Palin interview excerpts

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

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.

[grampster]

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.

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.

[Dntsycnt]

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.

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

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.

[Nitrogen]

A big part of the problem is that athiests don't understand how prayer is commonly worded.  I think if they educated themselves about how Christians think and how they pray, it'd end up not being a big deal.

Like everything else, ignorance plays a big part here.

[Perd Hapley]

I believe Christ could return and Armageddon could occur at any time.  I believe the last 2000 years have been The End Times. 

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

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. 

[Matthew Carberry]

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. 

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.

[Perd Hapley]

Hee-hee.  Doctrinal humor.  Hee-hee. 

OK, now I feel like a big nerd. 

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[roo_ster]

Hee-hee.  Doctrinal humor.  Hee-hee. 

OK, now I feel like a big nerd. 

You're not the only one.

   <= nurd copz, comin fer us all

[Tallpine]

fistful was predestined to be at fault

[Dntsycnt]

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. 

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.

[Perd Hapley]

I see what you're saying about the emotion thing.  I've often been falsely accused of emotionalism, for the same reasons.  Sorry.

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.

The whole concept of End Times/Apocalypse is nutty.

How so?

[ArfinGreebly]

I know a guy.

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

[roo_ster]

This fellow expresses what is pretty close to my thoughts on the matter.

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.

[grampster]

"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."

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.

[Dntsycnt]

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. 

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.

[grampster]

"If Palin shows that she can govern in such a way that her religion is irrelevant, than her religious beliefs are irrelevant."


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.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, one's personal beliefs will always direct one's politics and one's actions.  I think (hope) that dntsycnt did not mean his statement to be as sweeping as it might sound. 

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." 

[grampster]

See, what I don't understand is why some who do not hold to any religious belief seem to believe it is ok to scoff at or disparage those who have religious beliefs, but have a very thin skin when their position is challenged.   I find that aggressive mindset to also be fairly widespread with those who's political position leans toward the left.  I have argued positions with people who are conservative as I am.  We don't always agree on all things.  Most conservatives that I know are at least willing to examine some of their positions.  Many people of faith also question their faith.  I don't see that often on the left or with folks who are not religiously oriented in some fashion.  (Not painting with a wide brush here folks, only an observation that I have made over a life of 65 years.) 

[Dntsycnt]

Perhaps "irrelevant" was a bad word choice.  Her religious beliefs will, of course, affect her positions.  Even now, as an atheist, I'm sure many of my views are affected by my religious upbringing.  What I mean is, if she can prove that she will not allow her religious beliefs to direct her policy decisions, or at least directly direct, or at least consciously directly direct, then those beliefs are not necessarily a concern to alter one's vote on.

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.

[grampster]

Sigh...It looks like Dntsycnt is going to hell fer sure...JUUUUUUST KID'N

[Intune]

Good post Nntsycnt.

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. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Another aspect to the influences of religion is how it can bias expectation.

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.