Dear Obama supporters,

Please keep talking about Governor Palin's religious views, her pastor, etc. That means conservatives can keep bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Obama.

Thanks,

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

lol

Good story and about half was interesting. Outside of having a pastor named "Tim McGraw" ;), not sure what really would worry most Americans there. In all seriousness, it seems to talk more about people in her former church (left it in 2002) than any of Palin's statements or beliefs. It's somewhat odd that they reference a comment made by a pastor at that church in 2004 when she left in 2002 as some kind of reference point for her. But, given the hatchet jobs done to this point, it was actually an interesting read (although nothing really different from what I already knew about her).

i think in terms of whackadooness they pretty much even out

No no no.. not WhackaDoon... WhackaLoon! What the hell are they teaching kids these days!

Wallace gets a bad rap from the lefties, but he ripped Donald Rumsfeld a new one when he had him on for an interview while Rummy was still Secretary of Defense.

Well, there's the fact (as Arles pointed out) that Palin left her church several years ago and Obama left his THIS year... after defending and comparing Rev. Wright to a member of his own family. But if you think they equal out in terms of whackadooness (great word, btw) that's fine by me. I just have a feeling that you're incorrect. :p

Man, first McCain and now Palin. If you run for office in as a republican (esp pro life), you are going to come into contact a few times with some questionable pastor/preachers. Still, neither McCain or Palin had a "spiritual adviser" or close friend that can even hold a candle to Wright.

And, the more the left tries to make some kind of morale equivalency between attending a church that had a loon (for Foz) guest preacher or questionable pastor, the more most Americans are going to remember how uncomfortable Wright made them. It's best to just drop the issue and let it be.

It's almost like the left is the husband arguing with his wife (American people) after the husband was caught kissing another woman. Bringing up how the wife said an old boyfriend was hot once doesn't help the husband. Just let it go and hope it's never brought up again. ;)

Yeah, the type of venom they spew from the pulpit about their candidate's political opponents is reprehensible. These guys are clearly whacked:

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ

“Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton ‘because her husband was good to us.’ That's not true, he did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky." (thrusting hips for dramatic effect)

“Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called a n_____!”

Pastor Larry Kroon, Wasilla Bible Church

He asked the 300 congregants at the first of two morning services to pray for all of the candidates for president and vice president, and to be thankful that all four are willing to provide the nation with their public service.

He urged churchgoers to "pray for the press." Kroon said the media are to be "cherished and respected," citing 19th century philosopher Alexander de Tocqueville's works describing a free press and freedom of religion as essential pillars of democracy.

well FTR i'm less interested in the pastor-stuff and more interested in the fact she says faith doesn't influence her politics and then cnn provides a direct quote of at least one place where it does.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Most fairly religious people are impacting in some manner by their faith. So, I think you can say that you don't govern based on religious "rules" but that your religion has helped make you into the person that people voted for (and elected in her case).

Also, Charles Gibson of ABC News got the first interview with Palin. It should be running in the next week:

ABC News gets first Palin interview - Yahoo! News

If I'm McCain, I'm leaking out a story about Palin and a drunken priest when she was 15. The more people talk about Palin and the left hooks on, the less people actually do what will impact the election ( attack McCain and attach him to Bush).

No. She would have never accepted the role. I think she would have loved to have been asked, and would have courted the option so she could turn it down. That would have made her look good, and probably hurt Obama.

I'd leave the religious stuff alone personally, but all the concern trolling is rather less than sincere.

IMO, it's quite obvious. He was taking more left leaning positions in the primaries to beat Senator Clinton and now he's reversing those for more moderate positions in the hope to beat Senator McCain.

Not that that is unprecedented, but when you hear from the left that McCain has flip flopped on X, Y, Z to appeal to the far right, this sort of thing tends to raise my eyebrows (the same people say this shows Obama is prudent in the face of changing circumstances... what a crock!)

this might not be the right place to ask this question because I am looking for a practical and not a political answer (to the extent that they can be separated). But here goes:

What advantage did Obama get by opting out of public financing? Assume for purposes of this question that he will raise the amount of money that he was expecting (probably not true, actually, but not the point of my question).

I note that McCain is still raising money online for his "compliance fund" and that the DNC and RNC can still raise money hand over fist with no regard to the matching funds spending limit.

So, seeing how the spending limit seems to just be a matter of putting money in the right boxes (as opposed to slowing down fundraising at all), didn't Obama just give McCain $84 million for nothing?

What advantage--practical not theoretical-does opting out of the system have?

That may be what happens. The kind of coordination between McCain, the RNC and state parties has never been done before and while legal is certainly against the spirit of McCain-Feingold. There are some practical coordination issues as the party isn't supposed to get marching orders for ads from the candidate, but everyone ignores those regulations.

again, Im not sure people fear someone's belief's as much as said person's willingness to let said beliefs guide one's legislative decisions and foreign policy interactions. Im sure we have had many a president with strong religious beliefs (we have one now) but it's their ability to conciously place those feelings aside when doing analysis, taking advice, thinking about all of the options and their ramifications, making statements (axis of evil), and making a "move", etc. Palin seems to not be able to do any of the above (at least in her dealings in her own state, her statements in the past, and I surmise her actions in the future (hopefully not as President). I could be wrong but what do I have to go off of thus far?

Do you think any Christian/Muslim (Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, etc), leaves his values and beliefs at home when they go to work? It's impossible. It goes against the whole point of religion. Why are Republicans expected to became athiests at the workplace but the same isn't expected of Democrats? Clinton in particular referenced God quite a bit.

I''ll pretend I'm JPhillips - prove to me Clinton never used his beliefs to guide his legislative decisions and foregin policy, and also that Obama wouldn't as president (and hasn't as Senator or community organizer) If you can't, I'm obviously right.

Exactly. Every single politician ends a speech with 'God bless the United States of America'.

1. It openly shows a pandering for the religious voters.
2. It openly shows that religion plays a part in politics whether you like it or not.

I think the articles citing Obama's financial demise is campaign spin.

I don't believe they're doing as bad as they say they are. I think they're just trying to squeeze more juice out of the lemon.

Conversely, it took a hell of an effort for them just to beat Clinton and so, it was probably foolhardy for him to sip his own Kool-Aid and believe he could continue to raise at that level.

But the campaign finance system would've taken them off familiar playgrounds and put them in territory they don't know well.

I suspect McCain knew the holes of the campaign finance laws and used it as an exploit, whereas Obama and Co. don't as well and saw the flaws enough to saw what it did to Kerry.

The problem isn't matching McCain + RNC dollar for dollar, it's the 529s who support their cause that the Dems are really worried about. But the absence of them making a dent in this race so far, has people thinking he was seeing a ghost back when he talked about taking on the GOP's money machines as to why he opted out.

I don't think if he loses, it'll have had anything to do with opting out. And given how much they've invested in their ground infrastructure, plus the boatloads they've spent already...I think the real issue is simply waiting until the last 30 days or so of the race and pushing hard on people who will get their momentum back to fuel him to the finish line financially.

Here's the difference. I ask that people prove the accuracy of what they say. You ask people to prove the accuracy of things they didn't say.

You said Republicans while I say ALL, and I think that that speaks volumes. The job of Pres., VP, Senator, etc. requires, IMO, a check of religion at the door. If not you run the risk of becoming a Theocracy and having a religious minority being tread upon which goes against the fabric of our country. Once again, my opinion but I believe that religion gets checked at the door when you go to hold public office....at least in this country, not in Iran.

Intrade Market shares are now trading at about 50/50. As I mentioned earlier in the summer when McCain shares were trading at 30, you would virtually be guaranteed a profit after the Republican convention (unless McCain died before then).

The high point of the Palin drop out contract also seemed like free money IMO.

How is that possible? Christianity is all tied in with everday values. It makes up who you are. Why would you want anyone to check that stuff at the door (values like integrity, work ethic, looking out for those less fortunate). I'm sure Obama learned about strength and Compassion through his wacko church. Should he shed those values, just because he were established in a place with a cross out front?

I guess maybe I don't understand what you mean by bringing your religion to work. Can you give an example of an actual politician doing that in a way you object to?

Big time. But I think the problem was that that particular "stock" debuted high, only after the controversy. It's not like you good have purchased "McCain fires his running mate" for pennies a year ago and cash in now. Anyone who bought the Palin thing when it debuted is a moron, because they'll own it forever.

Because not everyone in our country is a Christian and the things in parenthesis are not mutually exclusive to Christianity.

As an example, Palin saying that the "Iraq Mission was a mission from God".....thats scary shit to a lot of people man. Maybe not Christians (although I think a lot of Christians are able to take the blinders off) but to a majority of the people who aren't Christian or perhaps aren't any religion, that is some seriously scary shit.

But having one side fighting a "jihad" (and Im not using Iraq in this statement) and us saying we're the moral high ground but then have "leadership" (a General made similar statements) state that we're fighting on a mission from god, or "jihad" equivalent is super duper scary shit.

I thought it debuted in the mid singles. Seeing where it debuted there were only a few hours where you could have sold at a profit.

For my government buffs, got a couple of questions.

1. I hear a lot of things from republicans about democrats raising taxes and spending more of that tax money. For those that have been around awhile is that generally true?

2. Ideologically, I know the difference between R and D. However, historically, has there been a significant difference between a republican controlled government vs. a democratic controlled?

I ask because being relatively young, I was just going to college during end of the Clinton years and then Bush came, and my sample size is likely smaller than some of you guys. Any light to share?

+1000

Crusades 2008.

But the mutually exclusive thing is my point - do you really think Palin is in favor of the war exclusively to please god, or do you think there's overlap with her own foreign policy views?

I'm sure politicans talked about World War II as being some kind of holy war of good v. evil. But the war wasn't really fought to please god. When someone invokes religious/spiritual rhetoric after the fact, I lump it in with the general, American, bland, "Christianity" where god has to do with everything. Palin (like most politicans on both sides), supported the war at first (and like a much smaller number, still does). I don't believe that that opinion really has anything to do with god.

Compare it to say, if Bush decided to invade Norway tomorrow because God told him to, and he found some code in the bible that said it was a just action. That's be a tad scary, because there's no non-relgious reasons to invade Norway.

Do you think McCain, or any presidential candidate, would wage a "jihad" war? That seems like a pretty unreasonable fear, and just fearmongering by Obama supporters. Is the Iraq war about jihad? I haven't heard even the biggest Bush opponents claim that.

It certainly can push what I believe to be bad fundamental decision making and bad "attacks". For example, book burnings, teaching of a non-scientific issue in publicly funded schools, etc. Its not always about war.

I dont want you to think that i dont see your point that a pol could make a decision without consideration of religious faith and than afterwards, in soundbites, attach some religious belief to it however I think that that is an awfully convenient way to hide said motivations if need be. Which do you choose to believe? On the one hand you have the "you cant remove religion from decisions" and on the other you have the "religion didnt play a role in the decision but we'll throw some religious and faith based verbiage on it afterwards" (or at least not a big enough role to have an affect on the direction chosen). Ill go with your first argument that a person with Religious faith, so strong that it invades their public speak should stand behind their religion and never give it up....but that certainly, IMO, precludes them from holding public office no matter their religion. I guess we could argument semantics about where that line is but based on the quotes Ive read thus far, Palin has crossed that line in my book but perhaps not in yours or others. I would expect the same from Lieberman, Romney and others and will consider this one facet of a ticket's full picture when casting my vote and hope that others do too.

As a Christian whose faith leads him in an opposite direction as Palin, the only thing that bothers me is her inconsistency. Either her faith influences her political decisions or it doesn't. If she's said that in the past as she's been quoted, then why is she afraid of admitting it now? She needs to make up her mind, and then we can have a discussion about it.

dola

I'd add that it also bothers me for many reasons that she asked Alaskans to pray for an oil pipeline, mainly because it makes Christians look silly.

Flasch,

When George Washington stepped down as president, he wrote a farewell address to the American people. While it's just one man's opinion (and I'd say his section on foreign policy is a bit dated due to the advances in technology), here's what he has to say about religion and public office. Just some food for thought.

Well, then all the athletes who pray for a win are silly as well.

FWIW.......I'm a moderate republican who thinks all religious people looks silly. My theory is that man created God in his own image. I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to be religious. I think a moral foundation is a great thing. I just don't think you need religion or a fear of going to hell to create that sound moral foundation.

I dont care what GW said 200+ years ago as times have changed and I live in the here and now. Our country was not founded on Christianity and I know you'll argue this to no end but I truly believe that the founding fathers wanted religious freedom for all even if it means having no religion at all, and having religious decisions play a role in our countries legislation and decision making is an affront to that foundation and scary scary scary shit. If you disagree with this than IMO you are ok with opening a door to second class treatment of those who arent homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power. Throughout history this has been an ingredient for failure.

I have faith that our greatest achievements by our elected leaders are done when religion isn't leaned upon in the decision making apparatus.

agreed...for once. :)

Just for the record, this is actually the third time you have agreed with me in this thread, though you have used the terms 'for once' in each agreement as though it were the first time. ;)

He has a reputation to uphold :D.

well Im like a new Xbox 360 each time ;)

The Constitution protects against "opening a door to second class treatment of those who aren't homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power".

Religious is fading in America, not growing. It seems strange to me, that in 2008, you're somehow scared of (I guess), John McCain coming in and making religious-based decisions. No matter who is president, they'll be less religiously motivated than ANY other president in history (can't prove it, just an opinion, and an observation of the decline of religion in this country).

It's up to the voters of course. If they want a Satantic president, they can vote for one (though he'd still be limited by Constitution). But every president has been Christian, and usually pretty overtly so. Americans aren't scared of that, because we know about Christiantiy. American Christianity isn't really very scary (and it's actually pretty shallow in the sense that it doesn't drive people's lives like to contradict regular American values). Is a good Christian all that different than a good atheist? The Christian values aren't very desctructive, for the most part.

I guess I don't understand why you think McCain is any "scarier" than Obama in this regard, if that's what you're saying.

Religious beliefs only matter to me when they compel actions or goals that are in contrast to ideals of the founders. I don't care if she speaks in tongues from time to time. I do care that she was interested in banning books. Same for Obama, I don't care that he went to Trinity, I would care if he said he was promoting Wright's worldview.

The good conversation that could come from all this, but won't unfortunately, is that in churches all across America people hear what the majority would likely consider an extreme message. Religious beliefs, by their nature are "crazy" to those who don't share the same beliefs. To a non-believer there really isn't a craziness difference between people who believe in a Holy Ghost and people who believe in Xenu.

That's why it's important for public officials to put the ideals of the nation as expressed in the Constitution above the ideals of one's own religious beliefs if they are in conflict. It's only when an official can't place their religious views subservient to the Constitution that I have a problem.

In the same speech, Washington also said this:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?"

Clearly, we have lost our way.

I didn't say McCain, I said Palin and Im one of the few people who says they vote for a ticket not one individual and as a ticket Im less afraid of the Obama/Biden ticket than the McCain/Palin ticket on this one facet we're currently discussing.

I had a fear of Obama's tax platform during recessionary times although I believe that tax changes are a necessity for our long term health of our country, ie. infrastructure, schools, etc. and am very very pleased that Obama's ticket has stated clearly that they recognize the current status of the economy and the need to bend their ideals for the here and now. I LOVE any leader who can see the forest for the trees and be able to make changes to their direction for the betterment of the country. We've been devoid of that, IMO, for the last 7 years.

The Constitution is the check on all of this, you can't be in conflict with that whatever the reason, religious or otherwise. But if the voters vote for an overt Christian, why can't he act like a Christian in office (whatever that means).

When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution? Are you talking about abortion? Is being pro-life bad for a politician if it's motivated by religion? That seems un-American.

Hypothetical from a state level - If "the people" are religious, and are pro-life because of that religion, should the politican they elect ignore that just because it's a religious view? Are "the people" not entitled to a politican that is pro-life because once any leader gets in office, they shouldn't have religious beliefs anymore?

I think you probably know much less about our elected leaders than you think. Frankly, you're coming off as the type of person who never would have voted for Kennedy in 1960 because you didn't want the Pope running the country.

This doesn't happen. Fear of religious views for McCain/Palin is no different than the "vote for Bush and a black church will burn" crud that was peddled out there in 2000. As far as I can tell, no president has ever made a major decision based solely on region since before JFK. Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford, W and JFK were all much more overtly religious than McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Yet, now we are "afraid" that McCain and Palin will step in on day 1 and start a new crusades under the guise of religion.

Nearly every electable political leader in today's climate has a religious base that is so watered down that (even if given free reign) they wouldn't make judgments solely based on it. And, to be honest, that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing and it's certainly not something to be afraid of. Both McCain (outside of the war) and Obama have shown that one thing guides them during this election - internal polls and the desire to be elected. That alone should put all the "we are going to have Jerry Fallwell as president if one side wins" people at ease. Of course, it will make numerous others (myself included) a little worried for other reasons.

I'm ambivalently pro-choice at best, so it has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.

It isn't about acting like a Christian, but about compelling someone else to live under the tenets of my religious beliefs. Like I said, I don't really care whether someone's a Mormon, a snakehandler, a Pentecostal or whatever. As a mainline Christian they all seem extreme to me, but I'm sure my religious beliefs can seem wishy-washy to them. So long as my beliefs don't hinder them and vice-versa everything works fine. If I tried to ban speaking in tongues or a Mormon inserted founding beliefs into an American History text that's too far.

I disagree - if anything, American religious ferver is growing, similar to that in Africa/India/Latin America as opposed to a more secular Europe. I'd guarantee that the next GOP president after McCain for example, will be far more religously motivated than a Gerald Ford or a Nixon before him.

You're joking right?

You don't have be smug, give an example.

Preferably, an example where a politican actually succeeded in subverting the Constitution for religion. I'll be patient.

If you seriously believe that any books will be banned or birth control will be banned under any Republican administration or any Republican-lead Congress, then your much more of left-leaning whacko than I ever gave you credit for in the first place. There's no way that any of that happens in our country and any attempt to say otherwise is fear-mongering at best.

I thought Republicans had the market cornered on fear-mongering, but it's nice to see Dems have become so adept at is as well.

What possibly could a sitting president (or vice president in this case) do to cause birth control to be banned or burning books? Even supporting either (let alone convincing the congress to do some legislation on it) would be a quick ticket out of office.

These are scarecrow fears. Not only are they ridiculous (does anyone honestly think Palin would be favor of burning books as president?), but they are completely infeasible.

It would be like me saying I'm afraid that Obama would institute a Muslim wing of the government and hire an arab terrorist as Sec of Defense because he visited some Muslim countries and hung out with people of Muslim descent. Both claims are ridiculous and the left would pepper me (with good cause) if I stated that. Yet, acting as if Palin would be in favor of burning books is a "serious fear we need to be aware of".

Perhaps they've become emboldended by the liberals' attempts to squeeze them out of American life.

So much of our life involves the government in some way. "Seperation of church and state" has become "don't ask, don't tell". Or at the very least, that's a very strong perception.

My father's a Lutheran pastor (the least scary denomination possible), and he used to give a short, generic blessing at the high school graduation. One year they told him he couldn't do it anymore. No big deal, he'd rather be watching baseball anyway. But I can see how that stuff comes off to some people. They're not forcing anyone to believe anything. They're not punishing anyone who believes otherwise. You sit there, think about whatever, and then the blessing's over. Big deal. I personally don't care, but it's just out of control the lengths we go to to protect people from wayward religious ideas. It feels like something a government that wants to extinguish Christianity would do.

....or you can have a blessing for every religion and be there for 6 hours.

My father's was non-denominational, it would would have fit for any religion, except maybe scientology.

Until the government banned it. The problem was that it implied that god exists. That's scary stuff, so they had to shut it down.

Perhaps the next step is banning religious books from government-funded libraries. If that hasn't happened already.

Terry Schiavo

Your example isn't remotely the same. We know that Palin did in fact ask the Wasilla librarian about banning books. Her actions in the past have been in favor of banning books. Is it not acceptable to at least learn from her the reasoning for that and her thoughts on book banning?

The other stuff doesn't necessarily apply to Palin, but those are views held by various Bush appointees. Are you saying we shouldn't care what people profess as their beliefs and goals? We should just assume that no matter what people say and no matter what people do that when they run for office or are appointed we should just pretend it never happened?

You also want to set the bar at legislation when that's not the only way to effect policy. The various executive agencies have a whole lot of authority to change policies on thousands of items. Often these changes have much broader effects than were at first realized. Look at what HHS was doing to try to classify contraception as a form of abortion and hence allow health care workers to refuse to dispense.

Look, believe what you want and draw your line where you will. For me when religion starts to effect policy decisions, not in the abstract, but to push a narrow agenda, that's too much. People who have made decisions or stated goals that are in contrast to what most Americans consider personal freedoms, at a minimum should at least be expected to clarify their positions.

Roy Moore

whoops, my bad you also have to do something for those who are atheists. I dont know what but there feelings need to be just as important as those who have religious faith.

Non-denominational doesnt cover any religion my friend and that is a very thin veil.

So the compromise is to ONLY do something for atheists and nobody else?

Why do you have to do something for anyone? The Constitution doesn't require 6 hours of blessings or none.

eh, youre right, fuck 'em.

helenair.com

Ron Paul will be on the ballot in Montana for some reason. Do you think this will have any effect on the outcome of the state or is it still solid McCain?

Is anyone else rooting for a 269-269 tie? I was playing around with rcp's create a map and it will happen if Obama wins all Kerry states except NH and he picks up CO, NM, and IA. Not that far fetched. It's only happened twice in history where the House of Reps. decided the Presidency.

No idea if you're sincere but.

The Constitution doesn't protect someone from being exposed to the expressions of other religions. That would contradict the 1st amendment anyway.

What if my sincerely held religious belief is that government is the root of all evil? How should I be protected? I'm exposed to that shit every day. Government makes me uncomfortable.

Isn't that exactly in line with the current thinking on the separation of church and state...don't do anything for anyone?

That's definitely the current thinking, but it's a policy decision, it's not required by the constitution (and may actually violate the 1st ammendment).

public and private are where were going to find ourselves at issue. If I go to a sponsored church event I can expect to find a blessing in said vein....If I go to a public event sponsored by a government entity (think broadly, on government grounds, etc) than it shouldn't be favorable to any one religion or religion for that matter. Are there some things in our government that ceremonially have incorporated some religious overtone? certainly, like the swearing in but those events and moments have lost their religious weight almost to nil but when a prayer is said at a public high school graduation it become problematic....but not in your view and thats ok as long as your not a public official trying to push for your line of thinking on others.

I hear cyndi lauper singing right now

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

We'd definitely managed to cram a lot of stuff over that over the years.

I'm not strict texualist or anything, but I don't see how the pledge of alliegence or non-mandatory school prayer (and especially mere references to religion) are even in the ballpark.

Oh, and if it matters, I'm not remotely religious. Haven't been to church in maybe 10 years. But I'm not threatened by Christianity.

there are plenty of ways to have 'non-madatory' school prayer, AAMOF, at my school BASIC met every morning in an empty class room to pray. Good for them and it didnt take up one minute of the school day for others. The pledge falls under the 'nil' i mentioned above. Like I said, Cyndi is singing and we can see it too.

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing. You ask, "Why do you have to do something for anyone?" -- it sounds like you're in favor of not doing anything for anyone. But you're in favor of bringing in a pastor to do a prayer, which is doing something for one group?

And Obama has had close friends that were Muslim. Do you think it more likely that Palin would inquire as VP about banning books as it would be for Obama to name a close friend (that happens to be Muslim) to his cabinet? The point is neither will happen as they are political suicide and to worry about either shows a lack of common sense.

If this is the slope we are taking, there's a ton of democrats who think having Muslims in a president's cabinet would be a good thing. If we are going to start knocking McCain/Palin for Bush appointees, we can start knocking Obama for the beliefs of some of the main big wigs in the democrat/move on circles. Again, I'm not sure what this gains (outside of fear mongering).

No, I think it's perfectly fine to scrutinize the belief system of candidates. I just don't think it needs to go to the level of fearing a ban of birth control and burning books. Palin is going to be much more christian conservative than a lot of people prefer, and those people won't vote for her. But to act as if her goal would be to institute massive book burning episodes or a ban of birth control to scare people is a little over the top. Heck, if she didn't do that in Alaska, how would she be able to do it as VP (or even president)?

If you don't like that process, tell your congressman/woman and/or vote for a different candidate for office. It's the beauty of our American political system.

OK, then. Looks like you won't be voting for Obama or McCain. Obama has routinely stated that his Christian faith is a big factor in trying to setup a heath care system for all people and his religious beliefs help lead him to try to have compassion for those less fortunate (which is way the wealthy should pay more in taxes). McCain has stated that his religious background impacts his feelings on helping those less fortunate as well. Heck, I even think Bob Barr may be out. Perhaps there's an atheist somewhere running on the green platform you can vote for.

but it's the 'right' group.

and Arles she tried.

I meant to say "why do you have to something for everyone", but rather than correct my typo, I left it as is, to make the point, "if you decide to do one thing, why do you then have to do something for everyone else?". In that hypothetical scenerio, the government is REQUIRING to you to make a specific religious message (for the people that are left out). You can't get any more unconstitutional than that.

I don't care remotely if there's a blessing at a graduation or not. But if a public school wants one, I think they should be able to do it. If students want it there, and the school's OK with it, they should be able to have it without government interference.

I'm just not a huge fan of the enviornment where mentioning "god" sets off red flags of suppression for everyone.

What public school do you know of that has ALL Christian students and just because theyre the majority or most vocal doesnt mean that the minority's feelings are of little or no concern. This is the crux of the problem and plain as day that you cannot see.

The thing I don't understand is why does it have to be in the public sphere? There is so much energy and attention into trying to get religion in public and I think it could be better used for more productive things. I think there are many who want to force their beliefs on others and that is unfortunate. People like Pat Robertson, Roy Moore, etc. do more to harm Christianity than any athiest could ever dream.

Arles: If the very idea of having a Muslim on the cabinet is as offensive to you as banning books, we really have little to discuss.

It's good to know that inquiring (while mayor) about the library in Wasilla's policies on removing books because some voters thought they had "inappropriate language" in them equates an attempt to ban books. Forget the fact that she never once asked for a ban or even a ban supported by someone else. Forget that it could have simply been a process of her investigating the city's option should it become a legislative attempt or ballot initiative.

No, because she asked a librarian on the policy of removing books because of citizen complaints, she wanted to ban books. Sound about right?

Non-mandatory prayer in a school environment filled with peer pressure is anything but non-mandatory.

The big lie that gets told all the time is that prayer has been taken out of public schools. Not true. I prayed all the time at school, brought a bible on test days, and never had a problem. The problem is that for some reason people want the school to lead the prayer. Why is that necessary?

That's what you got from what I wrote? My statement was for Obama to create Muslim wing of the government or name a Muslim as Secretary of Defense would be political suicide. I made no moral judgment about the process, which is why I stated even if you were afraid of such a thing - Obama doing so would involve little common sense. The point is not make judgments about where Muslims as sec of defense or certain books being burned is "right" or not, but to look at the politically reality that neither will happen. So, why even worry about it.

But, I guess faking outcry at a scarecrow argument is a quick way to avoid the real points of my reply. So, kudos for doing that.

I just don't buy that a atheiest or non-Christian is that freaked out by mentions of god by Christians.

And no, I'm not that concerned about their feelings, especially if they keep them to themselves. The Consitution is supposed to protect feelings now?

I should clarify that if you're just arguging generally, from a policy perspective, that you don't want any prayer in school, fine, I don't care enough to disagree or argue. I just don't think its a Constitutional/government issue, and I don't think the government should involve itself in such matters unless someone's rights are being violated (beyond hurt feelings). And you simply don't have a right to be shielded from things you find offensive. And I idea of the government "establishing a religion" is in a different stratosphere from school prayer, etc.

I'm a green Atheist. Perhaps I should run!

Arles: The one quote we have about the books incident is:


Since Palin won't answer any questions, we don't have any other info. Your phrasing of "inquiring" about the "policies on removing books" puts quite a positive spin on things. I'll assume you haven't had a private discussion with either Palin or the librarian, so how did you come to such a conclusion?

Maybe there's nothing there, but we know she asked about getting rid of books and then threatened to fire the librarian for not supporting her enough. If Palin would answer some questions we'd know a lot more.

That's not quite how the librarian has talked about the event. spin much?

Would you like to have a Muslim prayer (and only a Muslim prayer) happen every day at your child's public school?

Again, Obama does not have a history of appointing Muslims nor has he ever stated he would appoint a Muslim as SecDef. Even if he would the mere fact that someone is a Muslim is inconsequential. If that person had a history of vitriolic statements or jihadist tendencies that would be a concern That's why your example doesn't have merit.

Palin has a history of trying to ban books and refuses to discuss it. It's not about political consequences, it's about a desire to wield authority to impose religious views on those who have different beliefs.

Do we know what kinds of books she wanted to "ban" (or in reality, just remove from the government-funded library?)

There's lots of books that your neighborhood government library wouldn't think to carry. That doesn't amount to a "ban". Somehow, these libararies have to decide which books to carry and which ones not to. You're probably not going to find a lot of good porn down there. The ones that don't make the cut, for whatever reason, aren't "banned".

The government is allowed to show preferences for viewpoints in some ways ("sin taxes", etc).

If it's a private libarary, we'll talking a whole different kettle of fish.

And I'm not in favor of "book banning", but if that's your primary concern, Palin will have much less oportunity to regulate government libaries as VP than she would in Alaska politics.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


Congress shall have the power to...declare war...

"Earlier in 2005, President Bush claimed he was on a mission from God when he started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." The US president told a Palestinian delegation in Sharm el-Sheikh."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203

Are you serious? You think that Bush declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq because of his religion?! Tell that to the PNAC guys.

Palin pressured Wasilla librarian: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

Highlights:

He already had a few examples that weren't a stretch to respond to and chose not to respond to either of them. I am sure he will jump all over this one, but I would love to hear his response to Terry Schiavo or the 10 commandments judge.

Obama appears to be getting scared:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gn_flashes.php

After saying he wasn't going to support 527's, he appears to want to call them in.

The evidence in that blog is unconvincing.


And my uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed says that McCain and Palin have a secret affair and he chose her as VP to keep it quiet.

If you can point to one executive order, piece of legislation or even ballot initiative she just supported as mayor, governor or while on the commission in Alaska, then I would agree she has a history of it. As it stands now, that does not exist.

Still, I have no problem with people asking her about it. I just don't think it's a fair fear for people to have about her being in office.

I'd imagine an Obama adviser would be far more privy to the campaigns internal thinking than your uncle's brother's sister's ex-husband's cousin twice removed who has no ties to the McCain campaign.

I gotta agree with ISiddiqui here. Bush may have cloaked it as a "mission from god" to try to appease certain segments of his voter-base and drive up enlistment #'s in the rust belt and the heartland (traditionally religious areas), but it was much more PNAC-driven. To an absurd degree.

Then again, saying he cloaked it that way on purpose for a reason is really giving him too much credit - it must have been an advisor. I honestly don't believe the guy could think his way out of a paper bag (exaggeration, but you get my drift).

It's about fucking time. Rarely do you win a fight by keeping your weapons locked up.

Agreed, those are obviously much clearer examples.