Post by: agricola on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
I can accept that the lady has her religious leanings, and they were popular with her Alaskan constituency with regard to the war in Iraq. I'm not nit-picking on war policy here.
I just don't like backpedaling, and this feels like backpedaling for political convenience. I like Palin because she says what she believes and can be depended upon to stand for her word. This feels like her word being called into question.
Just my opinion, but it's what jumped out at me. I also acknowledge the old Charlie Gibson isn't the most sympathetic interviewer for Mrs. Palin and I'm sure deliberately led the conversation in a way that would result in word-slicing.
Post by: Marvin Dao on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
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. Thats what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is Gods plan.
Palin's full quote is above. Gibson either deliberately sliced out the beginning of her lines or is just parroting the liberal talking points that came out when the video did. Praying for something to be true ain't exactly the same as knowing it is true.
She wasn't backstepping, she was referencing her original words on the matter.
Post by: Physics on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't even think the United States has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Certainly not the pursuit of happiness part. Wasn't that a part of the Declaration of Independence, rather than the constitution, making it legally non-binding?
/hijack (sorry)
Post by: agricola on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/putin.georgia
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't even think the United States has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Certainly not the pursuit of happiness part. Wasn't that a part of the Declaration of Independence, rather than the constitution, making it legally non-binding?
/hijack (sorry)
The DoI is not supposed to be binding on anything, but the Founders did believe that the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (and other rights, too) were granted by the Creator to all people by virtue of their humanity. They didn't have to have their rights given to them by a piece of paper, because they believed (whether you agree with them or not, it's a fact THEY did believe that) that the rights of man are already given to him by a far greater authority than any government.
Post by: Wildalaska on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
On the ABC site she is apparently being described as a warmonger.
Of course she is, would you expect anything less?
Sarah is one of the freiendliest, most decent politicos I have ever had the chance to chat with
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
One needs to consider the source of the questions before worrying about how the one who answers them conducted themselves.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't even think the United States has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Certainly not the pursuit of happiness part. Wasn't that a part of the Declaration of Independence, rather than the constitution, making it legally non-binding?
/hijack (sorry)
The Declaration is considered to be the founding charter of our nation. So while it's not law, the preamble to the Dec. is very important as a description of our nation's founding principles, which the Constitution should express.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a way of summing up the specific rights in which the Patriots believed, and which they tried to guarantee by the Constitution. "Happiness" meant a pleasant condition of life. These days, we would call it The American Dream. The Declaration says you have a right to be free to pursue that. It is far too general and broad to be described in a legal document.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I guess now we'll see if they can make their latest attack stick.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
On the ABC site she is apparently being described as a warmonger.
Of course she is, would you expect anything less?
Sarah is one of the freiendliest, most decent politicos I have ever had the chance to chat with
You've met her? In what context?
AZRedhawkandwhendidWildAlaskajointhisforum?44
Post by: HankB on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: longeyes on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
She's the Mahdi Mommy. She shouts "Deus vult!" when she shoots a moose.
Isn't that the pitch here? What else can the Left say about her?
The real warmongers are the appeasers. I'm more worried about the warmockers.
Palin was frank, something you're not supposed to be in a time of dissemblers. She gave a straight answer which made liberals spit up their Haagan Dazs. Obama would still be answering that question now, or rather not answering it...
Post by: Wildalaska on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You've met her? In what context?
AZRedhawkandwhendidWildAlaskajointhisforum?44 grin
AZRedhawkandwhendidWildAlaskajointhisforum?44 grin
Met her 4 or 5 times at various political thingies and at hockey games (and at a Gun Show once)...shes cool.
WildivebeenheresincethebeginningAlaska "
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
She wasn't outside trying to close loopholes, was she? 'Cause most wouldn't be seen near a gun show.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Met her 4 or 5 times at various political thingies and at hockey games (and at a Gun Show once)...shes cool.
I know she's hot and everything, but stalking her is not very nice.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Met her 4 or 5 times at various political thingies and at hockey games (and at a Gun Show once)...shes cool.
I know she's hot and everything, but stalking her is not very nice.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Racehorse on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
From everything I know of her, I like her a lot, but I don't think this interview was her best moment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Palin is the red herring meant to take the focus off McCain. It's working perfectly so far. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
1. Red herrings are distractions. She's not distracting us from McCain, so much as making McCain more palatable.
2. McCain is getting much more attention now than ever before. While he's not the most interesting half of the ticket, he's been getting a lot more accolades from the conservative base than previously. Plus, most of us are voting for him now.
Post by: Kaylee on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I'd not worry over the "God's Plan" questions at all Redhawk - her answer not only rings genuine, it meshes perfectly with more than a few sermons given up here. I'd stake anything that the sentiment she expressed in her clarification - "pray we're on God's side" rather than "God is on our side" essentially - is precisely what her original statement expressed and her original audience heard.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
On a side note, why would you pray that what you're doing is in God's plan? I wouldn't think a mere human could foil God's plan, especially unintentionally. But she does seem to have been misquoted.
If she'd only clarify her creationism statements, I might be able to turn down my hate valve a little.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
If she'd only clarify her creationism statements, I might be able to turn down my hate valve a little.
WHy the hate/hangup on creationism? It is hardly the issue that, say, abortion is.
Post by: Intune on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
...I might be able to turn down my hate valve a little.
D', none of them are worth an ulcer or bad karma. Water on a duck's back, bro!She doesn't appear to be an extremist in her religious views and that's despite the lib's campaign to paint her as such . An example would be found in her responses to the "gay" questions which seemed natural, heartfelt and nonjudgmental.
I'd be a bit more wary of someone who associated with anyone who called upon God to damn an entire country. That's gettin' right on up that "extreme" ladder in a hurry!
Post by: Alaskanativeson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
A policritter at a gun show.
She wasn't outside trying to close loopholes, was she? 'Cause most wouldn't be seen near a gun show.
This is Alaska. We're politically about as weird as it can get. We generally vote in Republicans but the overall feel in the state to me is that we're much closer to Libertarian. Palin was a huge breath of fresh air to us up here. I see this as a no-lose situation. If she (and the guy with her) wins in November we have a real person sitting in the VP office waiting in the wings to take over if needed. If she loses, we get to keep a wonderful governor at the helm of our state. She wasn't outside trying to close loopholes, was she? 'Cause most wouldn't be seen near a gun show.
I've heard a lot of talk about her inexperience. Yes, she does lack experience. As far as I know she has almost no experience at underhanded back-room deals, schmoozing with lobbyists, or covering up wrongdoings from within her own party. What she does have is the nerve and will to do the right thing because it's right, not the expedient thing because it will get her re-elected.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
As much as I despise her, she has definitely been a boon to the republican party. She's the Tabasco sauce to McCain's turd sandwich.
On a side note, why would you pray that what you're doing is in God's plan? I wouldn't think a mere human could foil God's plan, especially unintentionally. But she does seem to have been misquoted.
If she'd only clarify her creationism statements, I might be able to turn down my hate valve a little.
On a side note, why would you pray that what you're doing is in God's plan? I wouldn't think a mere human could foil God's plan, especially unintentionally. But she does seem to have been misquoted.
If she'd only clarify her creationism statements, I might be able to turn down my hate valve a little.
To be fair, I'm a "creationist" in that I believe that G-d set the whole thing in motion and intervenes from time to time.
That is a perfectly rational belief that meshes seamlessly with the physical evidence of evolution and such.
After all, all science can show is that they cannot prove divine intervention was necessary, not that divine intervention didn't occur.
I have not yet seen any proof that she is is dyed in the wool 6,000 year old creationist. Barring that, hell, even including that, as VP or Pres it isn't Constitutionally permissable for her to force those beliefs or teaching on any school district in the country.
It is a non-issue in practice, agree or disagree with her as you will.
Civics 101 people.
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Despise is a powerful word. What I don't understand is how someone can go from not having any or little info about a person, listen to the rantings of the loyal opposition and arrive at despising someone.
To follow your apparent rationale', any American of faith would be disqualified from public office. With all due respect, I think we might have more to fear from people who think like you do.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Dnsycnt,
Despise is a powerful word. What I don't understand is how someone can go from not having any or little info about a person, listen to the rantings of the loyal opposition and arrive at despising someone.
Actually, it was more the ranting of the Loyal Followers that first disturbed me.Despise is a powerful word. What I don't understand is how someone can go from not having any or little info about a person, listen to the rantings of the loyal opposition and arrive at despising someone.
To follow your apparent rationale', any American of faith would be disqualified from public office. With all due respect, I think we might have more to fear from people who think like you do.
Yes, because believing Dinosaurs walked the earth 6,000 years ago is the sign of a rational person.
How is distrusting those who follow the lunacy of young earth creationism suddenly a sign of hating all people who believe in a god? "He's a Disbeliever who distrusts people who believe in talking snakes, so he MUST hate all religious people!!!!!!!!!"
She also believes we're in the End Times, and she will see Judgement Day in her lifetime. Yet I'm an evil oppressive dangerous person because I don't want to hand her nuclear weapons?
I find it hilarious how people rant and rave about how terrible Obama is and how he should have distanced himself from his church so long ago, and how he's guilty by association, but when it comes to Palin The Great, everything is liberal hogwash. Never mind her crazy tongue speaking church that has the stance that we are in the end times. Never mind the many people she has known who have validated her agreement with such nonsense. Never mind that fact that she has yet to refute a belief in young earth creationism and the End Times being now.
I have no problem with religious people being in office. I know lots of religious people. They can be good hearted, intelligent individuals. What I have a problem with is people who have had their reasoning faculties poisoned by complete nonsense such as young earth creationism, or the false sense of persecution that is the End Times.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Dnsycnt,
Despise is a powerful word. What I don't understand is how someone can go from not having any or little info about a person, listen to the rantings of the loyal opposition and arrive at despising someone.
Actually, it was more the ranting of the Loyal Followers that first disturbed me.Despise is a powerful word. What I don't understand is how someone can go from not having any or little info about a person, listen to the rantings of the loyal opposition and arrive at despising someone.
To follow your apparent rationale', any American of faith would be disqualified from public office. With all due respect, I think we might have more to fear from people who think like you do.
Yes, because believing Dinosaurs walked the earth 6,000 years ago is the sign of a rational person.
How is distrusting those who follow the lunacy of young earth creationism suddenly a sign of hating all people who believe in a god? "He's a Disbeliever who distrusts people who believe in talking snakes, so he MUST hate all religious people!!!!!!!!!"
She also believes we're in the End Times, and she will see Judgement Day in her lifetime. Yet I'm an evil oppressive dangerous person because I don't want to hand her nuclear weapons?
I find it hilarious how people rant and rave about how terrible Obama is and how he should have distanced himself from his church so long ago, and how he's guilty by association, but when it comes to Palin The Great, everything is liberal hogwash. Never mind her crazy tongue speaking church that has the stance that we are in the end times. Never mind the many people she has known who have validated her agreement with such nonsense. Never mind that fact that she has yet to refute a belief in young earth creationism and the End Times being now.
I have no problem with religious people being in office. I know lots of religious people. They can be good hearted, intelligent individuals. What I have a problem with is people who have had their reasoning faculties poisoned by complete nonsense such as young earth creationism, or the false sense of persecution that is the End Times.
If you are going to despise someone for their millennial views, do your homework and at least get it right.
You have her eschatology (or Assy of God) eschatology incorrect. They are pre-millenials who believe in a pre-tribulation pre-millenialism, illustrated in band #2:
Since there has been no rapture*, PTPM, is NOT in the "end times" as described in Revelations. There may be talk be individuals who think that time approaching and eschatology may be a topic of interest to them, but the requirements for the beginning of PTPM have yet to be fulfilled.
So, it seems your derision is misplaced on to people who find the end times an interesting/frequent topic for discussion, but whose actual belief requirements preclude us from being in them. Probably a common problem for folks who are generally ignorant of the various strains of Christian eschatology, find Christians kinda icky, and are too lazy to do their homework before unleashing their antipathy.
Not to worry, though! There are some folks on whom you can direct your sneers who fit the bill...
There is a group of wacky types that not only believe we are in the End Times (millenium), but that we have had multiple anti-Christs over time and will likely see more of them. Which group might that be? Well, that is doctrine for the ~1 billion Roman Catholics. Oh, you might want to add some of the largest of the Protestant denominations, too (Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran). grampster is correct, if your religious test were enforced, the majority of Americans would be ineligible for public office.
These folks adhere to amillennial eschatology, band #4 in the illustration. What that means is that adherents to AM eschatology believe we are in the end times, already, in a symbolic millennium that will end when God wants it to end with the last judgment.
Here is a listing of all the POTUS with their religious affiliations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliations
I would note that there are PTPM, AM, & likely other millennial beliefs represented. Both pre- & post-nuclear age.
How many other than Truman (Baptist--PTPM, like Assy of God) have lit off nukes in war? You think Truman went nuclear due to his PTPM eschatology?
I could rip your post apart on other grounds, but I grow weary and will end with this last point:
Whatever her beliefs, for you to get all wound up would require that you think she will not honor her oath of office and will place her eschatology before that oath and the COTUS.
If you had investigated her record as governor, you would have found instances of her doing what was constitutional under the Alaskan constitution rather than what she preferred to do.
Feh.
* Seen any Christians suddenly go incorporeal, leaving behind all their stuff for you & the others to scratch your heads in confusion? If not, no rapture has occurred.
Post by: Nitrogen on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Like everything else, ignorance plays a big part here.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
And I fail to see why that would encourage me to set off nukes when I don't need to.
There are plenty of prophecy nuts out there, convinced that (just as an example) Russia and Iran will face off against Israel in the near future, bringing on Armageddon. Has Sarah Palin shown any indication she's one of those? I would think her theology would be the least of one's concerns, when judging whether she's worthy of the nuclear codes.
And for the Christians who disagree with my view, I have yet to study eschatology to any extent. I could be wrong.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
On a side note, why would you pray that what you're doing is in God's plan? I wouldn't think a mere human could foil God's plan, especially unintentionally.
Although we believe that God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, we also believe that he allows his human creatures free will to act as they wish. So there is a sense in which everything we do is accounted for in God's overall plan for world history. But in another sense, we can refuse to do what God would have us to do at any particular point. But since God gots the all-knowing-seeing-into-the-future-ness, He has planned ahead, to account for everything.
Now, that's an Arminian view. A Calvinist may see it differently.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Dntsy, you seem confused about how Christians view the relationship between human action, and God's plan. For instance, outside of a few morons out there, we don't believe we have to make Armageddon happen, to help God along.
Although we believe that God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, we also believe that he allows his human creatures free will to act as they wish. So there is a sense in which everything we do is accounted for in God's overall plan for world history. But in another sense, we can refuse to do what God would have us to do at any particular point. But since God gots the all-knowing-seeing-into-the-future-ness, He has planned ahead, to account for everything.
Now, that's an Arminian view. A Calvinist may see it differently.
On a side note, why would you pray that what you're doing is in God's plan? I wouldn't think a mere human could foil God's plan, especially unintentionally.
Although we believe that God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, we also believe that he allows his human creatures free will to act as they wish. So there is a sense in which everything we do is accounted for in God's overall plan for world history. But in another sense, we can refuse to do what God would have us to do at any particular point. But since God gots the all-knowing-seeing-into-the-future-ness, He has planned ahead, to account for everything.
Now, that's an Arminian view. A Calvinist may see it differently.
He'd see that you are totally depraved fistful.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
OK, now I feel like a big nerd.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
There is nothing the least bit nutty about believing that we are in the End Times. Nothing at all. Nothing. Or did God come down and tell dtsynct that he's giving us an extra thousand years?
Speaking in tongues (Pentecostal style) may be an odd religious practice that I no longer believe in, but it is hardly a matter that should keep anyone out of office. Nor is it really a good reason to claim that church is "crazy." And just to clarify, I believe that glossolalia is something God does, just not in every church service.
And to brand every young-earth creationist as irrational is just not, um, reasonable. Such people may be misled or poorly-educated, but that doesn't make them irrational. I'd rather not have my Pres/VP believing scientific theories, simply because a scientist assured them it was so. That's a tad gullible.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Hee-hee. Doctrinal humor. Hee-hee.
OK, now I feel like a big nerd.
OK, now I feel like a big nerd.
You're not the only one.
<= nurd copz, comin fer us all
Post by: Tallpine on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
OK, I have to add a few more things, just to respond to Dntyscnts emotional outburst of paranoia.
There is nothing the least bit nutty about believing that we are in the End Times. Nothing at all. Nothing. Or did God come down and tell dtsynct that he's giving us an extra thousand years?
Speaking in tongues (Pentecostal style) may be an odd religious practice that I no longer believe in, but it is hardly a matter that should keep anyone out of office. Nor is it really a good reason to claim that church is "crazy." And just to clarify, I believe that glossolalia is something God does, just not in every church service.
And to brand every young-earth creationist as irrational is just not, um, reasonable. Such people may be misled or poorly-educated, but that doesn't make them irrational. I'd rather not have my Pres/VP believing scientific theories, simply because a scientist assured them it was so. That's a tad gullible.
There is nothing the least bit nutty about believing that we are in the End Times. Nothing at all. Nothing. Or did God come down and tell dtsynct that he's giving us an extra thousand years?
Speaking in tongues (Pentecostal style) may be an odd religious practice that I no longer believe in, but it is hardly a matter that should keep anyone out of office. Nor is it really a good reason to claim that church is "crazy." And just to clarify, I believe that glossolalia is something God does, just not in every church service.
And to brand every young-earth creationist as irrational is just not, um, reasonable. Such people may be misled or poorly-educated, but that doesn't make them irrational. I'd rather not have my Pres/VP believing scientific theories, simply because a scientist assured them it was so. That's a tad gullible.
The whole concept of End Times/Apocalypse is nutty.
You seem to think that just because I sometimes write somewhat lengthy, vehement posts, I am somehow emotionally invested into what I am saying. I'm really not. I don't explode with hatred at the thought of Palin, I just am annoyed at all the loving affection being showered on her. I actually can understand the appeal of Palin, and the appeal of Obama. (Not so much McCain.) I just happen to think their flaws outweigh their positive points, and much of what they are adored for isn't so.
For the record, I don't believe someone is inherently insane/stupid for believing something insane/stupid. But it* does impede objective analysis. As objective as one can be, anyway.
*In fact, faith in anything does this.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
For the record, I don't believe someone is inherently insane/stupid for believing something insane/stupid. But it* does impede objective analysis. As objective as one can be, anyway.
*In fact, faith in anything does this.
I'm afraid you've been misled. Faith does not impede reason or analysis in any way. I'm afraid many people don't understand what the word "faith" means anymore.
Quote
The whole concept of End Times/Apocalypse is nutty.
How so?
Post by: ArfinGreebly on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
He has complete faith that evolution explains the origins of Man.
I know another guy.
He has complete faith that whatever we have today, it all started with God.
You should hear some of their discussions. You would come away convinced that both of them could use some "rubber room" time.
And then there's me. (Or is that, "and then there's I?")
There are some things about life that I know to be true. I don't discuss them, as a rule.
Why?
Because I used to wind up in conversations where people disagreed with my "beliefs." And their faith, that my "beliefs" were wrong, was unshakable.
Look. Gravity works. If I observe, aloud, that gravity works or, peripherally, that something has happened or something is a certain way because gravity works, and you want to disagree with my "belief" in gravity, sooner or later I'm just not gonna talk to you. At least not about gravity.
| /// | _____ | /// | Tangential Rant (incomprehensibility warning) It's interesting to live in a world where belief in a deity is accepted (or at least unchallenged) but where certain verifiable observations about life are met with "prove it!" Why must I "prove" it? Because there's no globally accepted authority (or even popular acceptance) to which I can appeal. There is all manner of "knowledge chaff" out there which has gained wide acceptance simply because it's taught in large, imposing, crusty brick edifices by men who have pieces of paper given to them by other men having pieces of paper, which in turn were given to them by other papered men, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Conferred authority. Conferred exclusive authority. Anything not learned here may be challenged as false -- or at least worthless, for if it were true and real knowledge and of any value, we would have taught it to you here. Faith. Anything believed by a sufficient population, or endorsed by accepted authority, shall be deemed "true," or at least shall not be subject to challenge. Unless its acceptance would call into question those truths taught within these halls. Well, it must be true. The textbook weighed fifteen pounds, man! /rant |
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Bold-face text is my emphasis
http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/dskeel/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_faith_and_mine--s.html
Sarah Palin's Faith, and Mine
I didn't like Mike Huckabee's campaign in the Republican primaries, because Huckabee argued, sometimes explicitly, that Christian voters should support him because he's a Christian. I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but that sealed the point for me. I won't vote for any candidate because of that candidate's faith, or lack thereof. Often, I don't know anything (and don't try to find out) about the religious convictions of the candidates I support. I'm sure I've voted for candidates with a wide range of religious commitments, including some--probably a lot--with no more than nominal religious affiliations, or none at all.
Though you won't read it in the New York Times, I'm pretty sure that most of my fellow Christians follow a similar practice. We vote for and against candidates' political programs, not for and against their religious practice. That is as it should be in a society as religiously diverse as ours is.
But there's a flip side to that proposition. While my faith should never be treated like a job qualification in a political campaign, neither should its absence.
So far, in the press coverage of Sarah Palin, I've seen Palin mocked because (1) she prays and evidently believes that prayer matters, (2) she believes in a God who is actively engaged in this world's affairs, and (3) she wants to be the person God made her to be in the circumstances in which she has been placed. These beliefs and desires are shared by an enormous number of religious believers, and not only Christians. They would be politically problematic if Palin claimed that she knows God's plans, that when she prays God gives her specific instructions about how she should do her job, or that her faith dictates a political program that she is unwilling to disclose. (Even if she believes her faith requires some political stances--how could it not?--that is hardly a problem as long as she is open about her politics. Voters who don't like pro-life candidates can vote against them; the religious or philosophical underpinnings of the relevant candidate's stance shouldn't be dispositive.) But I haven't seen or heard her come close to making any of those claims.
In one talk that Charlie Gibson quoted misleadingly, she made nearly the opposite point: that religious believers should pray not that God would be on our nation's side in wartime, but that our nation would be on the side of a just God--that we would fight for good ends, and use the right means to achieve them. Lincoln said as much, as Palin rightly noted in answering Gibson's question. Pretty scary guy, that Lincoln.
If an overwhelmingly secular press treats religious beliefs like those as disqualifying in a candidate for political office, a great many Americans will be effectively cast in the role of non-citizens. I hope that isn't the view most of my non-believing friends take. If it is, I'm going to have to rethink my own voting practices.
Obviously, many of us on both sides of America's ongoing cultural divide have gotten this question wrong in the past. (I'm sure I have.) This might be a good time for all of us to take a deep breath, think about what kind of political culture we want--and commit to treating those who think differently about the world with respect. In this campaign, that would represent a marked change.
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I agree with the above notion. In my view, the vast majority of citizens in America are either people of faith of one type or another or are ambivalent in those matters; further, that faith or ambivalence is of a deep personal level. Their political views tend to be quite broad as well as diverse. This vast majority of citizens do not often demonize those who disagree in a political sense and are, not curiously actually, very tolerant of those holding other political, religious or non religious beliefs.
There is also a very vocal minority of citizens that seem to put a requirement on all citizens that if those citizens do not support that minority view, those citizens are somehow dangerous to the Republic. This vocal minority is on the left and the right of the political spectrum. The larger segment of this minority group, those on the left, seem to have gravitated to positions of authority in the media, both news and entertainment. I used to think this odd until I realized that recent history in America seems to show that control of the media has been the bailiwick of the left, at least until recently, when the internet and some media outlets with opposing views have gained visibility. The great Red and Blue divide perhaps has occurred because these two minority positions on the left and right have been sparring with each other as a result.
Most of our quiet Americans actually appreciate some of the positions on both sides of these noisy minorities. The left's belief in libertine behavior has a certain appeal to some of us because it bespeaks freedom in the sense that we are not burdened with guilt if we sample a little forbidden fruit now and then. On the other hand the views on the right have a draw because those views are grounded in a stability and moral purpose that is necessary for our culture to persist and not crumble because of too much libertine behavior. Perhaps that is why we see the country so evenly divided by population numbers in the political spectrum. Certain parts of the right and the left are fascinating to The Common Man.
The danger that is defined by the vocal minority is that one side or the other gains too much power. In the political sense, what we actually see is that party really doesn't matter in the end when it comes to those who crave power. The power brokers want the power and of course control of the money. That means controlling We The People. We have seen what that power does. Anyone with eyes can see and ears can hear.
The fascination with Sen. Obama comes out of the populace wanting to believe that he would be different, that he would be the Mr. Smith Who Goes To Washington. What we are seeing is that he is, rather, more of the same and maybe worse when one considers who his mentors were. The same is true with Gov. Palin. She is the Yang to Obama's Ying. She also represents the notion as Joseph Conrad would write in Lord Jim...she "is one of us." One hopes that she is as real as Obama is the wraith.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
If an overwhelmingly secular press treats religious beliefs like those as disqualifying in a candidate for political office, a great many Americans will be effectively cast in the role of non-citizens. I hope that isn't the view most of my non-believing friends take. If it is, I'm going to have to rethink my own voting practices.
I have never heard anyone say religious beliefs disqualify a person from office. I have heard people say atheists shouldn't even be allowed to be citizens. It is political suicide to call one's self an atheist, particularly in the national arena. The difference I've noticed is that nonreligious people are suspicious of candidates not because of their Religions, but because of the erroneous factual beliefs those people hold and attribute to their religions. Those who hate atheists hate them for being atheists.
Quote
It gives me hope that I will see a day...When the theist can vote for the atheist without compunction, and vice versa, because we both know we will not legislate against each other to inhibit ethical exercise of religious/nonreligious freedom, or enforce subjective "morality".
That is from my blog back in May. I think we have a lot of the same goals, and while it may not apparently seem so, a lot of the same views. I also think it likely that most people do not blindly hate those who disagree with them, even on something as big as religion, and do not wish their elections to be controlled by such hatred.
I will have to do some more thought and research. If Palin shows that she can govern in such a way that her religion is irrelevant, than her religious beliefs are irrelevant. But I maintain that if she supports as a matter of policy that creationism, or any other pseudoscience, should be taught in science classrooms, that is an extremely troubling fault, and a blurring of the lines of separation she should hold.
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
There you go again Dntsycnt. Of course Gov. Palin is not going to govern as if her religion and her beliefs were irrelevant. They certainly are relevant to her because those beliefs have defined who she is. That definition perhaps makes her appealing in many way because her faith has taught her certain things as she has been immersed in the American experiment and culture. She has shown herself to be a person of faith who is more like the vast majority of Americans. On the other hand, name one instance where her faith has caused her to disparage or work against any citizen in Alaska who holds to a different belief system. One can hold to religious beliefs and yet deal within the boundaries of the law. Why is that? Because the law holds all men to be equal before it. One swears an oath to that. Christians are actually advised to not swear oaths "so help me God". But rather to let their yes be merely yes and their no be merely no. So by swearing an oath, a good Christian puts herself in a position of following the law, not necessarily her conscience.
I am, of course, happy to see you are thinking about your position.
Have to go now, but will join this conversation again later.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I think I would vote for an atheist. I also agree with the statement attributed to Martin Luther, that a wise Muslim is a better ruler than a foolish Christian.
But I don't think it helps us all to get along, politically, when atheists make absurd comments about a belief in End Times being "nuts."
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
To address the end times "nuts" think not being constructive: I believe it is constructive. In the same way that the following interaction would be constructive:
Jack T. Wookie: I can't wait until Ron Paul steals this election and implements a fiat monetary system so we can finally stop the joos from degrading our dollar value.
Fistful: Dude, that's nuts. There is no way Ron Paul will win the election, you know nothing about economics, and you clearly have problems.
For many people, religious beliefs are held to be above question, as if they are different from other beliefs simply because the believer really, really believes them. I treat religion exactly as I do politics: I respect the fact that others may disagree with me, don't go out of my way to berate them for it, but will blatantly state my positions if engaged in discussion. For many people argument/debate is fruitless, often because they feel an emotional need to be right, or are afraid to be embarrassed, or are too focused on arguing their sides to actually listen to the other side. But for me, and for most of the people on this board, I'd venture to guess, argument is beneficial. It helps everyone to better themselves and learn more clearly about the topic at hand. To place something above scrutiny, or dictate that it must be treated with padded gloves, is to encourage misunderstanding on both sides, and opens up opportunities for abuse. Science, philosophy, and politics are advanced through spirited debate, and religion is a little of all three of those things, at least in their earliest forms. It seems everyone is looking for a reason to be offended these days, religious and nonreligious alike, and it's really a pity, I think, because it limits us, or at least slows us down. I think you have just as much a right to tell me I'll burn in Hell for eternity, or that I'm completely blind to an essential and beautiful element of existence, as I do to tell you that you will cease to exist after death, your body will rot, and that no magical person will ever return to save us from ourselves. It rarely pays to be an ass, of course, but direct disagreement is constructive.
Post by: grampster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Intune on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I rarely argue religion even though my brother is an ordained minister. My reason for not doing so is because I don't know the answer to the "God" question and I don't want to be the person responsible for shaking another persons faith and possibly turning them in the "wrong" direction just because I have a compelling argument.
If I should have sacrificed a goat on the Summer Solstice I'll try & make up for it in December...
Getting back to Ms. Gov, I believe that she is even tempered and tolerant of others and their views/beliefs. I like that in a leader.
We should probably steer in that direction (Palin) before the mods have no choice with the lock.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
If I know someone is a devout Zoroastrian or Buddhist, there are certain things I can predict (or expect, if you prefer) from that person's thinking processes. There are also some things (expectations) I can pretty much exclude from those same processes, at least under "normal" circumstances.
I have my own set of principles and my own list of "bad ideas" and "good ideas" as well as a few genuine show-stopper-type deal breakers.
Marxism, while it may not qualify as a religion, is very often found (exhibited) in a framework that, for all intents and purposes, might as well be religious.
The expectations I have from the Marxist "religion" are very much of the deal-breaker variety.
There are other bodies of "wisdom" that are, from a preservation of liberty viewpoint, anathema to me. Any body of "knowledge" which has as a foundation premise that Man is wholly a physical phenomenon with no spiritual component of any description would fall into that category. I would have serious reservations about the extrapolated expectations of that belief system.
I'm generally more concerned with the observable conduct of a statistically significant and representative cross section of subscribers to a belief (or body of knowledge) than I am with any theoretical shortcomings.
Palin?
Her foundation is broadly enough represented that I don't find myself worried that her quirks will be at odds with the culture as a whole.
Happily, she has some actual track record.
Oh, and there is one other thing: the Marxists hate her with a flaming passion, as do socialists of pretty much any stripe.
If yer takin' flak, yer over the target or gettin' close.
She's taking a lot of flak. Way more flak than would seem to be appropriate.
I'm thinkin' there's got to be a reason for that.
It's not, itself, a compelling argument, but it's a data point of substantial weight.
People who lie, dissemble, mislead, and misrepresent as their stock in trade are scared to death of her. People who have been feeding the public raw sewage as "facts and information" for ages are doing their level best to "dispassionately" destroy her. Goons of all stripes have been deployed against her, from journalists to lawyers to hackers.
If the country's foremost liars and thieves hate her as deeply as it seems they do, then my default position is that, without even having to know why they hate her, she can't be all bad.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
"You're wrong" is fine, "Your beliefs are ludicrous and I doubt the mental stability of anyone who holds them" is neither useful nor polite.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
To address the end times "nuts" think not being constructive: I believe it is constructive.
I didn't just say it's not constructive. It's also a stupid thing to say. I have asked you to explain what is so "nuts" about a belief that the world will end. And I really would like to see you try to defend that absurd point of view. Have at.
Post by: Stand_watie on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
To address the end times "nuts" think not being constructive: I believe it is constructive.
I didn't just say it's not constructive. It's also a stupid thing to say. I have asked you to explain what is so "nuts" about a belief that the world will end. And I really would like to see you try to defend that absurd point of view. Have at.
It's also a faith based assumption. Which makes it as a viewpoint that disparages faith, hypocritical as well as unconstructive.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The fact that you don't find it self evidently absurd says a good deal toward your frame of mind concerning this issue, which is why I have so far not responded to your pointless question. No matter what I say, you will respond that I don't understand your views, then go pat yourself on the back for your Enlightened perspective, shaking your head that I should be so blind.
Thankfully, I have never listened to or considered the arguments for such things, and have no concept of what could be metaphorical because I have my Faith in Nothing to close my mind. I'll go weep and flagellate myself in the name of Not Believing.
Post by: Stand_watie on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...because I have my Faith in Nothing to close my mind. I'll go weep and flagellate myself in the name of Not Believing.
Indeed you do. Welcome to the faith community by the way.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...because I have my Faith in Nothing to close my mind. I'll go weep and flagellate myself in the name of Not Believing.
Indeed you do. Welcome to the faith community by the way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Yes...how could beliefs based off of an ancient acid trip about three headed dragons and magical men flying back to earth and palaces built of gold be considered absurd? How could the notion of people suddenly disappearing and being zapped to a meeting with a grand magician be absurd? How idiotic of me.
The fact that you don't find it self evidently absurd says a good deal toward your frame of mind concerning this issue, which is why I have so far not responded to your pointless question. No matter what I say, you will respond that I don't understand your views, then go pat yourself on the back for your Enlightened perspective, shaking your head that I should be so blind.
Thankfully, I have never listened to or considered the arguments for such things, and have no concept of what could be metaphorical because I have my Faith in Nothing to close my mind. I'll go weep and flagellate myself in the name of Not Believing.
The fact that you don't find it self evidently absurd says a good deal toward your frame of mind concerning this issue, which is why I have so far not responded to your pointless question. No matter what I say, you will respond that I don't understand your views, then go pat yourself on the back for your Enlightened perspective, shaking your head that I should be so blind.
Thankfully, I have never listened to or considered the arguments for such things, and have no concept of what could be metaphorical because I have my Faith in Nothing to close my mind. I'll go weep and flagellate myself in the name of Not Believing.
I'm not interested in whether you understand my views. I'm interested in knowing why it is "nuts" to think that the world could end. If there is something irrational about it, I would like to know, so I can stop believing in it.
But if it makes any difference to you, Sarah Palin probably doesn't believe there will be any three-headed dragons or magicians involved. At least I've never met any Christians that did. Don't recall any gold palaces, either, but that could just be me.
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
'tards.
That's why.