NationStates Jolt Archive

What does the "good Christian" Governor Palin's pastor preach?
If you don't support Bush over Katrina, you'll go to hell. If you voted for Kerry, you may not get into heaven. And Alaska will be a refuge in the end times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Note: It's titled President Palin for a reason. McCain won't likely last the first term...

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

Give her time ;)

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

I'm sure that's how she and the GOP in general will dismiss it. "Sure, this guy is bad, but Obama's preacher is worse, so it doesn't matter"

I'm sure that's how she and the GOP in general will dismiss it. "Sure, this guy is bad, but Obama's preacher is worse, so it doesn't matter"

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

Well, you have to just LOVE how they now call Palin's non-existing experience "unspoilt"... ;)

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

It's pretty sad that American politics has gotten to the point where both sides are just trying to be the lesser evil, rather than actually trying to be good.

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"
I think it's more like,

"Would you rather elect somebody who has a limited record to examine, or a person whose substantial record indicates that he will be a third Dubya term?"

A subtle difference, but an important one IMO.

Given that the "Church's" website is conveniently down, it'll be very interesting to see if the sermons are still there later...

Well, you have to just LOVE how they now call Palin's non-existing experience "unspoilt"... ;)

Obama tried that too "I'm so new to Washington I haven't been corrupted by it yet!" And then we realized apparently that Washington corruption moves like greased lightning...

It's pretty sad that American politics has gotten to the point where both sides are just trying to be the lesser evil, rather than actually trying to be good.

Roger that.

I think it's more like,

"Would you rather elect somebody who has a limited record to examine, or a person whose substantial record indicates that he will be a third Dubya term?"

A subtle difference, but an important one IMO.

TBH at first I was an Obama supporter for exactly that reason. I changed my mind when I had my intelligence insulted one too many times.

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

Except that one is...you know....relevant.

Except that one is...you know....relevant.

I disagree, but that's another topic. ;)

I disagree, but that's another topic. ;)

It's certainly more relevant than where one goes to church.

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

Really? Why is it different? One cray pastor is as good as another. There should be no double standard here. I'll one up her crazy pastor though (I don't care about him or Rev. Wright). Let's look at the words SHE used when addressing the graduating class at the Wasilla church this pastor is from.

Palin says

"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 [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

It's just another example of "God's on our side!!!!!!!!!"

They have a video of this crazy pastor and her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

He has Senate experience and, perhaps more interestingly, extensive knowledge and experience of working with constitutional and human rights law. Probably just what America needs to sellotape the constitution back together after Bush et al have spent the last eight years trying to turn it into hamster bedding...

I disagree, but that's another topic. ;)

How is it in any way NOT relevant? This is a political election, so pointing out that John McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time gives a very clear indication as to his political inclination.

Showing how Senator McCain voted paints a quite clear pictuer of what President McCain will be like. How in the world is that NOT relevant?

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

No I really don't, so yeah, that's a pretty good point.

Is it just co-incidence that every candidate in this election has a crazy pastor or is the entire clergy in America batshit insane?

It's pretty sad that American politics has gotten to the point where both sides are just trying to be the lesser evil, rather than actually trying to be good.

When politics gets mixed up with religion, you just know that there will only be one victor: the fallen archangel Lucifer. Corruption, hypocrisy and your regular bunch of screaming internet nerds... what's not to love?

Note: It's titled President Palin for a reason. McCain won't likely last the first term...

It should be Governor Palin, but you seem to think that the Republicans are going to win.

Is it just co-incidence that every candidate in this election has a crazy pastor or is the entire clergy in America batshit insane?
McCain hasn't had a crazy pastor story yet, nor has Lieberman (well, with Lieberman it would have to be a crazy Rabbi, but whatever).
In my fairly religious upbringing, I encountered several pastors, none of whom got political or extreme. The fact that they were Presbyterians probably had something to do with that, though.

Is it just co-incidence that every candidate in this election has a crazy pastor or is the entire clergy in America batshit insane?

Hmmm... You may be right on the first point, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the second. I've been to plenty of churches in different parts of the states (including the Bible Belt, where I grew up), and most aren't batshit Phelpseque nutjobs.

In fact, I quite like attending services at my parents' church. Pastor Kirsten is totally down with my being a practicing Buddhist.

McCain hasn't had a crazy pastor story yet, nor has Lieberman (well, with Lieberman it would have to be a crazy Rabbi, but whatever).
In my fairly religious upbringing, I encountered several pastors, none of whom got political or extreme. The fact that they were Presbyterians probably had something to do with that, though.
They tried to tie Hagee or whatever to him.

Hmmm... You may be right on the first point, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the second.

I had two points?

It should be Governor Palin, but you seem to think that the Republicans are going to win.

Nope. You missed the point. If McCain's elected, it will be President Palin.

McCain hasn't had a crazy pastor story yet,

Eh? Pay more attention. He's had plenty.


McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil' (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4905624&page=1)

Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."
Listen to excerpts from Rev. Rod Parsley's "Silent No More" sermon.

Late Thursday McCain announced he was rejecting Pastor Rod Parsley's endorsement he had once so eagerly sought.

McCain sought the support of Pastor Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.

At a campaign appearance in Cincinnati, McCain introduced Parsley as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide."

Campaign aides positioned Parsley right behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about Parsley's well-established denunciations of the Islamic faith in a book "Silent No More" and on DVDs of sermons about Islam.

"Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world," Parsley says on the DVDs reviewed by ABC News.

And that's not to mention his pandering to the Falwellites...

nor has Lieberman (well, with Lieberman it would have to be a crazy Rabbi, but whatever).

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082813.html

Damn, that's not doing a lot vto support the "not all US clergy are batshit"...

In my fairly religious upbringing, I encountered several pastors, none of whom got political or extreme. The fact that they were Presbyterians probably had something to do with that, though.

Presbyterians tend to be pretty solid and reasonable.

This is the point at which...

I don't know, I couldn't care if either candidate ate babies when at university right now, if the election is about finding every tiny personal detail and counting that as a reason for voting or not...

If there's a policy thread then fine, we're simply at celebrity gossip levels now.

I had two points?

Yep.

Is it just co-incidence that every candidate in this election has a crazy pastor

Seems to be holding water.

or is the entire clergy in America batshit insane?

My experience tells me no.

Nope. You missed the point. If McCain's elected, it will be President Palin.

Sorry I thought that come noon on the 20th January 2009 McCain will become President if he is elected.

Please don't reply I do know what you are getting at but I don't buy into scare campaigns.

pastors who never say anything that will piss anyone off are probably not doing their jobs...


Lord Jesus we pray to you for goodness in the world... turn the hearts of the mean kind and the the naughty nice... make the lost found, the violently crazy passively sane and give the confused clarity of thought... make the hungry full and the thirsty slightly waterlogged and the poor of middling income... in your name and your dad's and that holy spirit fellow we pray... amen.

Good grief, that pastor is insane. God makes him psychic, political dissent is punishable by eternal damnation, and throngs of people will be flocking to Alaska to escape the Antichrist any day now? Oooooooookay.... *backs away slowly*

Please don't reply I do know what you are getting at but I don't buy into scare campaigns.

Why not? Everybody else is doing it.

Why not? Everybody else is doing it.

I know and I am usually a victim of fashion, but in this instance I am going for the indie look

TBH at first I was an Obama supporter for exactly that reason. I changed my mind when I had my intelligence insulted one too many times.
wow you mean you have never felt insulted by the "mccain is a maverick" line being spoken over and over again?

i know i have.

Eh? Pay more attention. He's had plenty.



And that's not to mention his pandering to the Falwellites...
Those aren't his pastors, though, they're just prominent right wingers he's been cozying up to in order to get endorsements. That's a very different relationship than that which Palin and Obama have/had with their respective weirdos.
Presbyterians tend to be pretty solid and reasonable.
Just don't get between one and the buffet table.

Just don't get between one and the buffet table.they will kill for green bean and onion soup casserole

A nutjob preacher living in Alaska? Quickly, send a SWAT team headed by Jack Bauer to stop this threat before he gets out of control!

I guess both Jesus and Allah operate in war mode according to this guy.

It's certainly more relevant than where one goes to church.

True.

Really? Why is it different? One cray pastor is as good as another. There should be no double standard here. I'll one up her crazy pastor though (I don't care about him or Rev. Wright). Let's look at the words SHE used when addressing the graduating class at the Wasilla church this pastor is from.

Palin says

It's just another example of "God's on our side!!!!!!!!!"

They have a video of this crazy pastor and her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

I'd much rather have someone influenced by a religious fanatic who has a sense of self respect than someone who's spent 20 years listening to a man whose most noteworthy sermon includes the words "damn America!"

He has Senate experience and, perhaps more interestingly, extensive knowledge and experience of working with constitutional and human rights law. Probably just what America needs to sellotape the constitution back together after Bush et al have spent the last eight years trying to turn it into hamster bedding...

Senate experience my left buttcheek. As of November this year he'll have been there a whopping 3 years. My shoes are older than that.

How is it in any way NOT relevant? This is a political election, so pointing out that John McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time gives a very clear indication as to his political inclination.

Showing how Senator McCain voted paints a quite clear pictuer of what President McCain will be like. How in the world is that NOT relevant?

'cause the thread is supposed to be about Palin and her nutty pastor. I admit my own involvement in bringing up the sidetrack, but that's what it is.

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

At least Reverend Wright was right about a great many things, and didn't threaten those who disagreed with eternal damnation.

the non-secularism of politics in the States is both weird and worrying to me. this is little more than another example of that

Good grief, that pastor is insane. God makes him psychic, political dissent is punishable by eternal damnation, and throngs of people will be flocking to Alaska to escape the Antichrist any day now? Oooooooookay.... *backs away slowly*
If I were the antichrist I'd be aiming some nukes at Alaska. That'll show them.

At least Reverend Wright was right about a great many things, and didn't threaten those who disagreed with eternal damnation.

I'm not even gonna ask...

But yeah he didn't threaten people with eternal damnation...

..just the WHOLE FRIGGIN' COUNTRY.

But that's okay. It's just the USA, right?

Those aren't his pastors, though, they're just prominent right wingers he's been cozying up to in order to get endorsements. That's a very different relationship than that which Palin and Obama have/had with their respective weirdos.

They may not be his pastors, but they qualify as McCain crazy pastor stories, which is what you asked for.

Just don't get between one and the buffet table.

I haven't been to a Presbyterian church buffet dinner since... hmmm... must have been at least 25 years...

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

I realize that venting on an internet discussion forum is slightly less productive than ranting to my cat, but I have absolutely fucking had it with the nasty, dismissive comments made about candidates' churches and their personal religious beliefs this election cycle. I've never heard of this Pastor Ed Kalnins before today, and obviously the quotes from the Huffington Post don't paint him in a particularly good light, but those quotes don't tell me anything about how he's helped his parishioners spiritually or what kind of work he's done in his community in the last nine years, which are far more important factors in determining what kind of pastor he is. The linked article barely touches on that. A lot of pundits said pretty nasty things about Reverend Jeremiah Wright when those YouTube videos started circulating, and all of a sudden Wright's 30 years of ministry to a suffering and downtrodden community in one of America's most institutionally racist cities didn't mean anything. I don't share many of Wright's opinions, but I do understand how a man of his generation and his race could become frustrated enough to say such things out of a genuine concern for his parishioners. In the same way, I'm willing to give Pastor Kalnins the benefit of the doubt that he did not speak such shocking words because he had hate in his heart. Christianity comes in many flavors in this country, and I think it's very easy for people who don't belong to a church to raise their eyes and roll their eyebrows and judge somebody as "crazy" because of a couple of out-of-context quotes, and go back to their little clique and feel superior, but to sneer at someone who has given their life over to the service of God and their church and their community is not only jejune, it suggests a kind of moral timidity that fucking pisses me off.

I'm sure this will all come back to bite me but whatever. Going to make tea.

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

Really? Telling people that by disagreeing with your politics you will be tortured for eternity and you deserve it is better then saying America has screwed black people and that 9/11 happened because of piss-poor forgein policy decisions?


I guess if the truth scares you that much, anti-leftist Neo-Con Christian scare mongering and propaganda would appeal to you...

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

As opposed to "Hey, McCain is a lapdog, and will probably die soon once in office, and his VP has even less experiance then Obama, but for Christ's sake Obama is a BLACK MAN and his middle name is Hussein! Whats wrong with you people?!?"

Yeah, thats a much better arguement;)

I'd much rather have someone influenced by a religious fanatic who has a sense of self respect than someone who's spent 20 years listening to a man whose most noteworthy sermon includes the words "damn America!"

Based on what? The only thing that made it noteworthy was that people decided to score political points with it.

Is Bristol's most noteworthy act that she had sex?

Is McCain's most noteworthy act selecting Palin?

Don't get confused. Just because it's the lead story, doesn't make it most noteworthy. Reason should win out here.

I realize that venting on an internet discussion forum is slightly less productive than ranting to my cat, but I have absolutely fucking had it with the nasty, dismissive comments made about candidates' churches and their personal religious beliefs this election cycle. I've never heard of this Pastor Ed Kalnins before today, and obviously the quotes from the Huffington Post don't paint him in a particularly good light, but those quotes don't tell me anything about how he's helped his parishioners spiritually or what kind of work he's done in his community in the last nine years, which are far more important factors in determining what kind of pastor he is. The linked article barely touches on that. A lot of pundits said pretty nasty things about Reverend Jeremiah Wright when those YouTube videos started circulating, and all of a sudden Wright's 30 years of ministry to a suffering and downtrodden community in one of America's most institutionally racist cities didn't mean anything. I don't share many of Wright's opinions, but I do understand how a man of his generation and his race could become frustrated enough to say such things out of a genuine concern for his parishioners. In the same way, I'm willing to give Pastor Kalnins the benefit of the doubt that he did not speak such shocking words because he had hate in his heart. Christianity comes in many flavors in this country, and I think it's very easy for people who don't belong to a church to raise their eyes and roll their eyebrows and judge somebody as "crazy" because of a couple of out-of-context quotes, and go back to their little clique and feel superior, but to sneer at someone who has given their life over to the service of God and their church and their community is not only jejune, it suggests a kind of moral timidity that fucking pisses me off.

I'm sure this will all come back to bite me but whatever. Going to make tea.

/thread winner

... Christianity comes in many flavors in this country, and I think it's very easy for people who don't belong to a church to raise their eyes and roll their eyebrows and judge somebody as "crazy" because of a couple of out-of-context quotes, and go back to their little clique and feel superior, but to sneer at someone who has given their life over to the service of God and their church and their community is not only jejune, it suggests a kind of moral timidity that fucking pisses me off.
I know you're annoyed (with good reason) at the way that certain pastors are treated as representatives of Christianity, but don't make the assumption that ministers are morally beyond repute simply by virtue of their ordainment. They are but men, whether divinely inspired or otherwise. People do and say stupid things, no matter what authority they claim, and if anything suggests moral timidity, it is rebuking people for speaking out against harmful ideology.

I know you're annoyed (with good reason) at the way that certain pastors are treated as representatives of Christianity, but don't make the assumption that ministers are morally beyond repute simply by virtue of their ordainment. They are but men, whether divinely inspired or otherwise. People do and say stupid things, no matter what authority they claim, and if anything suggests moral timidity, it is rebuking people for speaking out against harmful ideology.

the TRUE thread winner.

/thread winner

I am glad this thread was made though, I've never seen that video, I think it rocks. I'm sending it to all the people I know that go to a AoG church (I don't go to an AoG church but I know they'll love it). :)

I know you're annoyed (with good reason) at the way that certain pastors are treated as representatives of Christianity, but don't make the assumption that ministers are morally beyond repute simply by virtue of their ordainment. They are but men, whether divinely inspired or otherwise. People do and say stupid things, no matter what authority they claim, and if anything suggests moral timidity, it is rebuking people for speaking out against harmful ideology.

No, actually, the bible calls for rebuke.

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

How, exactly?

No, actually, the bible calls for rebuke.

Carte-blanche for the would-be Theocrats to attack any who oppose them.

How, exactly?

Because Neo B agrees with this guy, that's why.

McCain hasn't had a crazy pastor story yet, nor has Lieberman (well, with Lieberman it would have to be a crazy Rabbi, but whatever).
In my fairly religious upbringing, I encountered several pastors, none of whom got political or extreme. The fact that they were Presbyterians probably had something to do with that, though.

Yeah, I've been to some Methodist and Congregationalist services (okay, like 4) and none of the pastors seemed crazy.

Southern Baptist service? Batshit.

Yeah, I've been to some Methodist and Congregationalist services (okay, like 4) and none of the pastors seemed crazy.

Southern Baptist service? Batshit.

You think they're bad, try a Pentacostal service (Palin's denomination).:eek:

Carte-blanche for the would-be Theocrats to attack any who oppose them.

Actually, it holds elders to a higher standard.

Lord Jesus we pray to you for goodness in the world... turn the hearts of the mean kind and the the naughty nice... make the lost found, the violently crazy passively sane and give the confused clarity of thought... make the hungry full and the thirsty slightly waterlogged and the poor of middling income... in your name and your dad's and that holy spirit fellow we pray... amen.

...wait, is that supposed to be silly? Because it sounds kind of nice to me.

Good grief, that pastor is insane. God makes him psychic, political dissent is punishable by eternal damnation, and throngs of people will be flocking to Alaska to escape the Antichrist any day now? Oooooooookay.... *backs away slowly*

He totally bit off of Michael Chabon. Bastard.

they will kill for green bean and onion soup casserole

Who wouldn't? It is delicious.

I'd much rather have someone influenced by a religious fanatic who has a sense of self respect than someone who's spent 20 years listening to a man whose most noteworthy sermon includes the words "damn America!"

Is there some sort of online database that has archived all of his sermons? I would be interested in seeing that.

You think they're bad, try a Pentacostal service (Palin's denomination).:eek:

Are they the ones who speak in tongues?

Yeah, I've been to some Methodist and Congregationalist services (okay, like 4) and none of the pastors seemed crazy.

Southern Baptist service? Batshit.

I've been to all kinds of services and only a few have seemed crazy and they were of varying denominations.

Gross generalizations? Batshit.

Are they the ones who speak in tongues?

Yep, that's them.

I've been to all kinds of services and only a few have seemed crazy and they were of varying denominations.

Gross generalizations? Batshit.

Extrapolation based on members I know, services I've been to, and what I've read about their tenets. I grew up with my Southern Baptist cousins informing me every Christmas the family got together that I was going to hell. Congregationalists are like the next thing to Quakers--there doesn't seem to be a lot of room in the religion for fire and brimstone. Maybe I've just met all the nice ones.

Extrapolation based on members I know, services I've been to, and what I've read about their tenets. I grew up with my Southern Baptist cousins informing me every Christmas the family got together that I was going to hell. Congregationalists are like the next thing to Quakers--there doesn't seem to be a lot of room in the religion for fire and brimstone. Maybe I've just met all the nice ones.

Extrapolation from such a limited set is gross generalization. Recognize it for what it is, irrational.

Extrapolation based on members I know, services I've been to, and what I've read about their tenets. I grew up with my Southern Baptist cousins informing me every Christmas the family got together that I was going to hell. Congregationalists are like the next thing to Quakers--there doesn't seem to be a lot of room in the religion for fire and brimstone. Maybe I've just met all the nice ones.

you have a lot of....interesting family stories, don't you?

you have a lot of....interesting family stories, don't you?

None of them are as interesting as the gold and the body in the back of the car. Sadly.

I was rather fond of this statement in the article:

And if the political storm over Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.

Yeah, somehow I doubt it.

True.



I'd much rather have someone influenced by a religious fanatic who has a sense of self respect than someone who's spent 20 years listening to a man whose most noteworthy sermon includes the words "damn America!"



Senate experience my left buttcheek. As of November this year he'll have been there a whopping 3 years. My shoes are older than that.



'cause the thread is supposed to be about Palin and her nutty pastor. I admit my own involvement in bringing up the sidetrack, but that's what it is.

Why is that sermon the most noteworthy? Only because the media put it out there. So someone being a religious fanatic is better than someone who listened to a religious fanatic. The whole Rev. Wright experience was funny to me. The likelihood that this was a common theme at his church is very small. I'd like to add that he is a decorated Marine as well. The sensationalism of that particular sermon was put up by the media as an example of who that man was. Do you think that is the definition of the man?

McCain hasn't had a crazy pastor story yet.

No, McCain has instead TWO crazy televangelist stories.

Ted Hagee - God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans as a punishment for faggotry.

Rod Parsley - Islam is a false religion and us Christians need to wipe them the fuck out. Especially notable yet conveniently ignored by The Liberal Media™ because McCain calls him his "Spiritual Advisor".

First, this story is so far mostly thunder and no lightning, but I would say it's pretty damning that they suddenly pulled all the sermons down. If there is nothing there that is a problem, then having them up could only help him.

Those aren't his pastors, though, they're just prominent right wingers he's been cozying up to in order to get endorsements. That's a very different relationship than that which Palin and Obama have/had with their respective weirdos.

Strangely enough, I'm more worried about someone who intentionally seeks out such endorsements in the political arena than someone who has a social relationship with people who hold some crazy viewpoints.


I'd much rather have someone influenced by a religious fanatic who has a sense of self respect than someone who's spent 20 years listening to a man whose most noteworthy sermon includes the words "damn America!"

To each his own, I suppose.

I'd much rather have someone influenced by a pastor highly critical of the government than someone influenced by one who essentially labels dissent and voting one's conscience as hell-worthy.

Is there some sort of online database that has archived all of his sermons? I would be interested in seeing that.

I don't know about all of them (he was a pastor for a very long time), but I believe his church had videos and such of quite a few. Not to mention that you can find the controversial statements in context on youtube. Context is rather important.

Not that Wright is perfect or anything. His response to the whole mess was pretty childish at times. But I don't think he's the horrible guy he was made out to be when the news was flashing 30 second quotes from the middle of sermons over and over and over again either.

I would bet money that the videos weren't pulled because they are bad, I'd say the sudden downloading crashed their small server account. It's not like it's a big church, to suddenly have ten thousand people downloading every video that they offered on their server... probably never had more than a couple of people on it at any one time before.

But all you people shouldn't let simple obvious things like that interfere with your little conspiracy theory lovefest... please continue unabated.

I would bet money that the videos weren't pulled because they are bad, I'd say the sudden downloading crashed their small server account. It's not like it's a big church, to suddenly have ten thousand people downloading every video that they offered on their server... probably never had more than a couple of people on it at any one time before.

But all you people shouldn't let simple obvious things like that interfere with your little conspiracy theory lovefest... please continue unabated.

If that is the case, they could put the videos up on youtube.

=)

I don't know about all of them (he was a pastor for a very long time), but I believe his church had videos and such of quite a few. Not to mention that you can find the controversial statements in context on youtube. Context is rather important.

Oh, I've seen it. I was just being cheeky about Neo B's claim that that sermon was the most noteworthy.

I would bet money that the videos weren't pulled because they are bad, I'd say the sudden downloading crashed their small server account. It's not like it's a big church, to suddenly have ten thousand people downloading every video that they offered on their server... probably never had more than a couple of people on it at any one time before.

But all you people shouldn't let simple obvious things like that interfere with your little conspiracy theory lovefest... please continue unabated.

You should just create a macro. Everything is a conspiracy theory.

No, wait, maybe it's that we're nazi-esque.

No, no, it's that we can't read.

No, no, it's that we won't listen anyway.

Yeah, why stick to debating points when you can make sure to post this nonsense every time. At least look up the term conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy that a church would pull the records that are being used to condemn them. It would be like suggesting that OJ was involved in a conspiracy when he hid evidence of his own guilt. By that definition, everything is a conspiracy.

Palin adds a second controversial preacher to her resume. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html) Between the fundraising she did for Buchanan's 2000 presidential run and this little gem:"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it." she might have some explaining to do to the Jewish voter.

TBH at first I was an Obama supporter for exactly that reason. I changed my mind when I had my intelligence insulted one too many times.

"Intelligence"

Intelligence: many people on this forum claim to possess it, but in reality it is rather scarce.

Not really, no.

Carte-blanche for the would-be Theocrats to attack any who oppose them.

To be fair, it swings the other way too. The rest of us are supposed to theologically rebuke them as well. The added caveat is that as a leader, he's supposed to be especially scrutinized by his congregation so as to make sure that he's not what the Bible refers to as a False Prophet.

Essentially the Bible is warning us against these kinds of pastors that we're supposed to watch out for. Ironic, no?

She's a Pentecostal? God, that's even worse. She's going to be off of this ticket within four weeks.

She's a Pentecostal? God, that's even worse. She's going to be off of this ticket within four weeks.
what does pentecostal have todo with it?

what does pentacostal have todo with it?

They're the super-crazy kind. Jesus camp was Pentecostals.

Or, maybe I'm just holding out too much faith in my fellow Americans.

They're the super-crazy kind. Jesus camp was Pentecostals.

Or, maybe I'm just holding out too much faith in my fellow Americans.
the republican base loves the idea of such a religious fundamentalist being VP.

the rest of the country... i guess it depends on how obvious it is.

It's better than the vitriolic bullshit from Reverend Wright.

And at least she isn't insulting our intelligence by pretending never to have heard it. :rolleyes:

Its only better than Reverand Wright if you beleive that crap. Thanks, but I think saying in a Democratic country that questioning the President will result in eternal damnation is about as far as one can get into "vitriolic bullshit" territory.

Of course, Palin's preacher is doubtless white as the Alaska snow, so maybe that makes his rantings more acceptable to you?

Hey, that tactic works for the other side ;)

"Sure Obama has no executive experience, but do you REALLY want 4 more years of Bush policy?"

Neither does McCain have executive experience, and neither, I beleive, did Abraham Lincon when he was ellected. So Obama's deficiancies in this area prove what, exactly?

What is a Christofascist? Is it like an Islamofascist, or does this term actually mean something?

Neither does McCain have executive experience, and neither, I beleive, did Abraham Lincon when he was ellected. So Obama's deficiancies in this area prove what, exactly?

moreover one would think that in preparation for being President of the United States being in the Congress of The United States would be more helpful than governor of...Alaska.

I want a President who understands how the nation works, thus I would prefer someone who has experience in the federal government.

moreover one would think that in preparation for being President of the United States being in the Congress of The United States would be more helpful than governor of...Alaska.

I want a President who understands how the nation works, thus I would prefer someone who has experience in the federal government.
plus one of the basic requirements for national office really should be having thought through national and international issues. to have actual reasonable positions on the economy, health care, immigration, russia, iran, north korea, etc.

not to start your national political career by having a good speech written for you (yes i heard gov. pawlenty say that on msnbc--they have written a good speech FOR HER) to pretend that you have position on various issues.

moreover one would think that in preparation for being President of the United States being in the Congress of The United States would be more helpful than governor of...Alaska.

I want a President who understands how the nation works, thus I would prefer someone who has experience in the federal government.

I would be happy with a President who recognizes that the Constutition is not toilet paper.

Obviously, that disqualifies Bush and Palin. I'll say both Obama and McCain fit this build. I think they both greatly respect the US Constitution.

moreover one would think that in preparation for being President of the United States being in the Congress of The United States would be more helpful than governor of...Alaska.

I want a President who understands how the nation works, thus I would prefer someone who has experience in the federal government.

Damn right. The whole experience attack is rediculous.

Obama has traveled the world, studied and taught Constitutional Law, and served about as many years in elected office, I believe, as Ms. Palin. Unlike her, however, some of those years have been at the national level.

moreover one would think that in preparation for being President of the United States being in the Congress of The United States would be more helpful than governor of...Alaska.

I want a President who understands how the nation works, thus I would prefer someone who has experience in the federal government.
I was thinking this just earlier today, how the accusation Obama has no experience is completely meaningless. No experience with what, exactly? Being President? If experience is what you pick up by working in national politics, both he and John McCain have more experience than Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush. "Experience" has become a buzz word.

I would be happy with a President who recognizes that the Constutition is not toilet paper.

Obviously, that disqualifies Bush and Palin. I'll say both Obama and McCain fit this build. I think they both greatly respect the US Constitution.

I would say that picking a VP (who could succede him at any time) with such strong theocratic tendencies shows McCain does not respect the Constitution. That, or her apointment was merely a political gimmic from a man who does'nt care what will happen to the nation if he is incapacitated.

I would say that picking a VP (who could succede him at any time) with such strong theocratic tendencies shows McCain does not respect the Constitution. That, or her apointment was merely a political gimmic from a man who does'nt care what will happen to the nation if he is incapacitated.

I don't agree that she's a theocrat and I don't find the wild hyperbole particularly helpful. It would help if we kept things rational, don't you think?

I don't agree that she's a theocrat and I don't find the wild hyperbole particularly helpful. It would help if we kept things rational, don't you think?

She has taught Creationism in Alaska schools, and if this thread is to be beleived, she's affilliated with the sect that gave us Jesus Camp. Have you seen what they do at that place? Brainwashing, pure and simple.

If Palin becomes President, I may renounce my American citizenship. The Constitution will be worth an old dishrag to that woman, I fear.

She has taught Creationism in Alaska schools, and if this thread is to be beleived, she's affilliated with the sect that gave us Jesus Camp. Have you seen what they do at that place? Brainwashing, pure and simple.

I'm not sure if affiliation with a sect with some people starting a camp that was cultish is enough of a reason, though. No one connected John Kerry and Opus Dei, and Obama supporters have rightfully criticized those who connect Barack Obama with the radical liberation theology of his preacher or the Weathermen.

I don't agree that she's a theocrat
Why?
and I don't find the wild hyperbole particularly helpful. It would help if we kept things rational, don't you think?
If you have some evidence that she is non-theocratic in her outlook, you could present it, rather than acting as if this very real and disturbing concern is something beyond the pale.

I'm not sure if affiliation with a sect with some people starting a camp that was cultish is enough of a reason, though. No one connected John Kerry and Opus Dei, and Obama supporters have rightfully criticized those who connect Barack Obama with the radical liberation theology of his preacher or the Weathermen.

Which is why Obama wont nail her on this. Because no one wants to give the Republicans an excuse to bring up Reverand Wright again.

Having forfitted the experience card by choosing Palin, the Republicans have little to go on except fear of the angry black man and other thinly veiled racism.

She has taught Creationism in Alaska schools, and if this thread is to be beleived, she's affilliated with the sect that gave us Jesus Camp. Have you seen what they do at that place? Brainwashing, pure and simple.

If Palin becomes President, I may renounce my American citizenship. The Constitution will be worth an old dishrag to that woman, I fear.

She taught creationism? Link, please.

Why?

If you have some evidence that she is non-theocratic in her outlook, you could present it, rather than acting as if this very real and disturbing concern is something beyond the pale.

You're not familiar with rules of evidence, eh? I don't have to prove she's not. It's not been shown that she is. If making laws about abortion makes her a theocrat then much of the US is a theocrat.

Prove Obama's not a radical liberation theologist.

If Palin becomes President, I may renounce my American citizenship.
You won't. You'll just impotently complain on NSG about it for a while and get over it.

You won't. You'll just impotently complain on NSG about it for a while and get over it.

Proof of that claim please?

Proof of that claim please?
We'll see in about 4 months when McCain takes office *nods*

She taught creationism? Link, please.

Gladly. http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

We'll see in about 4 months when McCain takes office *nods*

You'll eat those words when Obama's sworn in. Besides, I only said I might if Palin becomes President. As long as Johnney boy stays healthy, no problem.

Gladly. http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

That says she taught creationism in schools? Where? Please quote the specific place where it says she taught creationism.

I think what you mean to say is that she suggested that it should discussion of it should be allowed.

Damn, she's a total theocrat. I mean, golly. I mean, it would be if theocrat meant something else. Too bad, you've not even remotely demonstrated she's a theocrat. Good luck with that, though.

You'll eat those words when Obama's sworn in.
Whilst I'd love Obama to win, he won't. He'll lose by a couple of states. What the hell can Obama campaign on any more, with a straight face?

"I loves the change, si se peude etc."
"Uhu... your running mate has been in political office for two thirds of your life"
"Pull the troops out of Iraq and such"
"They'll be coming out in a few years whoever's in power"
"Universal healthcare!"
"Is an issue that 18-30 year olds care about, a group who doesn't vote in anything like the same numbers as old people"
"Green issues!"
"See above"

That says she taught creationism in schools? Where? Please quote the specific place where it says she taught creationism.

I think what you mean to say is that she suggested that it should discussion of it should be allowed.

Damn, she's a total theocrat. I mean, golly. I mean, it would be if theocrat meant something else. Too bad, you've not even remotely demonstrated she's a theocrat. Good luck with that, though.

Are you blind, stupid, or a lier? She said in a debate that creationism should be taught in schools. While technically it does not prove that she succeded in getting it done, it shows where her goals and sympathies lie, and it provides considerable support to my initial assertion that she has theocratic tendencies. Your nitpicking an imprecise choice of words to avoid refuting my actual point.

That says she taught creationism in schools? Where? Please quote the specific place where it says she taught creationism.

I think what you mean to say is that she suggested that it should discussion of it should be allowed.

Damn, she's a total theocrat. I mean, golly. I mean, it would be if theocrat meant something else. Too bad, you've not even remotely demonstrated she's a theocrat. Good luck with that, though.

You are totally correct that Palin has not personally taught creationism in schools nor has she enacted policies that would allow the teaching of creationism in schools. She has, however, loudly advocated the teaching of creationism in schools.

I'm not sure what your definition of theocrat is, but I'd say that support for the teaching of religion as science is a step in the theocratic direction.

Add to this these remarks:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "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."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."



link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VH49G0)

Seems a tad theocratic, doesn't it?

Whilst I'd love Obama to win, he won't. He'll lose by a couple of states. What the hell can Obama campaign on any more, with a straight face?

"I loves the change, si se peude etc."
"Uhu... your running mate has been in political office for two thirds of your life"
"Pull the troops out of Iraq and such"
"They'll be coming out in a few years whoever's in power"
"Universal healthcare!"
"Is an issue that 18-30 year olds care about, a group who doesn't vote in anything like the same numbers as old people"
"Green issues!"
"See above"

Amusing. So he can't work with a seasoned VP who can get things done in the senate because that's too sensible. Should he also pick people for his cabinet who don't have experience. The President is a leader, but he needs to surround himself with supremely competent people. I would think that we'd learned that from Bush. Clearly, McCain didn't, but Obama did, obviously.

On the second point, so what is the narrative, now? "Vote for McCain, Iraq won't let him get away with his plans anyway"?

As far as 18-30 year olds, almost as many new people registered to vote in MS as voted for Bush in 2004. He won by like 3 to 1.

It's okay to be cynical, but please follow the evidence. Ignoring it doesn't help your case.

You are totally correct that Palin has not personally taught creationism in schools nor has she enacted policies that would allow the teaching of creationism in schools. She has, however, loudly advocated the teaching of creationism in schools.

I'm not sure what your definition of theocrat is, but I'd say that support for the teaching of religion as science is a step in the theocratic direction.

Add to this these remarks:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "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."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."



link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VH49G0)

Seems a tad theocratic, doesn't it?


I heard the speech. Hell, that would make most of the people who have ever run for President or Vice President theocrats. Most of them pander to religion, unfortunately.

She clearly lets religion (or pretends to) direct her decisions, but that isn't the same as a theocrat. Even if everything she did was centered around her view of God, it wouldn't be a theocracy, nor her a theocrat.

I would agree the view on creationism is a move in the wrong direction, but I attribute that to ignorance, not an attempt to legislate religion.

Are you blind, stupid, or a lier? She said in a debate that creationism should be taught in schools. While technically it does not prove that she succeded in getting it done, it shows where her goals and sympathies lie, and it provides considerable support to my initial assertion that she has theocratic tendencies. Your nitpicking an imprecise choice of words to avoid refuting my actual point.

Or perhaps I just read better. You said she taught creationism. In fact, she's not taught creationism, nor has she actually passed any laws that have made that happen.

What you MEANT to say was that she advocates teaching of creationism in schools and she actually backpedaled on that according to all acounts. No part of your claim is true.

You didn't say she has theocratic tendencies. You said she was a theocrat which, like saying she taught creationism, is the hyperbole I protested. If you're struggling to actually communicate, take a little more time on your posts. Blaming me or calling me stupid, blind or a liar, simply demonstrates that your in over your head.

I pressed you to be clear so I could refute the point you intended, not your inability to communicate. Rather than simply correct yourself, you chose to flame me.

Amusing. So he can't work with a seasoned VP who can get things done in the senate because that's too sensible. Should he also pick people for his cabinet who don't have experience. The President is a leader, but he needs to surround himself with supremely competent people. I would think that we'd learned that from Bush. Clearly, McCain didn't, but Obama did, obviously.
He can't get away with that 'change' BS even remotely any more. Even when his campaign had just started, it was utter bullshit. What's he going to do, sack the entire Department of State and start again with his mates? No.
On the second point, so what is the narrative, now? "Vote for McCain, Iraq won't let him get away with his plans anyway"?
"Vote for McCain, he's a decent American, and look, he's taken a lassie as a VP! Come on female Democrat voters, just don't bother turning up to the polling booths!"

The Republicans don't really need to try, they just need to wait it out until Obama's campaign simply loses momentum, which is probably going to happen in the next month.
As far as 18-30 year olds, almost as many new people registered to vote in MS as voted for Bush in 2004. He won by like 3 to 1.
Uhu... and unless they ALL vote for Obama, McCain will still win the state. And they won't all be voting for Obama.
It's okay to be cynical, but please follow the evidence. Ignoring it doesn't help your case.
Uhu...

He can't get away with that 'change' BS even remotely any more. Even when his campaign had just started, it was utter bullshit. What's he going to do, sack the entire Department of State and start again with his mates? No.

Yeah, that was almost an argument. I'll wait till you actually present one to refute it.

"Vote for McCain, he's a decent American, and look, he's taken a lassie as a VP! Come on female Democrat voters, just don't bother turning up to the polling booths!"

The Republicans don't really need to try, they just need to wait it out until Obama's campaign simply loses momentum, which is probably going to happen in the next month.

Nope, still no argument. I wonder what you base your assumption that he wins by default. Nevermind, don't suddenly start making arguments now.

Uhu... and unless they ALL vote for Obama, McCain will still win the state. And they won't all be voting for Obama.

Uhu...
Uh, they all did vote for Obama. I take it you weren't paying attention. Unless they all registerered just for the hell of it, McCain has a problem. Worse, because they aren't "likely voters" since they didn't vote in the last two elections, they aren't being polled. McCain is currently losing WITHOUT considering new voters. That's just evidence though. Go with your gut. Evidence is for pussies.

I heard the speech. Hell, that would make most of the people who have ever run for President or Vice President theocrats. Most of them pander to religion, unfortunately.

She clearly lets religion (or pretends to) direct her decisions, but that isn't the same as a theocrat. Even if everything she did was centered around her view of God, it wouldn't be a theocracy, nor her a theocrat.

I'm not sure what special definition of theocracy and theocrat you are using.

Theocrat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocrat):

1 : one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government
2 : one who favors a theocratic form of government

Theocracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy):

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

I would agree the view on creationism is a move in the wrong direction, but I attribute that to ignorance, not an attempt to legislate religion.

Um. Yes, advocating the teaching of creationism IS AN ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATE RELIGION. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=578), 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

You might also want to check out this legal history (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm) of the creationism movement.

I'm not sure what special definition of theocracy and theocrat you are using.

Theocrat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocrat):

1 : one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government
2 : one who favors a theocratic form of government

Theocracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy):

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

If she were the total of the government, I'd agree. Like I said, so loosely defined, the US has been a theocracy for centuries.



Um. Yes, advocating the teaching of creationism IS AN ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATE RELIGION. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=578), 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

You might also want to check out this legal history (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm) of the creationism movement.[/QUOTE]

They believe it's actually how we came to be here. She believes it's an equivalent theory. You and I both would agree that she's wrong, but as she thinks it IS science, she's simply ignorant.

If I thought babies actually come from a cabbage patch would I be legislating religion to think it should be taught in health class or am I just a dumbass?

(Seriously, you didn't actually just point me to investigating Creationism, did you? Did we just meet? Obviously, I don't think it would be legal to teach it, but this woman doesn't even know what the VP does.)

Just one question.

To all these people defending this pastor and Palin's religious beliefs, do you think it's alright that she sees this war as a spiritual war and supports killing people in the name of her god?

To me, there's no place for that in politics. That's acting on your own will with no regard to other human beings.

Yeah, that was almost an argument. I'll wait till you actually present one to refute it.
Uhu...

Obama's appointment will change very little even if he gets into power. People like John Bolton are still the mainstay of the State Department and unless Obama is going to sack them all and start over, the significant thing that most of the governments of Europe are pretty pissed at (the belligerence of the US) is not going to change, and that's without making new appointments to the army.
Nope, still no argument. I wonder what you base your assumption that he wins by default. Nevermind, don't suddenly start making arguments now.
OK. Old people do a lot of voting. They historically vote for the GOP. That's about all the Republicans need to get in, let's be honest.
Uh, they all did vote for Obama. I take it you weren't paying attention. Unless they all registerered just for the hell of it, McCain has a problem. Worse, because they aren't "likely voters" since they didn't vote in the last two elections, they aren't being polled.
McCain is currently losing WITHOUT considering new voters. That's just evidence though. Go with your gut. Evidence is for pussies.
In the overall standings, McCain and Obama are basically even. Some polls give a little more support for Obama, but that's it. His campaign used to be ahead by five to ten points. Now his lead has dwindled to nothing. This is Not A Good Thing for him. Unless he can really gather momentum again, his campaign is going to fall on its arse at the eleventh hour, just like Kerry's.

I would say that picking a VP (who could succede him at any time) with such strong theocratic tendencies shows McCain does not respect the Constitution. That, or her apointment was merely a political gimmic from a man who does'nt care what will happen to the nation if he is incapacitated.

Or perhaps I just read better. You said she taught creationism. In fact, she's not taught creationism, nor has she actually passed any laws that have made that happen.

What you MEANT to say was that she advocates teaching of creationism in schools and she actually backpedaled on that according to all acounts. No part of your claim is true.

You didn't say she has theocratic tendencies. You said she was a theocrat which, like saying she taught creationism, is the hyperbole I protested. If you're struggling to actually communicate, take a little more time on your posts. Blaming me or calling me stupid, blind or a liar, simply demonstrates that your in over your head.

I pressed you to be clear so I could refute the point you intended, not your inability to communicate. Rather than simply correct yourself, you chose to flame me.

:confused::confused::confused:

If she were the total of the government, I'd agree. Like I said, so loosely defined, the US has been a theocracy for centuries.

Again, what definition --- if not the dictionary definition -- of theocracy are you using??

I'd say everything about the woman's political views screams theocrat.



They believe it's actually how we came to be here. She believes it's an equivalent theory. You and I both would agree that she's wrong, but as she thinks it IS science, she's simply ignorant.

If I thought babies actually come from a cabbage patch would I be legislating religion to think it should be taught in health class or am I just a dumbass?

(Seriously, you didn't actually just point me to investigating Creationism, did you? Did we just meet? Obviously, I don't think it would be legal to teach it, but this woman doesn't even know what the VP does.)

I directed you to a legal history of the creationism movement because it has been proven time and time again in federal court (including in the U.S. Supreme Court) that the motive of the creationists is not a honest disagreement about the science concerning origins, but rather a desire to legislate religion.

It is a more than fair inference that Gov. Palin's views are similar to those of the rest of the creationist movement.

To assume that Gov. Palin simply doesn't know that teaching creationism IS THE TEACHING OF RELIGION and violates the separation of Church and State is to assume she is particularly and conveniently ignorant. Even if she were truly that ignorant, her views on the subject are fairly characterized as theocratic.

Again, what definition --- if not the dictionary definition -- of theocracy are you using??

I'd say everything about the woman's political views screams theocrat.

Wrong as usual, Cat. It was determined in the SCOTUS case Jamal-Warner v Huxtable that a theocrat is, a priori, not necessarily one who advocates religious rule. It can also be an anagram for "cathetor", a person who inserts tubes into pee-holes.


I directed you to a legal history of the creationism movement because it has been proven time and time again in federal court (including in the U.S. Supreme Court) that the motive of the creationists is not a honest disagreement about the science concerning origins, but rather a desire to legislate religion.

It is a more than fair inference that Gov. Palin's views are similar to those of the rest of the creationist movement.

And if they are, so what? The Constitution gaurantees free excercise of religion, which clearly means specifically and exclusively christianity. There's some other clause before that about Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion, but that's fine, because Congress didn't make the Law, Jesus did. The executive branch will still enforce, though.


To assume that Gov. Palin simply doesn't know that teaching creationism IS THE TEACHING OF RELIGION and violates the separation of Church and State is to assume she is particularly and conveniently ignorant. Even if she were truly that ignorant, her views on the subject are fairly characterized as theocratic.

For the last time, you Jew ass: CREATIONSIM IS NOT RELIGION.(*)

Its simply the premise that a supremely powerful entity created all existence, demands worship, has ostensibly dictated a series of rituals and sacrifices, and mandated a code of behaviour based on the principals of this belief. That is clearly not religion.




(*)Briefly serious, my Raelian friend says Creationism is not religious. It can refer to us being made by extra-terristrials, evidently.

:confused::confused::confused:

Dammit. I hate you and fucking reading.

Just what we need after the last eight years -- another candidate that thinks they're on a mission from God.:rolleyes:

Just what we need after the last eight years -- another candidate that thinks they're on a mission from God.:rolleyes:

If I wanted to vote for someone who's on a mission from God, I'd have written in the Blues Brothers.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh163/129micah/blues_brothers_most.jpg

If I wanted to vote for someone who's on a mission from God, I'd have written in the Blues Brothers.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh163/129micah/blues_brothers_most.jpg

They could get an old Flying Fortress bomber and use it for Air Force one.

One time, I met the guy who played "Whoosh #3" in a whore house in Pahrump.

If I wanted to vote for someone who's on a mission from God, I'd have written in the Blues Brothers.

Not such a bad idea, except Jake's dead, and Elwood was born in Canada.

In the overall standings, McCain and Obama are basically even.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx


The first on the list is the general election poll. As of...yesterday.


So, tell me. Is 6 points "basically even"?


And this is with the "Palin Effect" taken into account.

Not such a bad idea, except Jake's dead, and Elwood was born in Canada.
John Belushi would prob still look better than what McCain does.

What is a Christofascist? Is it like an Islamofascist, or does this term actually mean something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism

Note that the term predates Islamofascism.

LOL...."Christofascist" is succcchhh a stupid word. It's honestly pointless since being a super religious christian has ZERO to do with fascism...:p

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx


The first on the list is the general election poll. As of...yesterday.


So, tell me. Is 6 points "basically even"?


And this is with the "Palin Effect" taken into account.
It will more than likely even out as the GOP convention proceeds. The above poll does not take into account much of that Convention to date.

LOL...."Christofascist" is succcchhh a stupid word. It's honestly pointless since being a super religious christian has ZERO to do with fascism...:p

But it runs on the same principal as the term militant atheists.

LOL...."Christofascist" is succcchhh a stupid word. It's honestly pointless since being a super religious christian has ZERO to do with fascism...:p

Except for the whole "Burn the libera- I mean unbeliever!" rhetoric.

It will more than likely even out as the GOP convention proceeds. The above poll does not take into account much of that Convention to date.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Orly?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Orly?

While awesome, the article itself points out it only accounts for Monday's Convention. Things will likely have changed in the past three days, at least a little.

Still, awesome.

Or perhaps I just read better. You said she taught creationism. In fact, she's not taught creationism, nor has she actually passed any laws that have made that happen.

What you MEANT to say was that she advocates teaching of creationism in schools and she actually backpedaled on that according to all acounts. No part of your claim is true.

You didn't say she has theocratic tendencies. You said she was a theocrat which, like saying she taught creationism, is the hyperbole I protested. If you're struggling to actually communicate, take a little more time on your posts. Blaming me or calling me stupid, blind or a liar, simply demonstrates that your in over your head.

I pressed you to be clear so I could refute the point you intended, not your inability to communicate. Rather than simply correct yourself, you chose to flame me.

"She taught creationism in schools" is common shorthand speech for "she authorized teaching creationism in schools. Like saying "Stalin killed 60 million people" is shorthand for saying "Stalin ordered the killing of 60 million people". You are nitpicking to avoid an actual debate on the topic, and your insulting me because I didn't demonstrate that she personally went into a class room, sat down, and started teaching the kiddies. That's beyond idiotic.

I was not aware that she had changed her stance on advocating creationism. Perhaps I should have looked into the matter more thouroughly, though I will point out that while I have proven she supported creationism in schools, you have not shown anything to back your claim that she altered that possision. I am also aware that I may have been wrong in stating that she actually succeded in getting creationism taught, though that was what I had initially heard. So perhaps she's an incompitant theocrat, and perhaps I worded my posts poorly in that respect. You're still nitpicking to avoid refuting my actual point.

And by the way, I did very clearly say theocratic tendencies.

"She taught creationism in schools" is common shorthand speech for "she authorized teaching creationism in schools.

But she didn't. Advocating it isn't authorising it. There isn't any way to twist "She taught creationism in schools" to mean "She advocated the teaching of creationism in schools".

Again, what definition --- if not the dictionary definition -- of theocracy are you using??

I'd say everything about the woman's political views screams theocrat.

Do you hold that the US is a theocracy? Or do you believe that both connotation and denotation are relevant to a word?

I don't care which you choose, honestly, as long as you're consistent.



I directed you to a legal history of the creationism movement because it has been proven time and time again in federal court (including in the U.S. Supreme Court) that the motive of the creationists is not a honest disagreement about the science concerning origins, but rather a desire to legislate religion.

I think that's often true. That doesn't make it ALWAYS true. Palin has proven time and again that she has little understanding of our constitution and much of what she spouts. She's Dan Quayle. I don't hold he was intentionally confusing children with his misspelling, nor do I hold that Palin has intent.


It is a more than fair inference that Gov. Palin's views are similar to those of the rest of the creationist movement.

To assume that Gov. Palin simply doesn't know that teaching creationism IS THE TEACHING OF RELIGION and violates the separation of Church and State is to assume she is particularly and conveniently ignorant. Even if she were truly that ignorant, her views on the subject are fairly characterized as theocratic.

I think you've done an awesome job of proving she's religious. She definitely has similar views to other evangelicals. It's shocking really. It's almost like there is a belief structure there or something.

"She taught creationism in schools" is common shorthand speech for "she authorized teaching creationism in schools. Like saying "Stalin killed 60 million people" is shorthand for saying "Stalin ordered the killing of 60 million people". You are nitpicking to avoid an actual debate on the topic, and your insulting me because I didn't demonstrate that she personally went into a class room, sat down, and started teaching the kiddies. That's beyond idiotic.

As I pointed out she didn't authorize it. So you're still wrong. She never ordered anything. And upon clarification said she wasn't even talking about it being taught, but simply that it was okay to discuss it.

It's not just that she didn't. No one did. It isn't legal in Alaska. Not only are you exaggerating but you also don't know what you're talking about.

But, hey, maybe I'm "idiotic".

I was not aware that she had changed her stance on advocating creationism. Perhaps I should have looked into the matter more thouroughly, though I will point out that while I have proven she supported creationism in schools, you have not shown anything to back your claim that she altered that possision. I am also aware that I may have been wrong in stating that she actually succeded in getting creationism taught, though that was what I had initially heard. So perhaps she's an incompitant theocrat, and perhaps I worded my posts poorly in that respect. You're still nitpicking to avoid refuting my actual point.

And by the way, I did very clearly say theocratic tendencies.

You haven't proven that she authorized teaching creationism which is what you're now claiming you meant. Do you want to shift your goalposts again, maybe?

Meanwhile, you should read your own links.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Any other parts of your "proof" I need to point out to you, or would you like to call me a liar, blind and an idiot again?

"She taught creationism in schools" is common shorthand speech for "she authorized teaching creationism in schools. Like saying "Stalin killed 60 million people" is shorthand for saying "Stalin ordered the killing of 60 million people". You are nitpicking to avoid an actual debate on the topic, and your insulting me because I didn't demonstrate that she personally went into a class room, sat down, and started teaching the kiddies. That's beyond idiotic.

*snip*

Common? No. I've never heard that. Usually, the verb "teach" is a first-person kind of verb that implies nothing but some kind of direct instruction.

I would be happy with a President who recognizes that the Constutition is not toilet paper.

Obviously, that disqualifies Bush and Palin. I'll say both Obama and McCain fit this build. I think they both greatly respect the US Constitution.

8 years ago, I would have agreed. These days, I'm not so sure about McCain.

I don't agree that she's a theocrat and I don't find the wild hyperbole particularly helpful. It would help if we kept things rational, don't you think?
I think Palin is an out-and-out theocrat. I think she belongs solidly to religious and political groups that specifically seek to legislate a certain brand of fundamentalist Christian religion into being the definitive and controlling source of all US law, legal decisions, and domestic and foreign policy. In other words, I think Palin is a person who would like to establish a US theocracy. According to the dictionary, that makes her a "theocrat."

I base my opinion about her on observation of her public statements and her biographical information.

After reading the entire exchange between you, Romulan Republic and Cat-Tribes, it seems to me that YOUR opinion that Palin is not a theocrat and that any suggestion otherwise is "irrational" is based on absolutely nothing but your personal preference that she not be described that way. And on the basis of your personal preference, you attempt (sadly) to dismiss CT's factual evidence at the same time as rather snippily hounding RR for his careless choice of words.

I'm sorry, J, but your argument is coming off only as a petty and sullen insistence on getting your own way about a single word. You show no Palin-being-non-theocratic evidence to offset the Palin-being-theocratic evidence. You make no attempt to dispute or show counter-evidence as to the proper use of the terms "theocrat/theocratic/theocracy," but instead merely insist that the words not be used the way the dictionary says they can be used. You do not back up your assertions in any way at all, either about the "theocrat" terminology or about Palin herself.

When I compare what Palin herself has said and done to what you have said here, and then compare what Palin herself has said and done to what CT has said here, CT's argument makes a world more sense than yours does.

Are you going to call me "irrational" for that?

I think Palin is an out-and-out theocrat. I think she belongs solidly to religious and political groups that specifically seek to legislate a certain brand of fundamentalist Christian religion into being the definitive and controlling source of all US law, legal decisions, and domestic and foreign policy. In other words, I think Palin is a person who would like to establish a US theocracy. According to the dictionary, that makes her a "theocrat."

I base my opinion about her on observation of her public statements and her biographical information.

After reading the entire exchange between you, Romulan Republic and Cat-Tribes, it seems to me that YOUR opinion that Palin is not a theocrat and that any suggestion otherwise is "irrational" is based on absolutely nothing but your personal preference that she not be described that way. And on the basis of your personal preference, you attempt (sadly) to dismiss CT's factual evidence at the same time as rather snippily hounding RR for his careless choice of words.

Okay, then admit that the US has always been a theocracy. There was an actual trial in the US over creationism and evolution. There are still laws defining marriage according to the Bible. They swear on the Bible in courts and legislatures. They pray openly in Congress and have laws about liquor being sold on Sunday.

I don't mind hyperbole, but be consistent.


I'm sorry, J, but your argument is coming off only as a petty and sullen insistence on getting your own way about a single word. You show no Palin-being-non-theocratic evidence to offset the Palin-being-theocratic evidence. You make no attempt to dispute or show counter-evidence as to the proper use of the terms "theocrat/theocratic/theocracy," but instead merely insist that the words not be used the way the dictionary says they can be used. You do not back up your assertions in any way at all, either about the "theocrat" terminology or about Palin herself.

When I compare what Palin herself has said and done to what you have said here, and then compare what Palin herself has said and done to what CT has said here, CT's argument makes a world more sense than yours does.

Are you going to call me "irrational" for that?

Nope. I don't mind so long as you're consistent. Welcome to the US theocracy. We're centuries old.

Okay, then admit that the US has always been a theocracy. There was an actual trial in the US over creationism and evolution. There are still laws defining marriage according to the Bible. They swear on the Bible in courts and legislatures. They pray openly in Congress and have laws about liquor being sold on Sunday.

I don't mind hyperbole, but be consistent.




Nope. I don't mind if you're consistent. Welcome to the US theocracy. We're centuries old.
You're the one engaging in hyperbole. CT has made it abundantly clear that a "theocrat" does not have to exist within a pre-existing "theocracy." A "theocrat" can be one who advocates "theocracy."

Do I think the American people have tolerated WAAAAY too much violation of the separation of church and state in our government(s) (both federal and state levels)? Yes, I do. Do I think that amounts to the US already being an actual theocracy? No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet.

And that said, what exactly does it have to do with the question of whether Palin is a theocrat or not? She advocates theocratic policies. She expresses theocratic viewpoints. She routinely invokes a specific religion as a guiding and controlling principle of governmental policy, both in her actions as Alaska's governor and in her public comments about federal government action. Regardless of whether the US is or is not now a theocracy, your argument that Palin herself is not a theocrat is nonsensical on its face. In addition, it is completely unrelated to your melodramatic remarks about the US in general, which you seem to think somehow supports your assertion that it is "irrational" to say that Palin is a theocrat.

If you are attempting to argue that there can be no theocrats if there is no theocracy, you have already been proven wrong. If you're going to insist on it, then I would ask you if you're just using this nonsense to try to get your way on this one point, or if you really hold it as a general principle that no one can hold a political philosophy unless they live under the system of that philosophy? And if so, do you think there were no communists in Russia before 1917, since it wasn't a communist state then? And if you do think that, then where did all the commies come from to overthrow the czar?

Bottom line is this: The US is not a theocracy. Palin is a theocrat. And you are blowing smoke.

You're the one engaging in hyperbole. CT has made it abundantly clear that a "theocrat" does not have to exist within a pre-existing "theocracy." A "theocrat" can be one who advocates "theocracy."

Do I think the American people have tolerated WAAAAY too much violation of the separation of church and state in our government(s) (both federal and state levels)? Yes, I do. Do I think that amounts to the US already being an actual theocracy? No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet.

And that said, what exactly does it have to do with the question of whether Palin is a theocrat or not? She advocates theocratic policies. She expresses theocratic viewpoints. She routinely invokes a specific religion as a guiding and controlling principle of governmental policy, both in her actions as Alaska's governor and in her public comments about federal government action. Regardless of whether the US is or is not now a theocracy, your argument that Palin herself is not a theocrat is nonsensical on its face. In addition, it is completely unrelated to your melodramatic remarks about the US in general, which you seem to think somehow supports your assertion that it is "irrational" to say that Palin is a theocrat.

If you are attempting to argue that there can be no theocrats if there is no theocracy, you have already been proven wrong. If you're going to insist on it, then I would ask you if you're just using this nonsense to try to get your way on this one point, or if you really hold it as a general principle that no one can hold a political philosophy unless they live under the system of that philosophy? And if so, do you think there were no communists in Russia before 1917, since it wasn't a communist state then? And if you do think that, then where did all the commies come from to overthrow the czar?

Bottom line is this: The US is not a theocracy. Palin is a theocrat. And you are blowing smoke.

And that's the name of that tune.

LOL...."Christofascist" is succcchhh a stupid word. It's honestly pointless since being a super religious christian has ZERO to do with fascism...:p

Positives Christentum (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html) anybody? Also note the Catholic fascists Ustaše in Craoatia and Falangistas in Spain.
Also note that the current "Christian" right in the US is ubernationalistic, militaristic, anti inbtellectual, imperialistic, authoritarian, anti-abortion and birth control, anti-gay, social engineering, etc., which are all in common with the original Italian Fascists.

The term fit when it was coined by theologian Dorothee Sölle, and it still fits today.

You're the one engaging in hyperbole. CT has made it abundantly clear that a "theocrat" does not have to exist within a pre-existing "theocracy." A "theocrat" can be one who advocates "theocracy."

Reread what I posted. Start there. I have never argued that there can be no theocrats without a theocracy. I said that if one accuses her of being a theocrat, then one must recognize that by the same definition we are a theocracy.

I didn't state that as a requirement. I said that according to the definition you and others wish to use the US is a theocracy. I gave examples. If you don't like it, I can't help you.

However, the US has long had Christian-reinforcing laws. The US has long has Christian behaviors endorsed officially, including in the pledge and on the money. The US has long had leaders that openly suggest they are guided in divine ways since the very founding.

Now, personally, I hold that this is not a theocracy, nor she a theocrat. But if you're are going to use such a denotative definition, then there is no denying that the US is a theocracy.

"No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet."

She's not asking that religion be put officially in charge of the government. As such, you are holding her and the government to different standards.

LOL...."Christofascist" is succcchhh a stupid word. It's honestly pointless since being a super religious christian has ZERO to do with fascism...:p

Yeah, you're totally right on th
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/613/benitomussolini41ef0.jpg

Welp.

Reread what I posted. Start there. I have never argued that there can be no theocrats without a theocracy. I said that if one accuses her of being a theocrat, then one must recognize that by the same definition we are a theocracy.
And you have had it explained to you twice by CT and once by me why that is a nonsensical assertion. Just repeating it over and over is not going to get you anywhere. Three strikes = you're out.

I didn't state that as a requirement. I said that according to the definition you and others wish to use the US is a theocracy. I gave examples. If you don't like it, I can't help you.
And you have had it explained to you twice by CT and once by me why that is a nonsensical assertion. Just repeating it over and over is not going to get you anywhere. Three strikes = you're out.

However, the US has long had Christian-reinforcing laws. The US has long has Christian behaviors endorsed officially, including in the pledge and on the money. The US has long had leaders that openly suggest they are guided in divine ways since the very founding.
> Irrelevant.

> Proves nothing in regard to your present assertions.

> Cherrypicks (by reference) some remarks by historical figures without concern for context. Look at the actual history and you see numerous statements, and actual laws, too, made by those same historical figures that make obviously and specifically clear their intention that the US have a secular government. Ignoring that won't help you get your way.

> Once again attempts to twist terms. A "theocracy" is a government controlled by a religion. It is not a government in which religious people participate. Playing Humpty-Dumpty with words won't get you your way, either.

> Contradicts your own stated opinion in past thread contexts, in which you have called people to task for cherrypicking and playing fast and loose with terminology just as you are doing here.

So, all this suggests is that you are being intellectually dishonest with this entire argument.

Now, personally, I hold that this is not a theocracy, nor she a theocrat. But if you're are going to use such a denotative definition, then there is no denying that the US is a theocracy. And you have had it explained to you twice by CT and once by me why that is a nonsensical assertion. Just repeating it over and over is not going to get you anywhere. Three strikes = you're out.

"No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet."

She's not asking that religion be put officially in charge of the government. As such, you are holding her and the government to different standards.
And finally, you attempt to move the goalposts. Did I say she was "asking" for that? No, I said she advocates policies that are theocratic. Address the argument as made or admit that you cannot.

They believe it's actually how we came to be here. She believes it's an equivalent theory. You and I both would agree that she's wrong, but as she thinks it IS science, she's simply ignorant.

If I thought babies actually come from a cabbage patch would I be legislating religion to think it should be taught in health class or am I just a dumbass?

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between thinking Creationism is true and thinking it's scientific: as I'm sure you know, the whole 'Creation Science' movement only came into being to evade a SCOTUS decision and before that most Creationists were proud to say that their beliefs were religious rather than scientific. Today, even 'Creation Scientists' openly declare that Creationists should believe in Six Day Creation because of the Bible and not the work of 'fallible men', in which they include themselves; Kurt Wise famously said that he'd remain a Creationist even if all the evidence was against it.

I don't know whether Palin is a Creationist because of what she sees as scientific evidence or because of religious authority, but I'd be inclined to bet it's the latter.

And you have had it explained to you twice by CT and once by me why that is a nonsensical assertion. Just repeating it over and over is not going to get you anywhere. Three strikes = you're out.

Repeated over and over? You addressed a strawman and now you're telling me I'm out. You're better than this.

I repeat - it's the definition you're using that I'm addressing. It has nothing to do with her being a theocrat only being possible if the US is a theocracy. Is that clear enough?

> Irrelevant.

> Proves nothing in regard to your present assertions.

> Cherrypicks (by reference) some remarks by historical figures without concern for context. Look at the actual history and you see numerous statements, and actual laws, too, made by those same historical figures that make obviously and specifically clear their intention that the US have a secular government. Ignoring that won't help you get your way.

Hmmm.. I must have missed that part of the definition. Once again you hold everyone else to different standards than Palin. Be consistent.

> Once again attempts to twist terms. A "theocracy" is a government controlled by a religion. It is not a government in which religious people participate. Playing Humpty-Dumpty with words won't get you your way, either.

Not according to TCT's definition. Reading, it is your friend.

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

It was that definition that he argued she was a theocrat under, based on her claim of divine guidance. I wonder... can I find any claims of divine guidance in US history? Hmmm...


> Contradicts your own stated opinion in past thread contexts, in which you have called people to task for cherrypicking and playing fast and loose with terminology just as you are doing here.

So, all this suggests is that you are being intellectually dishonest with this entire argument.

Which is why I argued that the term shouldn't be used at all. However, since you both have chosent to "play fast and loose with terminology", I'm simply asking that you be consistent. You've several times whipped the definition of the term around to different standards for different applications.


And finally, you attempt to move the goalposts. Did I say she was "asking" for that? No, I said she advocates policies that are theocratic. Address the argument as made or admit that you cannot.

Again, please read what I wrote. I specifically pointed out that you aren't holding her to the same requirements as you are the government. For you it has to be an official religion, but you hold her to a different standard.

You do realize, that sometimes to address your argument, I have to also make an argument. Now, if you think it requires official state religion to be a theocracy, then Palin hasn't endorsed that and isn't a theocrat. If you use TCT's definition, she is, but so is the US a theocracy. Can you address what I said now, and not some strawman?

Christo-Fascism is just a stupid word used by the left to paint the religious (of whom I'm not a part of) as evil, while, and I will concede this, Islamo-Fascist is just a stupid word used by the Right to paint militant Muslims as more evil, because in the West, fascist is used as a word for evil.

Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that is concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.[1][2][3][4][5]

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, populism, collectivism, statism, social interventionism, and economic planning. In addition, many scholars see fascism as opposing liberalism, conservatism and communism.

Fascism is a economic/political idea. Nowhere in that definition does it list religion. I'm not even really religious, it just annoys me....

Italian fascism may have been catholic, but German fascism was actually seeking to eventually replace religion with the state created religion/cult around Hitler and the SS....as many leading Nazis considered Christianity "Jewish" and a plauge brought upon Germanic people that weakend them....

It's just different countries' adaptions of fascism....

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between thinking Creationism is true and thinking it's scientific: as I'm sure you know, the whole 'Creation Science' movement only came into being to evade a SCOTUS decision and before that most Creationists were proud to say that their beliefs were religious rather than scientific. Today, even 'Creation Scientists' openly declare that Creationists should believe in Six Day Creation because of the Bible and not the work of 'fallible men', in which they include themselves; Kurt Wise famously said that he'd remain a Creationist even if all the evidence was against it.

I don't know whether Palin is a Creationist because of what she sees as scientific evidence or because of religious authority, but I'd be inclined to bet it's the latter.

Personally, I think you give her too much credit. I think she's far to ignorant of federal ANYTHING to be making her arguments based on federal decisions. This is the same woman who doesn't know what the VP does.

I agree that some of the more savvy have twisted terms. Their goal in doing so is to fool people. I think Palin was fooled. I don't see any evidence that's she aware of the twisting or that she's aware of these decisions. In fact, much of what she has to say sounds like it came from the pamphlets meant to fool people.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the US actually is a theocracy. I'm arguing that if one were to so loosely use the term to call Palin a theocrat, that same term makes us a theocracy.

"In God We Trust"

Theocrat:

1 : one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government
2 : one who favors a theocratic form of government

We're obviously referencing meaning #2. In other words, if a theocracy requires an official religion, then she can only be one if she advocates an official religion. You've already admitted that you're aren't claiming she is.

A "theocracy" is a government controlled by a religion. It is not a government in which religious people participate.

Do I think that amounts to the US already being an actual theocracy? No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet.

So in order for her to favor a theocracy, by your own admission, she must favor a religion officially in charge of government.

She's not asking that religion be put officially in charge of the government. As such, you are holding her and the government to different standards.

And finally, you attempt to move the goalposts. Did I say she was "asking" for that? No, I said she advocates policies that are theocratic. Address the argument as made or admit that you cannot.

We agree she is not trying to establish a theocracy based on how you define it. So unless, you don't agree with TCT's definition, like you claim you did, this is settled. Now, if you have another definition, present it. I actually started the conversation using your definition of theocracy, and thus she is no theocrat and we are not a theocracy. However, you have to choose a definition and go with it. This switching back and forth is silly.

German fascism was actually seeking to eventually replace religion with the state created religion/cult around Hitler and the SS....as many leading Nazis considered Christianity "Jewish" and a plauge brought upon Germanic people that weakend them....

Phail

An oft-repeated canard suggests the German National Socialists were hostile to Christianity. Entire books, such as John S. Conway's The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1946,1 have been written to explicate this myth. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Adolf Hitler and many of his supporters were friendly to the Christian churches and their cause.

The National Socialist Party program, officially published in February 1920, included a section on Christianity. Point 24 of the 25-point program stated:

We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the customs and morality of the German Volk. The Party as such stands for Positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular denomination. It fights the spirit of Jewish materialism within and outside of our ranks and is convinced our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: "Common welfare comes before individual welfare."2

The statement was carefully crafted, reflecting the general National Socialist principle of non-interference in church matters. While refusing to endorse any particular Christian denomination or doctrinal perspective, it clearly endorsed "Positive Christianity" and religious freedom. Churches in a National Socialist-dominated German state would be free to fulfill their missions, as long as they did not threaten civil order or national security, or advance beliefs and causes that violated historic German ethics and morals.

Certainly not all National Socialists shared this view. Within the party were two powerful forces. One, represented by men like Alfred Rosenberg (who later became Reichsminister for the Occupied Eastern Regions), wanted to see Germany become an atheistic state. The other, represented by men like Hanns Kerrl (who later became Reichsminister for Church Affairs), endorsed Christianity. But it was Kerrl, not Rosenberg, who was in the majority. In recognition of the party's partnership with churches in its effort to remake Germany, storm troopers were required to attend worship services in their uniforms.

Although Hitler made no profession of faith, he refused to identify himself with the anti-Christian views of some of his associates, such as Rosenberg. In addition, he frequently made mention of "the Almighty" and 'Providence" in his speeches, as well as attacking two of Christianity's opposites: Marxism and atheism.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/NSChristianity.html

Phail


No it's not a fail, anyone who's studied Nazi history would know what he was saying was completely correct. Not only this, but the Church became one of the major opposition forces to the third Reich among the citizens. It's true that some of the Nazis including Hitler favoured Christianity as a method of promoting social unity, and thus promoted that religion. The 'Deutsche Christens' (the Christians the article were referring too), were in fact barely Christian at all, going as far as to support the removal of the old testament from the Bible, and focusing much of their worship on Hitler himself in a cultish manner.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the US actually is a theocracy. I'm arguing that if one were to so loosely use the term to call Palin a theocrat, that same term makes us a theocracy....blahblahblah... However, you have to choose a definition and go with it. This switching back and forth is silly.

How do you define theocrat, Jocabia?

That's really what you're arguing about. The definition of the word.

How about you just agree to some definition, and then show why you think Palin fits the bill, or does not.

That way we could read a debate about Palin instead of a debate about different definitions of the word 'theocrat'.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the US actually is a theocracy. I'm arguing that if one were to so loosely use the term to call Palin a theocrat, that same term makes us a theocracy.

Just out of curiosity, since you seem to have conceded that Palin has theocratic tendencies, would you agree that the US government does as well?

No it's not a fail, anyone who's studied Nazi history would know what he was saying was completely correct. Not only this, but the Church became one of the major opposition forces to the third Reich among the citizens.

Which church? I'd also point out that just because a movement is opposed by a Christian group doesn't make the movement anti-Christian: the Labour movement in Britain was opposed by the conservatives of the day, but both parties were largely Christian (non-conformist and Anglican respectively).

It's true that some of the Nazis including Hitler favoured Christianity as a method of promoting social unity, and thus promoted that religion.

Do you have any evidence that Hitler's frequent references to Christianity were purely pragmatic and didn't reflect any genuine belief? He famously condemned secular education and all the writings and speeches we have of his indicate a form of Christian belief. You could argue that his interpretation of Christianity was a perversion of the original intent, but I don't think you could credibly claim that Hitler wasn't a believer.

The 'Deutsche Christens' (the Christians the article were referring too), were in fact barely Christian at all, going as far as to support the removal of the old testament from the Bible, and focusing much of their worship on Hitler himself in a cultish manner.

Meh, plenty of Christians in history have altered the composition of the Bible: the Catholics include some books which the Protestants reject, and Luther removed many books which are today considered to be integral to the Bible such as Revelations. I don't think this is sufficient to classify them as 'barely Christian'. The focus on Hitler only applies if you're also willing to claim that all the Christians in history who believed in the 'divine right of kings' are also barely Christian (a belief which has a certain amount of Biblical support). Besides, before you accuse somebody of being 'barely Christian' you have the unenviable task of defining and defending a definition of what 'true Christianity' is. :p

I'm not saying this to suggest that Christianity is to blame for Naziism, only that it's misguided to try and to deny that Christian beliefs were held by many (most?) Nazis, including Hitler.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Orly?

And once again CH is wrong.


Oh, 50%? NICE!

Which church? I'd also point out that just because a movement is opposed by a Christian group doesn't make the movement anti-Christian: the Labour movement in Britain was opposed by the conservatives of the day, but both parties were largely Christian (non-conformist and Anglican respectively).


Pretty much every Church except the 'German Christians'. Yes the catholic Church were strongly opposed, the Concordat was signed as a pragmatic and diplomatic measure, and was signed PRIOR to when the true horrors of the Nazis were revealed.


Do you have any evidence that Hitler's frequent references to Christianity were purely pragmatic and didn't reflect any genuine belief?

Not from internet sources, though I'm sure there are plenty. Only from books for me.


He famously condemned secular education and all the writings and speeches we have of his indicate a form of Christian belief. You could argue that his interpretation of Christianity was a perversion of the original intent, but I don't think you could credibly claim that Hitler wasn't a believer.


It's important to note that pretty much anything Hitler says to the public is a load of nonsense, or at least very unreliable. He explicitly told his fellow Nazis, especially Goering, to simply lie to the 'ignorant masses' for propaganda purposes, he didn't have much care for democratic and honest means to power. It was essential that he assert himself as a Christian with Christian values for support.


Meh, plenty of Christians in history have altered the composition of the Bible: the Catholics include some books which the Protestants reject, and Luther removed many books which are today considered to be integral to the Bible such as Revelations.

True.


I don't think this is sufficient to classify them as 'barely Christian'. The focus on Hitler only applies if you're also willing to claim that all the Christians in history who believed in the 'divine right of kings' are also barely Christian (a belief which has a certain amount of Biblical support). Besides, before you accuse somebody of being 'barely Christian' you have the unenviable task of defining and defending a definition of what 'true Christianity' is. :p


Well put it this way, their strong pagan influences made them very different to most other Christian sects. Also there is strong evidence to believe that the pastors were merely terrorised into conforming to this set doctrine.


I'm not saying this to suggest that Christianity is to blame for Naziism, only that it's misguided to try and to deny that Christian beliefs were held by many (most?) Nazis, including Hitler.

Well it's very complicated, some of the leading Nazis were strongly opposed to Christianity, many weren't. Conservative values, which were held by many Christians in Germany, were very important to Nazis, so Christianity was a crucial link, but I don't think the Nazis based any of their beliefs specifically on Christianity.

The 'Deutsche Christens' (the Christians the article were referring too), were in fact barely Christian at all, going as far as to support the removal of the old testament from the Bible, and focusing much of their worship on Hitler himself in a cultish manner.

Bad Christians are still Christians.

Bad Christians are still Christians.

But they are so radically different from normal Christians (and I believe many of the Church leaders were terrorised into following the bizarre doctrine) that I think it's unfair to lump them together with normal Christians.

The argument over whether the National Socialists Christrians were really Christians or a twisted version is side issue.

Nobody's yet said anything that shows what I said above is incorrect.

the current "Christian" right in the US is ubernationalistic, militaristic, anti inbtellectual, imperialistic, authoritarian, anti-abortion and birth control, anti-gay, social engineering, etc., which are all in common with the original Italian Fascists.

The term fit when it was coined by theologian Dorothee Sölle, and it still fits today.

The quote in my sig still holds AFAIAC....

Furthermore, these are the exact people who John McCain called, in 2000, "the agents of intolerance", also calling them a "corrupting influences on religion and politics" who "shame our faith, our party and our country".
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html

The quote in my sig still holds AFAIAC....


I agree with that.

Furthermore, these are the exact people who John McCain called, in 2000, "the agents of intolerance", also calling them a "corrupting influences on religion and politics" who "shame our faith, our party and our country".
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html

But.....but...McCain has always been a maverick! He'd never change positions on something to get votes. He'd never follow the party line to gain power. NEVAH!

But they are so radically different from normal Christians (and I believe many of the Church leaders were terrorised into following the bizarre doctrine) that I think it's unfair to lump them together with normal Christians.
Really? I see a continuum of Christians, from those who actually resemble Jesus to some extent to those who, if they actually met Jesus, would howl for his death and fight to be the ones who got to pound in the nails; and everything in between. It is impossible for me to draw a line, and I don't try.

I agree with that.

:) It's exactly the sort of proto-fascism Palin and her Christofascists fellow travellers represent that the siggy warns against.

But.....but...McCain has always been a maverick! He'd never change positions on something to get votes. He'd never follow the party line to gain power. NEVAH!

Pull this finger - it has a bell on it. No, really.

Pre-Palin, if the choice had been McCain or Hillary, I'd have been hard pressed, but would have leaned to McCain. With Palin, if it were McCain vs Clinton, I'd extend my stay here in the land of Wa another 4 to 8 years....

I have been planning to return to the states in 2009, in part to be closer to my aging parents and my growing nephew. The spectre of President Palin (I fully expect age + cancer + stress would kill McCain in office) will have me very seriously looking at Canada.

Canada wants young immigrants, not old ones. If you want to get serious about moving there, you need to put a lot of money in the bank.

Pretty much every Church except the 'German Christians'.

This is somewhat misleading since you're treating churches as monolithic entities when they frequently include disagreeing factions. I'm not expert on the subject, but perusing Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany) article on Religion and the Third Reich seems to suggest that there were significant pro-Nazi segments in all the main Protestant churches. It also suggests that Lutheran support for Hitler was strong and that the German Christians were a large group of over half a million, certainly not a niche sect.

Not that this has much relevance to the claim being discussed here mind you:

German fascism was actually seeking to eventually replace religion with the state created religion/cult around Hitler and the SS....as many leading Nazis considered Christianity "Jewish" and a plauge brought upon Germanic people that weakend them....

Even if every Christian apart from those in Hitler's inner circle were completely anti-Nazi that wouldn't mean the Nazi inner circle was non-Christian.

Yes the catholic Church were strongly opposed, the Concordat was signed as a pragmatic and diplomatic measure, and was signed PRIOR to when the true horrors of the Nazis were revealed.

The Pope may have been, but many priests and bishops supported the Nazis. Again, you're trying to treat each bloc as a homogenous mass (no pun intended).

Not from internet sources, though I'm sure there are plenty. Only from books for me.

And what are their primary sources?

It's important to note that pretty much anything Hitler says to the public is a load of nonsense, or at least very unreliable. He explicitly told his fellow Nazis, especially Goering, to simply lie to the 'ignorant masses' for propaganda purposes, he didn't have much care for democratic and honest means to power. It was essential that he assert himself as a Christian with Christian values for support.

But we also have him on record making Christian remarks in private. If you want to show that he wasn't a Christian you're going to have to do better than simply saying "Well, he might have been lying every time he said he was a Christian", you need some positive evidence.

Well put it this way, their strong pagan influences made them very different to most other Christian sects.

Most new sects are different to some degree, that's kind of the point. As to whether they're different enough to class them as a separate religion, I'm not convinced that their doctrines were a more radical departure from previous doctrine than, say, the early Quakers (who violated just about every social and religious norm around, but were indisputably Christian).

Also there is strong evidence to believe that the pastors were merely terrorised into conforming to this set doctrine.

I'm sure some were, just as some clergy throughout history have always been coerced into professing doctrines they didn't believe. This is still irrelevant to the question of whether Hitler and many senior Nazis were Christian...

Well it's very complicated, some of the leading Nazis were strongly opposed to Christianity, many weren't. Conservative values, which were held by many Christians in Germany, were very important to Nazis, so Christianity was a crucial link, but I don't think the Nazis based any of their beliefs specifically on Christianity.

I fail to see the relevance of this at all, beyond the fact that you seem to be using weasle words to divide Nazi leaders into the catergories of those hostile to Christianity and those not, ignoring the actual issue of dicussion here: were they believers? I never suggested that Nazi policies were based on Christian beliefs, only that many Nazis (including Hitler) held Christian beliefs.

I repeat:

'm not saying this to suggest that Christianity is to blame for Naziism, only that it's misguided to try and to deny that Christian beliefs were held by many (most?) Nazis, including Hitler.

Do you hold that the US is a theocracy? Or do you believe that both connotation and denotation are relevant to a word?

I don't care which you choose, honestly, as long as you're consistent.

I think that's often true. That doesn't make it ALWAYS true. Palin has proven time and again that she has little understanding of our constitution and much of what she spouts. She's Dan Quayle. I don't hold he was intentionally confusing children with his misspelling, nor do I hold that Palin has intent.

I think you've done an awesome job of proving she's religious. She definitely has similar views to other evangelicals. It's shocking really. It's almost like there is a belief structure there or something.

Okay, then admit that the US has always been a theocracy. There was an actual trial in the US over creationism and evolution. There are still laws defining marriage according to the Bible. They swear on the Bible in courts and legislatures. They pray openly in Congress and have laws about liquor being sold on Sunday.

I don't mind hyperbole, but be consistent.

Nope. I don't mind so long as you're consistent. Welcome to the US theocracy. We're centuries old.

Reread what I posted. Start there. I have never argued that there can be no theocrats without a theocracy. I said that if one accuses her of being a theocrat, then one must recognize that by the same definition we are a theocracy.

I didn't state that as a requirement. I said that according to the definition you and others wish to use the US is a theocracy. I gave examples. If you don't like it, I can't help you.

However, the US has long had Christian-reinforcing laws. The US has long has Christian behaviors endorsed officially, including in the pledge and on the money. The US has long had leaders that openly suggest they are guided in divine ways since the very founding.

Now, personally, I hold that this is not a theocracy, nor she a theocrat. But if you're are going to use such a denotative definition, then there is no denying that the US is a theocracy.

"No, I do not, because a religion is not yet officially in charge of government. Yet."

She's not asking that religion be put officially in charge of the government. As such, you are holding her and the government to different standards.

Repeated over and over? You addressed a strawman and now you're telling me I'm out. You're better than this.

I repeat - it's the definition you're using that I'm addressing. It has nothing to do with her being a theocrat only being possible if the US is a theocracy. Is that clear enough?

Hmmm.. I must have missed that part of the definition. Once again you hold everyone else to different standards than Palin. Be consistent.

Not according to TCT's definition. Reading, it is your friend.

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

It was that definition that he argued she was a theocrat under, based on her claim of divine guidance. I wonder... can I find any claims of divine guidance in US history? Hmmm...

Which is why I argued that the term shouldn't be used at all. However, since you both have chosent to "play fast and loose with terminology", I'm simply asking that you be consistent. You've several times whipped the definition of the term around to different standards for different applications.

Again, please read what I wrote. I specifically pointed out that you aren't holding her to the same requirements as you are the government. For you it has to be an official religion, but you hold her to a different standard.

You do realize, that sometimes to address your argument, I have to also make an argument. Now, if you think it requires official state religion to be a theocracy, then Palin hasn't endorsed that and isn't a theocrat. If you use TCT's definition, she is, but so is the US a theocracy. Can you address what I said now, and not some strawman?

Personally, I think you give her too much credit. I think she's far to ignorant of federal ANYTHING to be making her arguments based on federal decisions. This is the same woman who doesn't know what the VP does.

I agree that some of the more savvy have twisted terms. Their goal in doing so is to fool people. I think Palin was fooled. I don't see any evidence that's she aware of the twisting or that she's aware of these decisions. In fact, much of what she has to say sounds like it came from the pamphlets meant to fool people.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the US actually is a theocracy. I'm arguing that if one were to so loosely use the term to call Palin a theocrat, that same term makes us a theocracy.

"In God We Trust"

We're obviously referencing meaning #2. In other words, if a theocracy requires an official religion, then she can only be one if she advocates an official religion. You've already admitted that you're aren't claiming she is.

So in order for her to favor a theocracy, by your own admission, she must favor a religion officially in charge of government.

We agree she is not trying to establish a theocracy based on how you define it. So unless, you don't agree with TCT's definition, like you claim you did, this is settled. Now, if you have another definition, present it. I actually started the conversation using your definition of theocracy, and thus she is no theocrat and we are not a theocracy. However, you have to choose a definition and go with it. This switching back and forth is silly.

Rather than tit-for-tat on every barb, I'm going to lump your answers together and make a few points in response. It's simply easier for me to do it that way.

1. As others have pointed out, Jocabia, you continue to duck the question I've asked you several times: what is your definition of theocracy and/or theocrat? You quibble about whether my definition is right and whether Gov. Palin is a theocrat, but you have continually refused to provide an alternative defintion that excludes Gov. Palin.

2. Your primary argument against my definition and using it call Gov. Palin a theocrat is that, using that definition, the U.S. has theocratic tendencies/moments. No duh. The battle to protect the wall of separation of Church and State is a battle against theocracy and the good guys haven't always won 100%. Nonetheless, because the separation of Church and State is enshrined in our Constitution and our history, our better natures are not theocratic.

3. Your argument that Gov. Palin is too dumb to realize that her support for creationism in schools runs against the First Amendment is both rather Phyrric and unconvincing. Do you really believe that Gov. Palin believes in creationism in schools because she is convinced by the alleged science rather than because of her religious beliefs?

4. I'm sorry but someone who makes the statements I quoted about her political agenda being God's will and who wishes to legislate her religious beliefs on several fronts including religious instruction in public schools is a theocrat. The evidence is there. You just quibble with the use of that particular label without actually making an argument for why the label is wrong.

Repeated over and over? You addressed a strawman and now you're telling me I'm out. You're better than this.
So you admit that your argument is a strawman? Excellent. Thanks very much.

I repeat - it's the definition you're using that I'm addressing. It has nothing to do with her being a theocrat only being possible if the US is a theocracy. Is that clear enough?
It's clear enough that you're trying to change your argument.

Hmmm.. I must have missed that part of the definition. Once again you hold everyone else to different standards than Palin. Be consistent.


Not according to TCT's definition. Reading, it is your friend.

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

It was that definition that he argued she was a theocrat under, based on her claim of divine guidance. I wonder... can I find any claims of divine guidance in US history? Hmmm...
Ah...cherries. So much fun to pick. Here is TCT's ENTIRE quote from Merriam. I'll even highlight the part you "missed" for you.

I'm not sure what special definition of theocracy and theocrat you are using.

Theocrat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocrat):

1 : one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government
2 : one who favors a theocratic form of government

Theocracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy):

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Also, you either missed more than you think of TCT's argument, or you are lying because that is NOT the basis on which he said she was a theocrat. Both he and I asserted that she is a theocrat because she advocates theocracy. That is in accordance with definition number two of "theocrat" and has nothing at all to do with any claim or belief about divine guidance from or about her. This has also been explained to you more than once.

I stand by my assertion that Palin is a theocrat.

I also stand by my assertion that the US is not a theocracy according to the definition you yourself focused on.

Finally, I make the assertion that you are certainly being a model of consistency. You are being consistently disingenuous and dishonest. I will stand by that assertion so long as you continue on this ridiculous tack of yours.

Which is why I argued that the term shouldn't be used at all. However, since you both have chosent to "play fast and loose with terminology", I'm simply asking that you be consistent. You've several times whipped the definition of the term around to different standards for different applications.
By "whipped [it] around" I assume you mean that we yanked it out of your fantasy-land and back to the hard, boring fact of the standard English definitions.

You have yet to even try to show that TCT and I are using the terms incorrectly or inaccurately. All you do is just announce your assertions without any attempt at support or even explanation. You just saying it doesn't make it so, J.

Again, please read what I wrote. I specifically pointed out that you aren't holding her to the same requirements as you are the government. For you it has to be an official religion, but you hold her to a different standard.
And now you're cherrypicking individual words out of my posts and rearranging them. Poor form, J, very poor form. What I actually said was (and I'll put this in caps so you don't "miss" it this time) A RELIGION ... OFFICIALLY IN CHARGE. Not "an official religion."

Like I said before, address/counter/rebut/whatever the argument AS MADE, or else admit that you cannot.

Because don't kid yourself. You're not making any headway here.

You do realize, that sometimes to address your argument, I have to also make an argument. Now, if you think it requires official state religion to be a theocracy, then Palin hasn't endorsed that and isn't a theocrat. If you use TCT's definition, she is, but so is the US a theocracy. Can you address what I said now, and not some strawman?
Impossible. You've posted nothing but strawmen. What you "said now" is just another strawman because I never said anything even remotely like what you suggest above. As you're so fond of saying, "Please read what I wrote."

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the US actually is a theocracy. I'm arguing that if one were to so loosely use the term to call Palin a theocrat, that same term makes us a theocracy.

"In God We Trust"



We're obviously referencing meaning #2. In other words, if a theocracy requires an official religion, then she can only be one if she advocates an official religion. You've already admitted that you're aren't claiming she is.
Bullshit. Read the words of your opponents as they were written. You do not get too reshuffle them until they form an argument you wish to attack.


So in order for her to favor a theocracy, by your own admission, she must favor a religion officially in charge of government.



We agree she is not trying to establish a theocracy based on how you define it. So unless, you don't agree with TCT's definition, like you claim you did, this is settled. Now, if you have another definition, present it. I actually started the conversation using your definition of theocracy, and thus she is no theocrat and we are not a theocracy. However, you have to choose a definition and go with it. This switching back and forth is silly.
We agree on nothing. My words do not mean what you want them to. You are fooling no one. All you are doing now is, having failed to knock down my arguments, you are trying to recast them as agreement with you. Sad, really.

This is somewhat misleading since you're treating churches as monolithic entities when they frequently include disagreeing factions. I'm not expert on the subject, but perusing Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany) article on Religion and the Third Reich seems to suggest that there were significant pro-Nazi segments in all the main Protestant churches. It also suggests that Lutheran support for Hitler was strong and that the German Christians were a large group of over half a million, certainly not a niche sect.


I never said that they were a niche sect, I will concede that due to the huge amounts of variations within protestant groups, it is difficult to label it as anti Hitler, but likewise it's very difficult to label them pro Hitler also. Again there is also strong evidence to suggest that most of the supportive protestants were merely being intimidated into support. Another very important thing, it was virtually impossible to oppose the Nazi's, even being part of things that had no direct political message but were merely 'non conformist' (such as the swing movement) caused you to get hung. People seriously misunderestimate how brave these opposition Churches were, and I would have never expected that much opposition, they certainly represented a bigger threat than leftist organisations such as the SNP, the only bigger threat were those within the military.


Even if every Christian apart from those in Hitler's inner circle were completely anti-Nazi that wouldn't mean the Nazi inner circle was non-Christian.


Firstly, this Hitler cult WAS the German Christians, so it's hardly fair to call someone not defining this group as Christian a fail.


The Pope may have been, but many priests and bishops supported the Nazis.

Actually, many priests didn't, including very influential ones (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERgalen.htm), and again those that did support the Nazis were most certainly doing it through fear.


And what are their primary sources?


All sorts of things, Gestapo reports, records of Nazi meetings, things said by Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, SNP reports etc...


But we also have him on record making Christian remarks in private. If you want to show that he wasn't a Christian you're going to have to do better than simply saying "Well, he might have been lying every time he said he was a Christian", you need some positive evidence.


I'm not saying that he wasn't a Christian, I'm saying that it seems the consensus is that he's merely only a very vague Christian and there is evidence (which I unfortunately can't provide) to show that he didn't take the metaphysical aspects of it particularly seriously.


I'm not convinced that their doctrines were a more radical departure from previous doctrine than, say, the early Quakers (who violated just about every social and religious norm around, but were indisputably Christian).


Still, you shouldn't really treat this as a serious Christian sect, partly because most the people in it probably knew it was artificial and is not based on any proper philosophical discourse, also because it was clearly used in order to stamp down on opposition and as such you can see how their doctrine is rushed and without much thought put into it. If it was a serious sect, it would have survived the fall of the third Reich. When people start pointing out the fact that the Nazis 'were Christian', it's usually done to make Christianity look bad or more vulnerable (there are far better arguments to show this), this line of argument is very bad so I'm partly trying to show why. Otherwise the issue of whether the Nazis were Christian or not itself is completely irrelevant to.. well everything.


I fail to see the relevance of this at all, beyond the fact that you seem to be using weasle words to divide Nazi leaders into the catergories of those hostile to Christianity and those not, ignoring the actual issue of dicussion here: were they believers?

How could I not have been any more clear? Some were, some weren't. Also, what I say is very relevant, because one of the major themes of this thread is whether Christianity has anything to do with fascism, not everything I say has to address specifically what you said.

Just to interject myself, because I am like that, Palin is no theocrat. She is not condoning the merging of church and state. She invokes the divine because that is her belief system but I have seen no quote or comments provided by her where she believes that the US government and church should be, or will be, one in the same.

What she does say is what she believes in and how she sees that belief reflected in our world. That is not theocracy. Even Presidents and Presidential candidates are allowed to have faith. Obama has a brand of faith that propels him, if you believe his words, just as Palin has a brand of faith that propels her, if you believe her words.

Many of you had no issue with Obama's church promoting racist, political, and facist themes yet now Palin is the bogey-woman. I guess since Wright had the right victim status it gives him license to be racist and facist and even a little bit hypocritical.

You can be President and believe in God, or Mohammed, or Jeebus. You can even believe, as I do, in a cold and uncaring universe. But I would rather vote on a platform and past performance than on someone's religious beliefs. Tell me, what policies in Alaska are theocratic? What in Palin's resume leds you to believe she is attempting to turn Alaska into a theocracy?

If you want someone who is anti-religious or an atheist then you should vote "none of the above".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

The first on the list is the general election poll. As of...yesterday.

So, tell me. Is 6 points "basically even"?

And this is with the "Palin Effect" taken into account.

It will more than likely even out as the GOP convention proceeds. The above poll does not take into account much of that Convention to date.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Orly?

And once again CH is wrong.


Oh, 50%? NICE!
I am wrong, only if you disregard what I wrote?

The vast majority of interviews on Wednesday evening were conducted before Sarah Palin gave her much-anticipated convention speech. However, the data do indicate that the initial first two nights of the convention -- the slimmed down Monday program in deference to Hurricane Gustav and Tuesday's speeches headlined by former senator Fred Thompson -- have, so far, done little to change voter preferences.

Thursday's interviewing will be the first to reflect the immediate impact of Palin's speech, and the coming days will give a truer measure of the effect the GOP convention -- including McCain's acceptance speech tonight -- is having on voters.
Since the convention is not over yet, then my statement cannot be wrong, yet.

What she does say is what she believes in and how she sees that belief reflected in our world. That is not theocracy. Even Presidents and Presidential candidates are allowed to have faith. Obama has a brand of faith that propels him, if you believe his words, just as Palin has a brand of faith that propels her, if you believe her words.

There is a difference between having a faith that propels you and trying to base law and foreign policy on that faith.

As an example, being "propelled by faith" may be part of the reason for someone to believe we should minimize loss of life in Iraq (whether one believes that means that means staying or leaving). But claiming that this is some sort of holy war and that we must therefore stay in it is basing foreign policy on religion.

Many of you had no issue with Obama's church promoting racist, political, and facist themes yet now Palin is the bogey-woman. I guess since Wright had the right victim status it gives him license to be racist and facist and even a little bit hypocritical.

(a) I didn't see much in the quotes that went around during the Wright controversy that was actually racist. Misguided, at times, and Wright himself was certainly sometimes childish about the whole thing, but not really racist, per se. I definitely didn't see anything facsist. What I did see was someone who is very, very critical of the government - angry even.

(b) I never saw a clip or heard a quote of Rev. Wright saying, essentially, "If you don't agree with me on this political point, you're going to hell." Some of what he said was divisive, but not to that extent.

What in Palin's resume leds you to believe she is attempting to turn Alaska into a theocracy?

She advocates teaching creationism as science.

I would agree the view on creationism is a move in the wrong direction, but I attribute that to ignorance, not an attempt to legislate religion.

They believe it's actually how we came to be here. She believes it's an equivalent theory. You and I both would agree that she's wrong, but as she thinks it IS science, she's simply ignorant.

The belief that Creationism is a valid scientific theory that should be taught alongside evolution is not ignorance when the person who holds that belief has been educated in public schools that teach science and has had free access to scientific publications. That's not ignorance, that's a willful disregard for the rules of science, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion.

She advocates teaching creationism as science.

I saw a more worrisome bit, but cannot recall where I saw it and wonder if the collective wisdom of NSG can come up with a source and tell me whether this is credible? Supposedly, as mayor she "fired" the town librarian (it turned out she did not have the authority to fire the librarian) for refusing to remove "un-Christian" books from the shelves.
This may not be so much "theocratic" as part of her general "off-with-their-heads" attitude toward anything who disagrees with her on anything (firing the public safety director for not ousting her brother-in-law, and an entire board for thinking a failing state-owned dairy ought to be shut down); though that is also not a good trait in a potential President.

Many of you had no issue with Obama's church promoting racist, political, and facist themes yet now Palin is the bogey-woman. I guess since Wright had the right victim status it gives him license to be racist and facist and even a little bit hypocritical.

Give me three posters who showed that they had "no issue" with what Wright said. If there were many of "us" that felt this way, it shouldn't be hard.

I saw a more worrisome bit, but cannot recall where I saw it and wonder if the collective wisdom of NSG can come up with a source and tell me whether this is credible? Supposedly, as mayor she "fired" the town librarian (it turned out she did not have the authority to fire the librarian) for refusing to remove "un-Christian" books from the shelves.
This may not be so much "theocratic" as part of her general "off-with-their-heads" attitude toward anything who disagrees with her on anything (firing the public safety director for not ousting her brother-in-law, and an entire board for thinking a failing state-owned dairy ought to be shut down); though that is also not a good trait in a potential President.

It was in Time. I'm trying to access the actual article, but the website's being an ass.

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

I saw a more worrisome bit, but cannot recall where I saw it and wonder if the collective wisdom of NSG can come up with a source and tell me whether this is credible? Supposedly, as mayor she "fired" the town librarian (it turned out she did not have the authority to fire the librarian) for refusing to remove "un-Christian" books from the shelves.
This may not be so much "theocratic" as part of her general "off-with-their-heads" attitude toward anything who disagrees with her on anything (firing the public safety director for not ousting her brother-in-law, and an entire board for thinking a failing state-owned dairy ought to be shut down); though that is also not a good trait in a potential President.

There is some smoke here, but I'm not certain there is any fire.

Here is a quick and dirty version that undoubtedly will be attacked as inaccurate: Apparently, starting when Palin had been elected mayor but had not yet taken office and continuing after Palin took office, Palin asked the town librarian several times if she would be willing to censor books -- including at a City Council meeting. The librarian said "no." The librarian was subsequently sent a letter saying she was fired, but no reason was given. After a wave of public support for the librarian, Palin relented and the librarian kept her job. There doesn't appear to be any record of Palin actually asking any particular book to be censored.

link (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=home&position=emailed)

EDIT: The more I read about Palin's "record" (scanty as it is) the more scary she seems. She turned a relatively non-partisan mayorship into a race about social wedge issues like abortion. the Time article (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html), the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?hp)

Separation of Church and State......

Skalvia doesnt care about either's Religious views....Id like to see an Atheist President myself....

But they are so radically different from normal Christians (and I believe many of the Church leaders were terrorised into following the bizarre doctrine) that I think it's unfair to lump them together with normal Christians.

It's unfair to judge all christians based on the actions of bad ones, but bad or not, radically different from the norm or not, they're still christians. And in this case they're still fascists, so christofascist does have a legitimate use as a word, if a rather limited one.

It's unfair to judge all christians based on the actions of bad ones, but bad or not, radically different from the norm or not, they're still christians. And in this case they're still fascists, so christofascist does have a legitimate use as a word, if a rather limited one.

But there is room to question the genuineness of Hitler's beliefs.

Excerpt from Wiki:

Hitler’s private statements about Christianity were largely negative. Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann report many such statements, although the historical validity of some remarks has been questioned, particularly the collection called Table Talk. Although most historians consider it a useful source, some do not regard it as wholly reliable. Ian Kershaw makes clear the questionable nature of Table Talk as a source;[1] however, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with it altogether. The atheist historian Richard Carrier goes further, controversially contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler's hatred of Christianity, are inventions.[2]

There is less controversy about other statements. Joseph Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[3][4] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating affect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman Empire. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/hossbach.htm) In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362, Julian's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."[5]

1. See his Hitler 1889–1936 Hubris, London, 1998, xiv.
2. "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds" German Studies Review 26:3 October 2003.
3. Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, p. 252-253; Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Orion Pub., 1997 ISBN 1-85799-218-0, p. 96.
4. Albert Speer, Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. Inside the Third Reich - National socialists - Avon (1971) p 143.
5. Sage, Steven (2006), Ibsen and Hitler: the playwright, the plagiarist, and the plot for the Third Reich, New York: Carroll & Graf, ISBN 0786717130 .

Looking at the articles CTC linked, as well as information that has come up about her elsewhere since she was announced as running mate, it seems to me that, regardless of whether she's being quiet, peaceful Sarah, or cut-throat politician Sarah, her base platform and her "go-to" issues are religious ones, particularly fundamentalist evangelical ones, and especially "morals" issues such as abortion and sex-ed and censorship. Even her favorite issues that are not religious in nature, such as her opposition to gun control and her support for oil and gas drilling with fewer environmental controls, are also typically endorsed by the fundamentalist evangelical demographic. That, plus her constant exhortations for everyone to pray for things right and left, leave me with little doubt that she is someone who favors a religious government over secular one.

Rather than tit-for-tat on every barb, I'm going to lump your answers together and make a few points in response. It's simply easier for me to do it that way.

1. As others have pointed out, Jocabia, you continue to duck the question I've asked you several times: what is your definition of theocracy and/or theocrat? You quibble about whether my definition is right and whether Gov. Palin is a theocrat, but you have continually refused to provide an alternative defintion that excludes Gov. Palin.

2. Your primary argument against my definition and using it call Gov. Palin a theocrat is that, using that definition, the U.S. has theocratic tendencies/moments. No duh. The battle to protect the wall of separation of Church and State is a battle against theocracy and the good guys haven't always won 100%. Nonetheless, because the separation of Church and State is enshrined in our Constitution and our history, our better natures are not theocratic.

3. Your argument that Gov. Palin is too dumb to realize that her support for creationism in schools runs against the First Amendment is both rather Phyrric and unconvincing. Do you really believe that Gov. Palin believes in creationism in schools because she is convinced by the alleged science rather than because of her religious beliefs?

4. I'm sorry but someone who makes the statements I quoted about her political agenda being God's will and who wishes to legislate her religious beliefs on several fronts including religious instruction in public schools is a theocrat. The evidence is there. You just quibble with the use of that particular label without actually making an argument for why the label is wrong.

1. Absolutely fair. I admit I wasn't using your definition of theocracy when I started and wouldn't. I think your definition is too loose.

There are really only two definitions of theocrat that I have ever seen or could find -

Theocrat - One who lives or rules in a theocracy.

That one obviously doesn't apply.

Theocrat - One who favors a theocracy.

I assume we're both using this definition.

Where we disagree is on the definition of theocracy. Mine would be much closer to Muryavets.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy
Theocracy
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Theocracy -
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

My definition would be "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority."

I didn't realize I was asked for an alternate definition, but there you go. (I was being a little sloppy yesterday, but I see now that you asked me rather early on what definition I was using. I was preparing for a trip. I was thinking on the plane that each of us stating which definition we were using and where we got it from would be helpful. You had already posted yours at that time.) You'll notice that Muravyets used a different definition as well.

For the record, I don't actually mind your definition provided it's applied consistently.

2. See, I disagree, but I like that you're being consistent. I think the wall that we attempted to erect is long before a theocracy forms, and that is our primary disagreement.

3. I think it's both. I've met lots of people like her. They aren't the people who are trying to fool us into believing it's science. They're the people who are fooled into believing it is science and that scientists are just evil atheists who hate God.

4. I think we get out of control during election season. It's not a quibble. I'm tired everyone being a psycho, a loon, a theocrat, a bitch, a whore, a bimbo, the root of all evil, etc. The labels aren't helpful. As much as you want to know why I think it doesn't apply (and I have explained that), others should explain why it does.

Let's face it, while you may disagree on whether it applies, you know you agree that labels are tossed around to easily during election season and I know you agree with some of the examples I gave above. When you settle on "theocrat", it makes an argument easy to dismiss. "Oh, he just hates her." Part of the reason so many have listened to you for so long is because you don't just settle on tossing out simple arguments. You say your opinion and you explain why you hold it. That's my primary issue with overused and underexplained labels.

Both he and I asserted that she is a theocrat because she advocates theocracy.

And you don't see how it's necessary to look at the definition of theocracy in order to show she's advocating it.

To do so, for TCT we must look at his definition of theocracy, and for you, yours. I did that. TCT's definition was the one I showed and is thus relevant to his position on Palin.

Here is your definition.

A "theocracy" is a government controlled by a religion.

So that must be what she's advocating.

See, advocating a theocracy is an incomplete definition without the definition of that theocracy.

She's not asking that religion be put officially in charge of the government. As such, you are holding her and the government to different standards.

And finally, you attempt to move the goalposts. Did I say she was "asking" for that? No, I said she advocates policies that are theocratic. Address the argument as made or admit that you cannot.

The reason you're getting pissed rather than offering arguments anymore is because you know and I know you lost. Everyone once in a while someone nails you up. TCT did it to me earlier on a post. It happens. Accept it and move on. You're better than this.

The belief that Creationism is a valid scientific theory that should be taught alongside evolution is not ignorance when the person who holds that belief has been educated in public schools that teach science and has had free access to scientific publications. That's not ignorance, that's a willful disregard for the rules of science, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion.

You know what ignorance means, right?

In order to show a willful disregard, you have to show knows and understands the rules of science. Are you prepared to do that?

Anyone who went to public school and has access to a Constitution should know what the VP does, but she openly admitted to being ignorant on that point.

And you don't see how it's necessary to look at the definition of theocracy in order to show she's advocating it.

To do so, for TCT we must look at his definition of theocracy, and for you, yours. I did that. TCT's definition was the one I showed and is thus relevant to his position on Palin.

Here is your definition.



So that must be what she's advocating.

See, advocating a theocracy is an incomplete definition without the definition of that theocracy.



The reason you're getting pissed rather than offering arguments anymore is because you know and I know you lost. Everyone once in a while someone nails you up. TCT did it to me earlier on a post. It happens. Accept it and move on. You're better than this.
OK, this is now officially a Jocabia-Loop(tm). All of these points have already been raised, countered, and raised again, at least twice or more. Your objections remain the same, and so do the counter-arguments. Your tactics of twisting the arguments to try to make them seem different and of claiming victory without being able to demonstrate it are also the same. If past experience is anything to judge by, you will be not only able but willing to keep this up for as long as three weeks or more. Again based on past experience, you will likely even keep it going if the main topic itself dies, like some kind of alien parasite animating a dead host body.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in doing that with you, so I'm just going to declare as follows:

You are wrong. TCT and I are right. All the evidence to support that assertion is already laid out in the thread for others to read and judge by. End of discussion. You may have the last word on this -- and as many of them as you like -- but you'll be talking to yourself, as far as I'm concerned.

OK, this is now officially a Jocabia-Loop(tm). All of these points have already been raised, countered, and raised again, at least twice or more. Your objections remain the same, and so do the counter-arguments. Your tactics of twisting the arguments to try to make them seem different and of claiming victory without being able to demonstrate it are also the same. If past experience is anything to judge by, you will be not only able but willing to keep this up for as long as three weeks or more. Again based on past experience, you will likely even keep it going if the main topic itself dies, like some kind of alien parasite animating a dead host body.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in doing that with you, so I'm just going to declare as follows:

You are wrong. TCT and I are right. All the evidence to support that assertion is already laid out in the thread for others to read and judge by. End of discussion. You may have the last word on this -- and as many of them as you like -- but you'll be talking to yourself, as far as I'm concerned.

Ignored is not countered.

TCT is using a different definition than you. It's a different argument. You jumping on his back because you aren't making nearly the argument he is, is sad.

You admit she does advocate the theocracy you defined. That's the point and you are unable to counter.

I agree that she does advocate the theocracy TCT defined. TCT also admits that under that definition the US has the same leanings she does. Still a different point than you made. YOU lost. TCT is making a seperate argument.

I'm not sure what special definition of theocracy and theocrat you are using.

Theocrat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocrat):

1 : one who rules in or lives under a theocratic form of government
2 : one who favors a theocratic form of government

Theocracy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy):

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
Also, you either missed more than you think of TCT's argument, or you are lying because that is NOT the basis on which he said she was a theocrat. Both he and I asserted that she is a theocrat because she advocates theocracy. That is in accordance with definition number two of "theocrat" and has nothing at all to do with any claim or belief about divine guidance from or about her. This has also been explained to you more than once.

The problem here and all along is that you try to detach the definition of theocracy from the definition of theocrat. You can't do it. It's illogical.

We all agree on the definition of theocrat. The problem is that the definition of theocracy is necessary to how it is applied. You get pissed every time I mention your definition of theocracy with your definition of theocrat. Seriously you don't know how a dictionary works?

1. Absolutely fair....blahblahblah...
Theocrat - One who favors a ....blahblahblah...A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
....blahblahblah...That's my primary issue with overused and underexplained labels.

So, would you consider Palin to be one?

Why or why not?

So, would you consider Palin to be one?

Why or why not?

No. I wouldn't. I don't think she wants our government to be subject to religious authority. I've not seen anything that indicates otherwise.

That said, I don't like her. I do think she violates the seperation intentionally or unintentionally. My objection is that we, the people... of NSG, have a tendency to slap on labels that aren't actually doing anything for the debate. She's easy to debate on points. Calling her a bimbo, which some think is accurate, a theocrat, which some think is accurate, a loon, which some think is accurrate, etc., isn't helping the debate.

(What? Stop laughing at me. Yes, I'm aware that I'm as guilty as any for not helping the debate. I actually prefer for people to call me on it. Example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13982439&postcount=118))

No. I wouldn't. I don't think she wants our government to be subject to religious authority. I've not seen anything that indicates otherwise.

So, you don't consider Palin to be a theocrat because you have never seen any indication that she might be?

Separation of Church and State......

Skalvia doesnt care about either's Religious views....Id like to see an Atheist President myself....

You'll see a black lesbian quadriplegic President before you see an atheist. :(

No. I wouldn't. I don't think she wants our government to be subject to religious authority. I've not seen anything that indicates otherwise.

Is basing laws and policy on religion not an indication that someone wants the government to be subject to religious authority?

Now, does she want the government to be entirely ruled by religious authority? It doesn't appear that she does. But she certainly does think that the government should be at least partially run on religious authority - thus, subject to it in some way.

That said, I wouldn't go as far as to call her a theocrat. But I'd definitely go with the "theocratic tendencies" idea - as I would with anyone and everyone who would violate the separation of church and state.

Give me three posters who showed that they had "no issue" with what Wright said. If there were many of "us" that felt this way, it shouldn't be hard.

Hate to help SF, but . . . one.

I'll admit I haven't heard everything he said.

Hate to help SF, but . . . one.

I'll admit I haven't heard everything he said.

Two. I dont get uncomfortable when confronted by the truth.

Two. I dont get uncomfortable when confronted by the truth.

three, because that was only a small part of his sermons

Two. I dont get uncomfortable when confronted by the truth.

So do you believe that the government created HIV? Or that it did so specifically to target minorities?

So do you believe that the government created HIV? Or that it did so specifically to target minorities?

I was refering to his other comments about 9/11 and such. His whole "God damn America!" thing.


I wasnt angered or anything when he said the HIV thing. I was just apathetic.

So do you believe that the government created HIV? Or that it did so specifically to target minorities?
I may not agree with that, but I don't have a problem with him expressing his opinion on that.

And, on a certain level, that assertion is correct regardless of whether or not you believe that the first HIV specimens came out of a government lab; the Reagan administration's sluggish response to the AIDS crisis did cause it to be a much bigger problem, and the government has been much less eager to respond to health crises that largely affect minorities. (E.g., AIDS.)

It's an assertion of fact that demands a factual response talking about evidence; not an uncomfortable position of theology that demands finding a new spiritual guide. The distinction is important.

Give me three posters who showed that they had "no issue" with what Wright said. If there were many of "us" that felt this way, it shouldn't be hard.

Let's make it an even four.

Wright is a media pimple on the face of the election. He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.

Let's make it an even four.

Wright is a media pimple on the face of the election. He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.

Unlike say, Rod Parsley whom McCain calls his "Spiritual Advisor" and openly called out for "all Christians" to rise up and Kimchi the Muslims into extinction.

Let's make it an even four.

Wright is a media pimple on the face of the election. He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.

Would that the nation thought as rationally as you. :(

Unlike say, Rod Parsley whom McCain calls his "Spiritual Advisor" and openly called out for "all Christians" to rise up and Kimchi the Muslims into extinction.

Just what the heck IS a "spiritual advisor"? Isn't the spirit an intensely personal aspect of oneself? If so, how can anyone else advise you on your own spirit? Personally, I think it's poppycock purported to pump up the public piety of whoever's being so advised.

Let's make it an even four.

Wright is a media pimple on the face of the election. He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.
Which is why I barely bothered reading the blog post linked to, and instead listened to Palin's speech in the video.

And she does say some fairly bothersome things. God's plan in Iraq?

I may not agree with that, but I don't have a problem with him expressing his opinion on that.

I do, but more because of the effect of such opinions than anything else. The black community is (with reason) already more suspicious of the medical community than most other ethnicities - and that fact contributes to the disparities in medical care. Adding further conspiracy theories exacerbates the problem, when we should be fixing it (and community leaders should certainly be helping to do the latter rather than the former).

But yeah, I agree that the response to HIV/AIDs - particularly the initial response - has not been what it should have been.

Let's make it an even four.

Wright is a media pimple on the face of the election. He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.

Yeah but she says in that video that she believes the war is a holy war:

"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 [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

Do you think someone's spiritual beliefs should shape foreign and domestic policy?

I don't.

That's not holding the people's best interest in mind, that's following your own core beliefs.

Yeah but she says in that video that she believes the war is a holy war.

Yes. She said that, not her preacher. Which is among the many reasons why I won't be voting for her.

I judge presidential candidates on the issues, on the apparent strengths of their convictions, and by the people they are likely to place into policy making positions. I don't judge them on the company they keep until it crosses into the realm of public policy and becomes an interfering factor.

I doubt seriously that Sarah Palin is planning on making Ed Kalnins her Secretary of State. It would not bother me in the slightest if she consulted him over family issues, or invited him to occasional dinners in DC and asked him to say Grace over the meal. It would surprise me immensely if she used him as the Catholics use a confessor, and revealed items of national security to him while asking him to pray for guidance. She appears to be the type of person who takes national security oaths seriously.

Palin is making an appeal to those in the United States who DO believe that all actions should be guided by God's hands. They DO believe this is a Christian nation. They DO believe that the American cause is Holy and Just.

If you don't agree with that, don't vote for her. Campaign against her. Support her opponents. Just be clear in your own mind that your opinions of how things should be run do not automatically and necessarily invalidate those who disagree with you.

It would surprise me immensely if she used him as the Catholics use a confessor, and revealed items of national security to him while asking him to pray for guidance. She appears to be the type of person who takes national security oaths seriously.

Based on what do you think she is that "type of person"?

Based on what do you think she is that "type of person"?

If for no other reason, pragmatic. Like her or not, Sarah Palin is clearly not a stupid person. She knows better than most that politics is a nasty business, and that most back-room deals eventually surface in the media. That, and the fact that I think she genuinely loves and respects her country, and wouldn't break an oath taken in its name.

I don't have to demonize someone to find a reason not to vote for them. I am convinced that John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden are all genuine American patriots who only want what's best for the country. I just want to hear what each of them believes, so I'll know whether to agree with them or not. Regardless, every damn one of them has my greatest respect. I know *I* wouldn't stand in that spotlight. They'd crucify me.

If for no other reason, pragmatic. Like her or not, Sarah Palin is clearly not a stupid person. She knows better than most that politics is a nasty business, and that most back-room deals eventually surface in the media. That, and the fact that I think she genuinely loves and respects her country, and wouldn't break an oath taken in its name.

I don't have to demonize someone to find a reason not to vote for them. I am convinced that John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden are all genuine American patriots who only want what's best for the country. I just want to hear what each of them believes, so I'll know whether to agree with them or not. Regardless, every damn one of them has my greatest respect. I know *I* wouldn't stand in that spotlight. They'd crucify me.

I'll grant she may not be stupid, but she's irresponsible for accepting a nomination she's not qualified for, and she is uniformed if she had to be told what a VP does (it was, however, stupid of her to say that on camera).

I do not beleive running for office makes one inherently worthy of respect(if that's what you were suggesting). Nixon ran for office. Bush ran for office. They have not shown themselves worthy of respect. I also do not attack someone's character or fail to respect them just because they are a political opponent. If Shcwarzenegger ran, if Ron Paul ran, if John McCain was running as the maverik he is supposed to be, I would probably have more respect for them, regardless of their Republican policies to which I am opposed. I have a lower level of respect for Ms Palin and the current candadite McCain, because their dirty politics, incompitency, and etc have not shown them to be worthy of more.

1. Absolutely fair. I admit I wasn't using your definition of theocracy when I started and wouldn't. I think your definition is too loose.

There are really only two definitions of theocrat that I have ever seen or could find -

Theocrat - One who lives or rules in a theocracy.

That one obviously doesn't apply.

Theocrat - One who favors a theocracy.

I assume we're both using this definition.

Where we disagree is on the definition of theocracy. Mine would be much closer to Muryavets.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy
Theocracy
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Theocracy -
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

My definition would be "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority."

I didn't realize I was asked for an alternate definition, but there you go. (I was being a little sloppy yesterday, but I see now that you asked me rather early on what definition I was using. I was preparing for a trip. I was thinking on the plane that each of us stating which definition we were using and where we got it from would be helpful. You had already posted yours at that time.) You'll notice that Muravyets used a different definition as well.

For the record, I don't actually mind your definition provided it's applied consistently.

OK. Let's apply your definition. One who favors or advocates a government ruled by or subject to religious authority is a theocrat.

By that definition, Sarah Palin qualifies as at least having strong theocratic tendencies. I'd say she is an out-and-out theocrat.

Apparently we disagree on whether advocating the teaching of creationism is theocratic. I think you are wrong, but my evidence of Palin's hankering for theocracy doesn't end there.

On issue after issue, from abortion to the Iraq War to oil drilling to same-sex marriage, Palin's views are based on alleged religious authority.

As Fris explained (quoted below), we have from the woman's own lips that she thinks that her policy positions are "God's plan." That is co-mingling the Church and State. That is theocratic.

Moreover, she thinks it appropriate for the Governor of Alaska to lecture on whether the "the people of Alaska’s heart right with God." That is co-mingling the Church and State. That is theocratic.

EDIT: If it makes you feel better, it is clear that John McCain is also a theocrat. He has a long history of supporting prayer in school, teaching creationism in school, keeping "under God" in the Pledge, etc.

More specifically, he declared in an interview that: "[T]he Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

He also said: "I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

link (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html), link (http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Church_and_State), link (http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3093)
2. See, I disagree, but I like that you're being consistent. I think the wall that we attempted to erect is long before a theocracy forms, and that is our primary disagreement.

Um.

First, as Murayvets has pointed out, one doesn't have to live in a theocracy or succeed in advocating theocracy to be a theocrat. You are a theocrat if you [I]favor theocracy. Whether one is a theocrat doesn't turn on when a full-fledged theocracy forms.

Second, you yourself have provided evidence of theocratic tendencies and moments in the history of the United States. The legal history of creationism -- where people have long tried to legislate religion in schools -- is another example of U.S. theocratic tendencies.

Third, no doubt there is a difference between a full-fledged theocracy and a chink in the wall of separation of Church and State. But that doesn't mean that each breach of the wall is not a step towards theocracy.

3. I think it's both. I've met lots of people like her. They aren't the people who are trying to fool us into believing it's science. They're the people who are fooled into believing it is science and that scientists are just evil atheists who hate God.

Again, this very issue -- not whether creationism should be taught in schools but the precise factual issue of the motives of those that support creationism in schools -- has been litigated and litigated and litigated. And time and time again, the courts have found that the motives of creationists is to legislate religion.

But do you really know people that believe in creationism because of the science WITHOUT an underlying (or more likely overlying) religious belief? I sincerely doubt it.

Moreover, without going further into a debate about creationism, let's recognize that "creation science" is not just a generic belief in creation. It is a very specific set of religious beliefs that contradict not only the views of evolution but the beliefs of a majority of Christians.

Finally, I don't buy "the Palin is just too stupid to know better defense." The woman is not that stupid, she is just that wrong. Ignoring not just what Palin said, but the context in which she said it, is to insult not just her intelligence, but our intelligence.

4. I think we get out of control during election season. It's not a quibble. I'm tired everyone being a psycho, a loon, a theocrat, a bitch, a whore, a bimbo, the root of all evil, etc. The labels aren't helpful. As much as you want to know why I think it doesn't apply (and I have explained that), others should explain why it does.

Let's face it, while you may disagree on whether it applies, you know you agree that labels are tossed around to easily during election season and I know you agree with some of the examples I gave above. When you settle on "theocrat", it makes an argument easy to dismiss. "Oh, he just hates her." Part of the reason so many have listened to you for so long is because you don't just settle on tossing out simple arguments. You say your opinion and you explain why you hold it. That's my primary issue with overused and underexplained labels.

Labels are labels. Overused and underexplained labels are harmful, rather than helpful, to the discussion. Sexist, racist, and extreme labels are additionally harmful.

But are you seriously contending after this long discussion we have had that the label of "theocrat" is underexplained as regards to Palin???

You know what ignorance means, right?

In order to show a willful disregard, you have to show knows and understands the rules of science. Are you prepared to do that?

Anyone who went to public school and has access to a Constitution should know what the VP does, but she openly admitted to being ignorant on that point.

I can't believe I'm coming to Palin's defense, but the woman isn't that stupid. She didn't say she had no idea what the VP does under the Constitution. She said she didn't know what a VP on a day-to-day basis. I still think it is a stupid comment, but it isn't as stupid as you portray it?

Yes. She said that, not her preacher. Which is among the many reasons why I won't be voting for her.

I judge presidential candidates on the issues, on the apparent strengths of their convictions, and by the people they are likely to place into policy making positions. I don't judge them on the company they keep until it crosses into the realm of public policy and becomes an interfering factor.

I doubt seriously that Sarah Palin is planning on making Ed Kalnins her Secretary of State. It would not bother me in the slightest if she consulted him over family issues, or invited him to occasional dinners in DC and asked him to say Grace over the meal. It would surprise me immensely if she used him as the Catholics use a confessor, and revealed items of national security to him while asking him to pray for guidance. She appears to be the type of person who takes national security oaths seriously.

Palin is making an appeal to those in the United States who DO believe that all actions should be guided by God's hands. They DO believe this is a Christian nation. They DO believe that the American cause is Holy and Just.

If you don't agree with that, don't vote for her. Campaign against her. Support her opponents. Just be clear in your own mind that your opinions of how things should be run do not automatically and necessarily invalidate those who disagree with you.

:hail:

So do you believe that the government created HIV? Or that it did so specifically to target minorities?

No, but I can understand why it's a persistent theory in the black community, especially the members who were alive during this festering canker sore on the ass of America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskeegee_Syphilis_Study) Shit similar to intentionally spreading HIV has been done to them before, that makes it easier to believe it's being done again.

He isn't up for election, and neither is Palin's preacher. I don't believe either candidate is so dogmatically tied to their pastor that they are no longer capable of separating their conception of God's Word from the preacher's rant. It's a non issue.

Palin is up for election, and until she repudiates her pastor's statement that people who question Bush will go to hell, I can only assume she agrees....

Palin is up for election, and until she repudiates her pastor's statement that people who question Bush will go to hell, I can only assume she agrees....

And yet McCain still gets away with saying he's different from Bush.:(

Palin bases her beliefs on some form of a natural law, which is ultimately based upon Christian beliefs. However, this isn't theocratic, I mean even the UN deceleration of human rights is based on a revealed natural law (despite it being a more up to date one). I would define a theocrat as someone who advocates a theocratic style of government, which would mean setting the Church up as an actual authority over the state, and using theonomic laws, as in following a direct and divine law (like the laws in the old testament), rather than ethical beliefs extrapolated from a revealed natural law.

Palin bases her beliefs on some form of a natural law, which is ultimately based upon Christian beliefs. However, this isn't theocratic, I mean even the UN deceleration of human rights is based on a revealed natural law (despite it being a more up to date one). I would define a theocrat as someone who advocates a theocratic style of government, which would mean setting the Church up as an actual authority over the state, and using theonomic laws, as in following a direct and divine law (like the laws in the old testament), rather than ethical beliefs extrapolated from a revealed natural law.
I would like to see the source that told you the UN Declaration of Human Rights is "based on a revealed natural law."

Also the UN is not trying to pass laws in the United States that specifically enshrine a particular religious doctrine as the law that will govern all citizens, including those that do not follow that religion. Ms. Palin has expressed an interest in doing exactly that. For that reason, I believe her views qualify as "theocratic" and, therefore, I call her a "theocrat."

Though if it would make everyone happier, I'll be happy to instead call her a "would-be theocrat" or a "theocrat-in-waiting."

Is it just co-incidence that every candidate in this election has a crazy pastor or is the entire clergy in America batshit insane?
I'm gonna have to go with the second one. Sadly.

I'm gonna have to go with the second one. Sadly.

My clergy is a Raelian bishop. He's not batshit crazy. When the aliens come and we haven't built the embassy, we're all in trouble, ESPECIALLY the presidential candidates who could have built it easily.

Good grief, that pastor is insane. God makes him psychic, political dissent is punishable by eternal damnation, and throngs of people will be flocking to Alaska to escape the Antichrist any day now? Oooooooookay.... *backs away slowly*
Sick part is how their own party serves as antichrist.
BTW, you're more right about this part than you may know.
:(

My clergy is a Raelian bishop. He's not batshit crazy. When the aliens come and we haven't built the embassy, we're all in trouble, ESPECIALLY the presidential candidates who could have built it easily.
It sounds as though it would be batshit crazy NOT to tithe in huge amounts to get this done!
Especially, get it done before the temple on the mount.

I would like to see the source that told you the UN Declaration of Human Rights is "based on a revealed natural law."


It is not an internet source, however I don't think we should dwell on this issue as it's not particularly relevant, I should never have really mentioned it.


Ms. Palin has expressed an interest in doing exactly that. For that reason, I believe her views qualify as "theocratic" and, therefore, I call her a "theocrat."

Show me where Palin has promoted the use of law direct from religious text or doctrine, rather than laws influenced or based on Christian understanding. The latter does NOT make you a theocrat.

I was fairly happy when McCain slapped down Rod Parsley, and much of Columbus celebrated. Unfortunately, he invited Palin, whose pastor is even crazier, onto his ticket.

At least we know that Parsley is an evil little bugger, complete with his own personal compound.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

The first on the list is the general election poll. As of...yesterday.

So, tell me. Is 6 points "basically even"?

And this is with the "Palin Effect" taken into account.

It will more than likely even out as the GOP convention proceeds. The above poll does not take into account much of that Convention to date.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Orly?

And once again CH is wrong.


Oh, 50%? NICE!
I am wrong, only if you disregard what I wrote?

The vast majority of interviews on Wednesday evening were conducted before Sarah Palin gave her much-anticipated convention speech. However, the data do indicate that the initial first two nights of the convention -- the slimmed down Monday program in deference to Hurricane Gustav and Tuesday's speeches headlined by former senator Fred Thompson -- have, so far, done little to change voter preferences.

Thursday's interviewing will be the first to reflect the immediate impact of Palin's speech, and the coming days will give a truer measure of the effect the GOP convention -- including McCain's acceptance speech tonight -- is having on voters.
Since the convention is not over yet, then my statement cannot be wrong, yet.

Update: I guess CH is right after all (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll).

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday, September 7, shows the race for the White House is tied.

In the first national polling results based entirely on interviews conducted after Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech, Barack Obama gets 46% of the vote and so does John McCain. When "leaners" are included, it’s all even at 48%.

Gallup Daily: Obama’s Edge Shrinks to 2 Points (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110047/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Shrinks-Points.aspx)

Barack Obama's advantage over John McCain has been shrinking since the start of the Republican National Convention, and is now down to just two percentage points -- 47% to 45% -- too close to call. This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Wednesday through Friday, Sept. 3-5.
I guess the Pastor situation and the pregnant daughter situation is having no real negative affect on the McCain/Palin candidacy.

Palin bases her beliefs on some form of a natural law, which is ultimately based upon Christian beliefs. However, this isn't theocratic, I mean even the UN deceleration of human rights is based on a revealed natural law (despite it being a more up to date one). I would define a theocrat as someone who advocates a theocratic style of government, which would mean setting the Church up as an actual authority over the state, and using theonomic laws, as in following a direct and divine law (like the laws in the old testament), rather than ethical beliefs extrapolated from a revealed natural law.

Show me where Palin has promoted the use of law direct from religious text or doctrine, rather than laws influenced or based on Christian understanding. The latter does NOT make you a theocrat.

You make an interesting, rather fine, and questionable distinction here. Your argument seems to rest on the difference (if any) between promoting laws "direct from religious doctrine" and promoting laws influenced by Christian doctrine. I'm not sure you can explain the importance OR prove the existence of such a distinction.

I am certainly not arguing that one can't advocate laws based on one's beliefs, religious or otherwise.

We start with a politicians whose views on a variety of issues show a religious agenda AND a contempt for the separation of Church and State. Add to that the views of her Pastor. Then add to that the the problems with the statements from Palin's own mouth.

One problem is a politician who actively argues that her political agenda, even such things as a natural gas pipeline, is not just good ideas or supported by her beliefs, but are literally "God's will."

Another problem is with a politician who preaches on the subject of whether or not her state's citizens are "right with God."

Whether or not Palin qualifies as a "theocrat" or not: (1) don't her statements and views bother you and (2) isn't she a least a bit theocratic?

I was fairly happy when McCain slapped down Rod Parsley, and much of Columbus celebrated. Unfortunately, he invited Palin, whose pastor is even crazier, onto his ticket.

At least we know that Parsley is an evil little bugger, complete with his own personal compound.

The big question is why is Palin getting a free ride on this?

The big question is why is Palin getting a free ride on this?
Why does McCain get a free ride on all his flip-flops? Maybe there are just too many errors, scandals, missteps, and embarrassments to keep up with. Or maybe the Ebul Librul Media aren't quite as "librul" as some would have us believe.

The big question is why is Palin getting a free ride on this?

Mmmm, maybe a little.

But you have to realize she has only really been in the media spotlight for a little more than a week. A lot of information is flooding out and some gets lost in the flood. Also, the Republicans have been keeping Palin sequestered and doing a good job of controlling some of the flow of the information about her.

We'll see in the longer run whether Palin is really teflon.

Mmmm, maybe a little.

But you have to realize she has only really been in the media spotlight for a little more than a week. A lot of information is flooding out and some gets lost in the flood. Also, the Republicans have been keeping Palin sequestered and doing a good job of controlling some of the flow of the information about her.

We'll see in the longer run whether Palin is really teflon.
The "longer run" isn't that long. November is coming up fast.

The Evangelicans are trumpting the fact that Palin signed a proclamation in October 2007 which "emphasized the Christian heritage of America." link (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/435912.aspx)

The Proclamation she signed reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the celebration of Christian Heritage Week, October 21-27, 2007, reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage. Many truly great men and women of America, giants in the structuring of American history, were Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith. Some of their legacies are evidenced as follows:

WHEREAS, the Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Alaska begins with, "We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land"

WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, "It is impossible to build an empire without our Father's aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."

WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, "animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" WHEREAS, James Madison, father of the United States Constitution advocated "the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation" in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

WHEREAS, Patrick Henry quoted Proverbs 14:34 for our nation, "Righteousness alone can exalt a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."

WHEREAS, George Mason, in his Virginia Declaration of Rights, forerunner to our United States Bill of Rights, affirmed, "That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love and charity towards each other."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, do hereby proclaim October 21-27, 2007, as Alaska's 9th Annual Christian Heritage Week in Alaska, and encourage all citizens to celebrate this week


Now, I recognize that the Proclamation could have been far worse, the Proclamation is careful (and good) in avoiding declaring the U.S. is a Christian nation.

And, although the Proclamation may be seen as something of a slight to those of us who are not Christian (especially in the absence of any proclamation celebrating other contributions to the U.S.), the subject of celebrating Christian heritage isn't particularly more offensive than celebrating, say, Irish heritage.

Nonetheless, the specific content of this Proclamation is troubling in several ways. I won't claim my thoughts on this are entirely original, but rather will quote a couple of internet blogs. First, from Belief.net:

But the resolution plucks Founding Father quotes out of context to give misleading impressions about their views on the role of religion in society. James Madison would roll in his grave if he saw that Memorial and Remonstrance was quoted as part of a Christian Heritage resolution. He was a hard-core advocate of separation of church and state who even advocated against well-meaning government efforts to aid religion. Ben Franklin did make that comment about God's intervention during the Constitutional convention but he also declared that he doubted the divinity of Christ. George Washington refused to take communion.link (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/palins-christian-heritage-week.html)

Second, from the Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

As you know, I don't believe it is up to the government at any level to tell people of any faith what week or day they should feel particularly religious. That's why we have religious leaders who will presumably tell believers to honor their heritage and worship every day of every week. There is absolutely no good (that is, non-pandering reason) to make these governmental salutes to religion.

Alaska's "Christian Heritage Week" just happens to be a particularly offensive version of so-called "civil religion". Here are just a few of its problems:

* Jefferson and Madison are quoted completely out of context here--both would be appalled at this idea and, in fact, Jefferson routinely refused to sign "day of prayer" proclamations sent to him by Congress;

*Patrick Henry may have been happy to comment on "sin"; but luckily for America his view of the role of religion in the nation was not that held by the majority of the Framers. In this country the government tries to stop "crimes"; it leaves the correction of "sinning" to the conscience of the people;

*Most significantly, this proclamation seeks "to encourage all citizens to celebrate this week". Alaska has a very diverse religious population, including many folks who adhere to traditional native religions. To suggest that even non-Christians celebrate this historically befuddled "Christian week" is hubris of the highest order. As the legendary Texas writer and musician Kinky Friedman observes: "Do you know how Native Americans pray on Thanksgiving? They say 'Thanks for nothing'." I know that is harsh, but I'm sure you get his drift.
link (http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/08/no-nonchristian-heritage-week.html)

One final note: I don't have further information on the degree to which Palin promoted this particular language or even the Proclamation as a whole. But the religious right are touting this as evidence she is one of them. This just adds to the evidence that they are correct about that.

TCT, there can be no doubt among honest, attentive people as to Sarah Palin's views regarding the role of religion in government and vice versa. She makes no bones about the matter herself, but is proud of her beliefs and proclaims them clearly every chance she gets. The only people who seem to be trying to down play her belief in combining Christian doctrine with public policy are the ones trying to support her for VP. Hm, I wonder why. It's almost as if they think that sort of thing would be taken as a mark against her candidacy. But if they think she's such a great choice for that job, I don't see why they should have a problem with it.

They think she's a good candidate for VP. Their good candidate believes that government should be in the business of promoting and honoring one religion and not others and that all citizens of a region -- regardless of their beliefs -- should be paying homage to that religion, too. Why are they not willing to embrace that as strongly as she is, I wonder.

Whether or not Palin qualifies as a "theocrat" or not: (1) don't her statements and views bother you

Of course.

(2) isn't she a least a bit theocratic?

I don't think so - possibly, but I guess I define 'theocratic' differently, I don't define it as where someone draws their perspective from, and whether it is theological or not. I define it as a specific form of government that recognises God as the head of state and governed by the Church etc... So where a politician draws their moral perspective from is irrelevant. What is relevant is the kind of government they advocate, now you could be making a case for her being theocratic with her apparent contempt for separation of Church and State. What sort of examples are you thinking of however? Whether teaching creationism is a separation of church of state, I don't think it has much to do with setting up a Church hierarchy above the secular hierarchy and having them the principle authority, so for that example I don't think it is enough to call her theocratic. Is there any other examples?

Show me where Palin has promoted the use of law direct from religious text or doctrine, rather than laws influenced or based on Christian understanding. The latter does NOT make you a theocrat.

If you don't have a more universal reason for the law, then it certainly demonstrates a tendency towards theocracy.

I clipped for length, because, obviously, this is a fundamental disagreement. Obviously, we understand each other and just draw our lines differently.

Labels are labels. Overused and underexplained labels are harmful, rather than helpful, to the discussion. Sexist, racist, and extreme labels are additionally harmful.

But are you seriously contending after this long discussion we have had that the label of "theocrat" is underexplained as regards to Palin???
Nope. I was contending it when it was first used. Incidentally, it wasn't the person who used it who could. And Muravyets couldn't defend it without trying to ignore the definition of what they a person who is a theocrat is advocating. I was simply forcing him or anyone to apply a little logic to the use of the term.

I still disagree with you that she favors a theocracy. You keep talking about direction, but it's the same argument used by those that suggest Obama is a socialist. "He's socialist-leaning" isn't much of a defense. That he argues for some policies that move us toward socialism doesn't really play, does it? Every breech in the balance of President with the other branches is a step toward monarchy, but I wouldn't claim that Bush is a monarchist.

So what it comes down to is 'Does she advocate a state where we are subject to religious authority?' I think the answer is no. You looked at my definition, but you went back to yours. There is no question that she believes in a leadership that claims to be led by God and advocates the will of God, but the fact is they aren't claiming that religious authority should be in control. We don't have to be a theocracy, but SHE DOES have to advocating one. She's not. What she's advocating violates the wall, to be sure, but I think she simply thinks we're a Christian people who should be ruled by people who represent them.

As far as the government part, remember that you are using a different definition. I totally agree that under your definition the US has behaved as a theocracy even if it wasn't declared. Again, I would say we aren't ruled by or been subject to religious authority by any stretch (there would be some exceptions, of course, but by the same definition, we've been occasionally communist.)

As far as the Supreme Court decision, since when am I bound by their declaration? Are you honestly telling me that they define the motivation of every person who commits an action? A legal distinction doesn't define logic. You really think there is no one who honestly believes that creation is backed by science?

I tried to cover everything, but, honestly, it's been a while and I'm not really that enthusiastic about defending Palin.

That said, I promise to read your reply. I'll reply if it's within time to be appropriate. I don't think we'll get much farther, though. I understand your position and agree with a lot of what you said. As I said, our differences are fundamental to how we define the meaning of theocrat and theocracy. We're seeing both a difference in denotation and connotation for both of us. Really, it's not relevant to how we view Palin. I think the terms are as helpful as calling Obama a socialist or Bush a monarchist. Probably just about as defensible.

TCT, there can be no doubt among honest, attentive people as to Sarah Palin's views regarding the role of religion in government and vice versa. She makes no bones about the matter herself, but is proud of her beliefs and proclaims them clearly every chance she gets. The only people who seem to be trying to down play her belief in combining Christian doctrine with public policy are the ones trying to support her for VP. Hm, I wonder why. It's almost as if they think that sort of thing would be taken as a mark against her candidacy. But if they think she's such a great choice for that job, I don't see why they should have a problem with it.

They think she's a good candidate for VP. Their good candidate believes that government should be in the business of promoting and honoring one religion and not others and that all citizens of a region -- regardless of their beliefs -- should be paying homage to that religion, too. Why are they not willing to embrace that as strongly as she is, I wonder.

Really? I support her for VP? Dem?

We may disagree on whether she's a theocrat, we all agree that she's a liar, a fraud and not fit to meet the VP.

Really? I support her for VP? Dem?

We may disagree on whether she's a theocrat, we all agree that she's a liar, a fraud and not fit to meet the VP.
You have what my grandmother would call a "bug up your ass" to fight with me about this. Did I mention you in that post? No, I didn't, did I? What I mentioned was "the people who support her for VP." Since you don't support her for VP, what the fuck made you think I was talking about you?

Did I mention the word "theocrat" in that post? *reads it again* Why, look at that, I did not. You want to know why I didn't? It was because I wasn't talking about Sarah Palin's theocratic leanings in general. I was talking specifically about the Alaskan incident described in TCT's post preceding mine, and the words I chose deliberately to use were in direct reference to that post and no other. "No other" in this context means "not about you."

And what does Dem have to do with any of it? Hm? It's bad enough that you come around and try to pull me back into that circular argument of yours after I specifically told you I had no interest in continuing it with you. I have to say I think you've got a lot of damned gall to try to drag innocent bystanders into your little circle jerk, too. Dempublicents is more than able to speak for herself if she thinks I was talking about her.

Oh, and finally, I say Sarah Palin is a theocrat, and if you don't like it, tough.

You have what my grandmother would call a "bug up your ass" to fight with me about this. Did I mention you in that post? No, I didn't, did I? What I mentioned was "the people who support her for VP." Since you don't support her for VP, what the fuck made you think I was talking about you?

Did I mention the word "theocrat" in that post? *reads it again* Why, look at that, I did not. You want to know why I didn't? It was because I wasn't talking about Sarah Palin's theocratic leanings in general. I was talking specifically about the Alaskan incident described in TCT's post preceding mine, and the words I chose deliberately to use were in direct reference to that post and no other. "No other" in this context means "not about you."

And what does Dem have to do with any of it? Hm? It's bad enough that you come around and try to pull me back into that circular argument of yours after I specifically told you I had no interest in continuing it with you. I have to say I think you've got a lot of damned gall to try to drag innocent bystanders into your little circle jerk, too. Dempublicents is more than able to speak for herself if she thinks I was talking about her.

Oh, and finally, I say Sarah Palin is a theocrat, and if you don't like it, tough.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm not trying to start an argument. I, frankly, won't have time to continue it. And we agree one most of our assessment of Palin, I suspect. But reread what you wrote. In a thread where a long argument has occurred between you and I and TCT and a few others about to what degree she believes religion and government should be mixed, you said "The only people who seem to be trying to down play her belief in combining Christian doctrine with public policy are the ones trying to support her for VP." You don't see how that might reasonably seen as a reference to those that disagreed with you on a point that was absolutely relevant to that statement?

**snip of clear and expansive information demonstrating Palin, by signature and proclamation, supports statements like "That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love and charity towards each other" as being resultant from the bill of rights through its forebear, the Virginia bill of rights.**

I don't have further information on the degree to which Palin promoted this particular language or even the Proclamation as a whole. But the religious right are touting this as evidence she is one of them. This just adds to the evidence that they are correct about that.

I am tired of your grotesque Jew lies, Cat-Tribe.

First of all, simply point out "That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love and charity towards each other" hardly means this woman stands with the Christian right.

It just means that she holds that a duty of all, which includes the citizenry and the government, is to support an explicitly Christian mentality, and that she feels this interpretation is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

You clearly are not aware of your Christian mutual duties, but I'm sure Palin will help to inform you, and when practical, help you to comply.

God bless that woman.

God bless that woman.

I'm sure he will... by sending her back to the state and let her prepare to receive those fleeing the apocalypse.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick.
And yet you succeed so well. Imagine if you had been trying.

I'm not trying to start an argument. I, frankly, won't have time to continue it. And we agree one most of our assessment of Palin, I suspect. But reread what you wrote. In a thread where a long argument has occurred between you and I and TCT and a few others about to what degree she believes religion and government should be mixed, you said "The only people who seem to be trying to down play her belief in combining Christian doctrine with public policy[/B] are the ones trying to support her for VP." You don't see how that might reasonably seen as a reference to those that disagreed with you on a point that was absolutely relevant to that statement?
No, I don't see that, because the proposed connection is nonsense. What I wrote was perfectly clear and would not have confused anyone who was not intent on making the conversation revolve around you and your interest-du-jour. Trust me, J, when I'm talking about you, you'll know it. I'll make sure to bring it to your attention.

Really? I support her for VP? Dem?

We may disagree on whether she's a theocrat, we all agree that she's a liar, a fraud and not fit to meet the VP.

Is Christianity a subset of theology?

Has she ever signed anything proclaiming that the Viriginia Bill of Rights and by extension the US Bill of Rights mandate that we all have a "mutual Christian duty"? (Bear in mind, she can think we have whatever duty she wants, but to attach it to the Bill of Rights attachs the 'ocrat to her).

If yes to both, I think we've got a theocrat.

I am tired of your grotesque Jew lies, Cat-Tribe.

First of all, simply point out "That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love and charity towards each other" hardly means this woman stands with the Christian right.

It just means that she holds that a duty of all, which includes the citizenry and the government, is to support an explicitly Christian mentality, and that she feels this interpretation is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

You clearly are not aware of your Christian mutual duties, but I'm sure Palin will help to inform you, and when practical, help you to comply.

God bless that woman.

Look, I want you to find one place, JUST one, in the amendments to the constitution where it says religion and government should be kept separate. You can't do it, can you? I bet you could read every amendment to the constitution from Amendment II to Amendment IIIX and not find it.

I'm sure he will... by sending her back to the state and let her prepare to receive those fleeing the apocalypse.

If she's right, she'll be raptured up, and Alaska will be left to the post-apocalyptic guys, generally a mixture of guys riding motorcycles with football gear and mohawks, with some of the younger "left behind" ladies going for the whole "Resident Evil" technochik look.

with some of the younger "left behind" ladies going for the whole "Resident Evil" technochik look.

we can only hope.

And yet you succeed so well. Imagine if you had been trying.


No, I don't see that, because the proposed connection is nonsense. What I wrote was perfectly clear and would not have confused anyone who was not intent on making the conversation revolve around you and your interest-du-jour. Trust me, J, when I'm talking about you, you'll know it. I'll make sure to bring it to your attention.

Yeah, why be reasonable? Let's pretend like you made some kind of distinction there.

Look, I want you to find one place, JUST one, in the amendments to the constitution where it says religion and government should be kept separate. You can't do it, can you? I bet you could read every amendment to the constitution from Amendment II to Amendment IIIX and not find it.

Damn right. The first page of any document is just the copyright date and the publishing house address, anyway.

Some guy once told me about some Establishment Clause and a Free Excercise Clause, but I set him straight that its Free Excercise of Christianity and Nothing Else.

As for "Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting the Establishment of Religion", its fine because congress didn't make the law establishing the US as Christian. Jesus did.

Congress didn't make the law establishing the US as Christian. Jesus did.

Wow! Jesus was American? And a Christian? All this time I thought he was Jewish.