.

She's a flaming failure.

I don't see that she's a flaming failure. Based on all that I have read she's been a famous success. I'm sure there are questions out there but the people of her State seem to like her in droves... Her approval ratings are through the roof. I am not sure how that translates to failure for anyone other than her political enemies.

[hardeeharhar]

I don't see that she's a flaming failure. Based on all that I have read she's been a famous success. I'm sure there are questions out there but the people of her State seem to like her in droves... Her approval ratings are through the roof. I am not sure how that translates to failure for anyone other than her political enemies.
Can you explain to me why a winner of a popularity test is a "famous success?"

I mean history is filled with famous examples where this isn't the case, so I am really wondering how one continues to use popularity as a yard stick...

[john_valentine]

Can you explain to me why a winner of a popularity test is a "famous success?"

I mean history is filled with famous examples where this isn't the case, so I am really wondering how one continues to use popularity as a yard stick...

Given that the Palin and all elected officials answer to the electorate, when a majority of them approve of the job being done, it can be said they are successful in the execution of their duties. However, your point is well taken, this is not the only barometer we should use.

Palin's successes are well documented. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) And no doubt the rebuttals will flow freely. Any elected official can and should be challenged. It can not be argued successfully that she has not busted some balls in her tenure. To me, her political enemies list highlight the success she's had more than any wonky little policy decisions that the people liked.

[groverat]

If you truly live by your principle of doing unto others, then you owe them the same latitude you expect when it comes to your practices.

What practices of mine do I need to hide from public scrutiny?

Sarah Palin attended a church in which people babbled and pretended it was god's language. That's fucking nuts.

There's a reason Mormons hide their temple rites, it's fucking nuts.
There's a reason Pentecostals are defensive, their practices are fucking nuts.

Let's call it as it is, babbling syllables and rolling around on the ground is absurdly childish and embarrassing.

Say what you will about "GOD DAMN AMERICA! THAT'S IN THE BIBLE!"; at least it is a coherent sentence with some amount of logical framework.

[hardeeharhar]

Given that the Palin and all elected officials answer to the electorate, when a majority of them approve of the job being done, it can be said they are successful in the execution of their duties. However, your point is well taken, this is not the only barometer we should use.

Palin's successes are well documented. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) And no doubt the rebuttals will flow freely. Any elected official can and should be challenged. It can not be argued successfully that she has not busted some balls in her tenure. To me, her political enemies list highlight the success she's had more than any wonky little policy decisions that the people liked.
Hitler was also democratically elected, and he was also wildly popular.

Bush was democratically elected and for a lot of his tenure he was wildly popular.

You see just because someone is popular doesn't make actions correct or justifiable or "good".

The moral equivalency demonstrated by people who believe that popularity means correct is absolutely unreconcilable with historical fact and it is certainly no way to make an intellectually sound argument about someone's actions or abilities...

[john_valentine]

What practices of mine do I need to hide from public scrutiny?

Sarah Palin attended a church in which people babbled and pretended it was god's language. That's fucking nuts.

There's a reason Mormons hide their temple rites, it's fucking nuts.
There's a reason Pentecostals are defensive, their practices are fucking nuts.

Let's call it as it is, babbling syllables and rolling around on the ground is absurdly childish and embarrassing.

Say what you will about "GOD DAMN AMERICA! THAT'S IN THE BIBLE!"; at least it is a coherent sentence with some amount of logical framework.

I don't really care what you practice. That's not my point.

You feel Palin's Church's Practices are nuts. While you are entitled to that belief, and you're even entitled to express it under legit circumstances, the fact that you think it does not make it so. A reasonable approach would be "I don't believe that way" and leave it at that. In this instance, I believe you need for Palin to be questionable to support a political objective. Fine. If you put out there a belief that says someone is "f*cking nuts", you should expect you're going to be challenged.

I will say you and I agree, as do the writings of Paul in the New Testament that Speaking in Tongues is a questionable practice. Like I said, most churches where it occurs tolerate it more than they encourage it. And Palin didn't practice it. You said she did. I showed you were wrong in that statement. That was my primary objective.

[john_valentine]

Hitler was also democratically elected, and he was also wildly popular.

Bush was democratically elected and for a lot of his tenure he was wildly popular.

You see just because someone is popular doesn't make actions correct or justifiable or "good".

The moral equivalency demonstrated by people who believe that popularity means correct is absolutely unreconcilable with historical fact and it is certainly no way to make an intellectually sound argument about someone's actions or abilities...

Hitler, yes.

Bush, no. The rancor about Bush started about 6 months after 9/11 and has continued unabated.

If you go back and read the rest of my post, you will see that I accepted the premise that "popularity" while legitimate is not an adequate measure by itself.

[groverat]

I don't really care what you practice. That's not my point.

It's mine, though.

A reasonable approach would be "I don't believe that way" and leave it at that.

I disagree. Why would I just dismiss someone doing something crazy or associating with crazy people when they are running to be chief executive of the nation?

And you haven't establish that Palin hasn't practiced speaking in tongues. Her former pastor says she didn't, that's like arguing that Obama never heard any angry political rhetoric in his 20 years at Trinity United.

[john_valentine]

Say what you will about "GOD DAMN AMERICA! THAT'S IN THE BIBLE!"; at least it is a coherent sentence with some amount of logical framework.

I just went looking for the words "GOD DAMN AMERICA" in several translations of both the Old and New Testaments and I can't seem to find them anywhere. I am pretty sure the word "America" didn't exist when the books in the Bible were written.

Plus, I didn't invoke Obama's Church in this discussion.

Look, my point was that if you do not understand a belief you should not make assumptions about it and as such cast aspersions on someone who holds it to be true. If you don't like Sarah Palin, that's your right as an American, and believe me, I respect it. I just wish people who feel that way would base their conclusions about her on something relatively coherent rather than hysteria, hearsay, distorted or truncated truths, and innuendo. To do otherwise does not reflect rational thought.

[john_valentine]

It's mine, though.



I disagree. Why would I just dismiss someone doing something crazy or associating with crazy people when they are running to be chief executive of the nation?

And you haven't establish that Palin hasn't practiced speaking in tongues. Her former pastor says she didn't, that's like arguing that Obama never heard any angry political rhetoric in his 20 years at Trinity United.

People who go to these churches do not believe it to be crazy.

You can choose not to accept my reference if you like. I don't need your approval.

[tonton]

I just went looking for the words "GOD DAMN AMERICA" in several translations of both the Old and New Testaments and I can't seem to find them anywhere. I am pretty sure the word "America" didn't exist when the books in the Bible were written.

Plus, I didn't invoke Obama's Church in this discussion.

Look, my point was that if you do not understand a belief you should not make assumptions about it and as such cast aspersions on someone who holds it to be true. If you don't like Sarah Palin, that's your right as an American, and believe me, I respect it. I just wish people who feel that way would base their conclusions about her on something relatively coherent rather than hysteria, hearsay, distorted or truncated truths, and innuendo. To do otherwise does not reflect rational thought.

John. Be real. There are some wacko beliefs, and they can and must be ridiculed. Speaking in tongues is one of them. Snake handling is another. Magical undergarments are another.

There's no way we can condone tolerance of such ridiculous, useless beliefs in someone who aspires to high public office.

This is not about tolerance. Would you tolerate an official who sacrifices goats?

This is about wacko religious beliefs that paint a clear picture that certain people don't fire on all their cylinders.

[john_valentine]

John. Be real. There are some wacko beliefs, and they can and must be ridiculed. Speaking in tongues is one of them. Snake handling is another. Magical undergarments are another.

There's no way we can condone tolerance of such ridiculous, useless beliefs in someone who aspires to high public office.

This is not about tolerance. Would you tolerate an official who sacrifices goats?

This is about wacko religious beliefs that paint a clear picture that certain people don't fire on all their cylinders.


Again, Palin does not speak in tongues. If I saw video of her doing so, I would probably be disturbed by that and would have a hard time supporting her, just as I would be if she were sacrificing goats. As an elected public official, I am certain she is smart enough to not have done something that would give people pause. I argue that attending a church where speaking in tongues is happening is not sufficient to cause concern. I understand this because I know the belief system. Like I said, speaking in tongues is tolerated as benevolence because it benefits immature Christians spiritually. The belief continues that at some point when spiritual maturity is reached, the practice should be abandoned. Paul writes about it extensively in the New Testament.

It's not up to us to condone religious practice that falls within the boundaries of the law. I don't understand Magical Underwear either but it wouldn't have had any bearing on my assessments of Mitt Romney's fitness. The People of Massachusetts didn't make an issue of it. Most of the concern about these things now is a matter of political expedience. That's what's real.

[Jubelum]

People who go to these churches do not believe it to be crazy.
You can choose not to accept my reference if you like. I don't need your approval.

John, I am hella-impressed that you've kept a cool head and made some quality arguments in this thread, despite the attempts from the gallery to do the usual PO croc-roll into abject stupidity. Kudos and welcome to the board.


they can and must be ridiculed... There's no way we can condone tolerance...

I'll just file that one away for a rainy day. A liberal telling us that tolerance cannot be condoned and ridicule for differing religious beliefs is an imperative.

Just. Too. Good. Maybe I need to go find those lazy liberal hackmeat "judge not" quotes that are thrown out so casually against those eeevil fundies.

My suspicions have been confirmed... Plain Derangement Syndrome is real.

[groverat]

It is arrogance to say speaking in tongues is "f*cking nuts," even if I agree with you in premise.

What is arrogant about it?

It's fucking nuts to speak in tongues. There's no two-ways about it. It's fucking nuts. People who do that are behaving without reason or actually insane.

It's not your place to judge whether it is right for anyone other than yourself.

That is absurd. Without judgment we die.

The onus is on me to be honest and fair, not to be impartial.

Since we know negatives can not be proven, until someone produces video of Palin speaking in tongues you have no basis to make your claim.

It was something done by the members in her church. She was a member of the church.

I wouldn't argue that she has done it absolutely, but I don't know that she hasn't. Not much depends on whether or not she has.

Again, Palin does not speak in tongues.

How on earth can you say this authoritatively?

[tonton]

I'll just file that one away for a rainy day.

You have my full permission, as long as you quote the entire sentence.

Otherwise you're taking it way out of context, and proving yourself to have just as much a lack of integrity as John McCain has had on this campaign.

[Jubelum]

You have my full permission, as long as you quote the entire sentence.


:lol: Will do.

[Outsider]

It's like going to an orgy and not taking part. It's still shady!

[Bergermeister]

How on earth can you say this authoritatively?

But, but, she said so.

Right now, anything that comes from Camp McCain should be viewed as if it came from GWB: most likely a lie.

[@_@ Artman]

Would someone please give this attractive woman a cracker?

This is painful to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU).

What's funny is Gibson is wholly corrupt and he threw this softball to her and she completely blew it.

[jimmac]

Would someone please give this attractive woman a cracker?

This is painful to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU).

What's funny is Gibson is wholly corrupt and he threw this softball to her and she completely blew it.


Wow.:no:

[vinea]

She blew that question, but honestly I would have too. I'd have responded with "Bush has a doctrine?"

Bush doesn't have a doctrine IMHO and neither did Clinton.

But the agreement that we can do pre-emptive strikes with "legitimate and enough intelligence" is simply more of the same...so the answer was "Yes, I agree with the Bush doctrine".

The problem, of course, is that even "legitmate and enough intelligence" is often wrong and you can use that to justify nearly anything.

The answers I thought were poor....both belligerent and transparent. You do not make allies OR opponents happy with the idea that you do pre-emptive first strikes.

Being a superpower means "We're so badass that we'll take your first punch and then flatten your ass". Not "We're going to flatten your ass if we think you might be dangerous...or we don't like you...or you made daddy look bad...or whatever"

Because in 2003 we showed the world that we can seriously screw the pooch on subjective measures to go to war.

[franksargent]

I don't see that she's a flaming failure. Based on all that I have read she's been a famous success. I'm sure there are questions out there but the people of her State seem to like her in droves... Her approval ratings are through the roof. I am not sure how that translates to failure for anyone other than her political enemies.

You'd be popular too, if you gave everyone a check for $3,269 this year! 8-)

Money talks, to all 610,768 Alaskans receiving a check this year.

The Palin's take of this black gold rush? $22,883.00

Heck, Trig could run the state of Alaska, starting 13 months ago. :lol: :err:

[Mystic]

John. Be real. There are some wacko beliefs, and they can and must be ridiculed. Speaking in tongues is one of them. Snake handling is another. Magical undergarments are another.

There's no way we can condone tolerance of such ridiculous, useless beliefs in someone who aspires to high public office.

This is not about tolerance. Would you tolerate an official who sacrifices goats?

This is about wacko religious beliefs that paint a clear picture that certain people don't fire on all their cylinders.

Do you disagree with this then?

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

[franksargent]

Do you disagree with this then?

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, see for example the religous practices of human sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Sacrifice#Contemporary_human_sacrifice), inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition), and witch-hunts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt).

To name but a few.

[tonton]

Do you disagree with this then?

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

I never said there should be a law against these practices (well, maybe snake handling because people do get hurt). But the American voter should be smarter than to elect someone who spins or speaks in tongues, just like they should be smarter than to elect a drug addict.

[SDW2001]

I said she said, " Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God."

You said she said, " Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

What am I wrong about? The quotes aren't really different at all, and not at all in the relevant bit ("... a task that is from God.").



ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BEING DISHONEST!?!?!? RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

:lol:

You've misinterpreted. It was a prayer for our leaders' wisdom in sending the troops to fight. It was a prayer that we were on God's side (or that he was on ours, if you prefer). It wasn't a statement about the war being a task from God. I can see how it could be taken that way, but it's not what she meant.

[SDW2001]

Mydo, can you explain how she was misquoted? It's not apparent at all.

She wasn't misquoted, at least not here. Charles Gibson took her out of context, though.

[screener]

You've misinterpreted. It was a prayer for our leaders' wisdom in sending the troops to fight. It was a prayer that we were on God's side (or that he was on ours, if you prefer). It wasn't a statement about the war being a task from God. I can see how it could be taken that way, but it's not what she meant.
Now how would you know what she meant.
Are you her Lieberman?

Besides, it's a bit late to pray that your leaders were or even are wise.

Didn' some Bush supporters say something about God's will and how he's the chosen one to see that God's will is done?
http://www.observer.com/node/45479
Unbelievers will scoff at such notions, but in the wake of Sept. 11, the idea that a higher power ordained the inauguration of Mr. Bush is no longer confined to the loonier fringes of the religious right. While the President and the First Lady modestly demur whenever this topic comes up, others around the Oval Office assert that they are convinced. "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour," a top White House aide told a religious publication not long ago. Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition who now chairs the G.O.P. in Georgia, says his fellow evangelicals believe God selected the President because "He knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way."
http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/godwill.php
Accepting God's Will for the World

Understanding the Christian mandate given through George Bush
So yeah, I believe she meant the War against Terror, is a task from God.
The right God, not the wrong one.

[SDW2001]

Now how would you know what she meant.
Are you her Lieberman?

Because that's what the statement says in context. She's also explained that's what she meant. She further pointed out how past Presidents have said similar things. But that's not enough for you, because in your view, Palin is a Religous Whacko®




Besides, it's a bit late to pray that your leaders were or even are wise.

That's just silly, rhetorical nonsense. It has no impact on the meaning of her statement whatsoever.



Didn' some Bush supporters say something about God's will and how he's the chosen one to see that God's will is done?
http://www.observer.com/node/45479

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/godwill.php

So yeah, I believe she meant the War against Terror, is a task from God.
The right God, not the wrong one.

What the hell do either of those links have to do with Sarah Palin? The title of this thread is "Palin: Iraq War a Mission from God." That is clearly not what her statement means. I guess we can look forward to "Palin: Book Banning Nazi" and "Palin: The Affair" next.

[SDW2001]

when did a creationist ever not believe that every waking moment of their lives is somehow a mission from God?

Let's assume she is an Evil Creationist™. Let's assume that she thinks she is on a mission from God in her life. Two questions:

So?

and

What does that have to do with her statement?



Drilling for Oil,

OMG! Oil! What kind of evil bastards would want oil?

Wars,

Exclusive to creationists?

Making Money,

No....making MONEY?

Wars, Evilution™,

She has never advocated NOT teaching evolution.



Irradicating Islam,

Who has demonstarted ERADICATING (correct spelling) Islam?

Wars, Infiltrating influential positions of power,

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Been reading The Da Vinci Code too much?

Wars, denying Global Warming,

I wasn't aware that only people of faith don't believe in global warming.

Wars, Enslaving 'lesser' cultures... did I mention Wars...

Who wants to enslave "lesser" cultures, and who/what are those cultures?



All missions from God.

Apparently.

I know you think you're clever. That's a comforting thought for you, I'm sure.

[SDW2001]

we all know that the religious right wants to reenact the european dark ages,

We do?

and funily enough every single one of those things I mentioned, and I forget did I mention, the perpetual WAR,

Yes, yes...endless war for endless peace. I know the talking point. It's all George Bush and the Neocons and Hilter and OIl. We've heard it before.



but you're right, all of those things to some degree is a held belief of every single person with a POV, but the odd thing is - is that the Creationists, the evanglicals, the wingers and the religious right - by and large embraces every single one of them

That's just utterly ridiculous...not to mention patently false.


So I think its quite appropriate, and not ignorantly stereotypical to point that one out, - that they pursue all of those 'things' with an unnatural, somewhat scary, religiously induced fervor.
And when I say influential positions of power - I mean taking up roles in society that allows them a platform to abuse their beliefs by having an audience that by definition has to respect them, - like a teacher of children maybe....or your manager or boss, or by becoming...president of the USA..

So wait...it's only godless liberals that can hold certain beliefs without imparting them on children? What you're really saying is that only those with "acceptable" views can hold the positions you mention. Freedom of speech, as long as it's liberal speech. Freedom of religion, as long as no one sees you practice it.

[screener]

Because that's what the statement says in context. She's also explained that's what she meant. She further pointed out how past Presidents have said similar things. But that's not enough for you, because in your view, Palin is a Religous Whacko®
If their was no doubt in what was meant, she wouldn't need to explain it and if there wasn't a controversy it wouldn't be an issue.

As far as her being a whacko, of course.
That's just silly, rhetorical nonsense. It has no impact on the meaning of her statement whatsoever.
It was meant to address your explanation of what she meant.
"It was a prayer for our leaders' wisdom in sending the troops to fight."
What the hell do either of those links have to do with Sarah Palin? The title of this thread is "Palin: Iraq War a Mission from God." That is clearly not what her statement means. I guess we can look forward to "Palin: Book Banning Nazi" and "Palin: The Affair" next.
The first link shows how bent people can get in their religion that they believed Bush was God's chosen one.
The second is sarcasm regarding the my god under Bush, trumps any and all other gods.

The point is, from what I remember of the bible, what these religious zealots are pushing isn't anywhere near what I was taught.

And then I grew up, and then there was Falwell.

[SDW2001]

If their was no doubt in what was meant, she wouldn't need to explain it and if there wasn't a controversy it wouldn't be an issue.

Right, because those who question such statements are always more intellectually honest than Mother Theresa.



As far as her being a whacko, of course.

So let me get this right: Palin is a whacko because she once prayed for our leaders' wisdom in war, thinks that students should debate all sides of the evolution question and thinks the founding fathers would have wanted "under God" in the Pledge....but

Obama is completely sane for associating with a racist, anti-American Pastor for 20 years, maintaining what he describes as a "friendly" personal and business relationship with an avowed and unrepentant terrorist and my favorite: not knowing what Memorial Day is?



It was meant to address your explanation of what she meant.
"It was a prayer for our leaders' wisdom in sending the troops to fight."

It's not my explanation. It is the meaning of her statement. Words mean stuff. Keep that that in mind.



The first link shows how bent people can get in their religion that they believed Bush was God's chosen one.

The second is sarcasm regarding the my god under Bush, trumps any and all other gods.

Uh....OK. Thanks. Here's a link from the other side. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/07/video-the-obligatory-hippies-mourn-dead-trees-with-primal-screams-clip/) It proves about as much as yours does.



The point is, from what I remember of the bible, what these religious zealots are pushing isn't anywhere near what I was taught.

And then I grew up, and then there was Falwell.

Yes, another person with no connection to Palin. But she should answer for him too.

[screener]

Right, because those who question such statements are always more intellectually honest than Mother Theresa.
You're right, how dare anyone question her statements, that would be unAmerican.
Jesus H Christ Almighty.
So let me get this right: Palin is a whacko because she once prayed for our leaders' wisdom in war, thinks that students should debate all sides of the evolution question and thinks the founding fathers would have wanted "under God" in the Pledge....but

Obama is completely sane for associating with a racist, anti-American Pastor for 20 years, maintaining what he describes as a "friendly" personal and business relationship with an avowed and unrepentant terrorist and my favorite: not knowing what Memorial Day is?
She's a whacko because her beliefs are in the same vain as Falwell and the rest of like minded bible thumpers.
It's not debating, it's the teaching in a public school.
The founding fathers had nothing to do with the Pledge, a magazine editor in the late nineteenth century penned it and under God was added in Eisenhower's presidency.

Always thought Hilary would make a better candidate but if I could vote, it would be Obama, baggage and all.
Would never vote for someone I thought might degenerate into an agent of a higher power.
It's not my explanation. It is the meaning of her statement. Words mean stuff. Keep that that in mind.
It was your reply to groverat, post 42.
If not your explanation, than whose?
Yes, words mean stuff, sometimes multiple stuffs to fit any occasion.
Uh....OK. Thanks. Here's a link from the other side. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/07/video-the-obligatory-hippies-mourn-dead-trees-with-primal-screams-clip/) It proves about as much as yours does.
I showed you mine and you showed me yours.
I win, mine are mainstream wingnuts, what are yours.
Well that settles it. You're clearly an expert.
No, but I'm sane.
Yes, another person with no connection to Palin. But she should answer for him too.
You see one right wingnut religious wacko, you seen 'em all.

[franksargent]

Did Palin say the following? (This is a simple straight forward yes or no question, please answer this question with a simple yes or no response. Thank you.)

YES or NO (circle one response only)

Pray for our military. He (her son) is going to be deployed in September to Iraq – pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.

Follow up question:

Does Palin consider the people of Alaska "are are most important natural resource?" In other words, are are Alaskans by strict definition a natural resource? You know like "are oil, are gas, are minerals, the gold that we have under the ground."

Thank you for your cooperation.

Now I'm off to do a little high seas piracy off the coast of Somalia, err I mean Alaska, ARRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

[tonton]

Actually, I'm with the ones defending Palin on this one.

From the sentence structure, she clearly said that they should pray that they are on a mission that is from God, as opposed to one that is not from God.

She did not say to pray for them on their mission from God.

But her pastor has said things that are more clearly whacko.

[SDW2001]

Actually, I'm with the ones defending Palin on this one.

From the sentence structure, she clearly said that they should pray that they are on a mission that is from God, as opposed to one that is not from God.

She did not say to pray for them on their mission from God.

But her pastor has said things that are more clearly whacko.

I can live with that. I don't disagree with any of it.

[Aquatic]

I believe in science. Creationism in science classes is probably one of the biggest contributing factors the the second American Depression of 2020-2030. (That's my prediction). Fringe religious beliefs go hand in hand with cutting NIH and NAS funding, Pell grants, etc. If you don't value education, of course you won't fund it. Of course, bridges to nowhere are more important!

when did a creationist ever not believe that every waking moment of their lives is somehow a mission from God? :lol:

Holy Jesus I clicked on the speaking in tongues links. Yikes. Hypocritical too, as their ancestors probably decried Native Americans and African Americans for doing the exact same thing!

Well, I'll have to order my copy of speaking in tongues from the Pastor John Book House and a couple super-expensive bottles of Holy Water to wash that excitement down with.

Yeah, Palin scares me. I feel so freakin' persecuted as a devout atheist. I have no problem with religious people, as long as they keep it at home and out of politics. They on the one hand get angry about "intolerance", but on the other, they can't tolerate a single other religion, and especially not an atheist or agnostic! In God We Trust indeed.

How can you discuss rational environmental policy with people that believe the Rapture is coming in a few years and the world will end? Of course with that belief, climate change would be on the bottom of your priority list. I have been out in the field for the past month, striking up random conversations with random people, and have come across the lack of scientific education, in tandem with strong Christian beliefs, and this is in New England. Any time I throw an environmental issue out, the conversation is focused through those viewpoints. Which makes it hard to advocate for environmental protection. And of course it's all ironic because shouldn't we be good "stewards" and wouldn't Jesus be a hippie environmentalist anyway? I've met a couple religious environmentalists and it was refreshing to speak with them...unfortunately they seem to be few and far in between.

My primary concern is environmental protection...So one of my biggest fears is Palin running the country.

[Bergermeister]

Pro-life, but pro-death.

Odd.

Watch the video about wolf-hunting here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/brutal-ad-targets-palins_n_125975.html

[vinea]

So let me get this right: Palin is a whacko because she once prayed for our leaders' wisdom in war, thinks that students should debate all sides of the evolution question


In religious class is fine. In science class, not so much.


and thinks the founding fathers would have wanted "under God" in the Pledge....but


Um, more like didn't have a very good understanding of US History so blew a question.

It's not my explanation. It is the meaning of her statement. Words mean stuff. Keep that that in mind.


Yes, they do. It's not hard to divine the meaning here either. She's pandering to her church crowd by telling them what they want to hear.