Knives out for Palin

[Guest American Woman]

Obama and Palin are both clearly people of faith. There isn't a whole lot of difference between what Palin has said and what Obama has said except for the fact that Palin has said it in regards to very specific politial issues. Perhaps she should speak in broader terms when speaking of her faith so as to not muddy the line between church and state.

As for Bush saying God spoke to him, or whatever he is supposed to have specifically said, that's a translation of a translation repeated from memory a few days after the fact. I don't put any stock in that kind of 'quote.'

[Sir Bandelot]

So he is a liar then?

Is he a politician?

[jefferiah]

Perhaps she should speak in broader terms when speaking of her faith so as to not muddy the line between church and state.

That makes no sense at all. How does praying that our leaders will take the right course constitute the establishment of a state religion? This is not an example of blurring the lines between Church and State.

Edited November 16, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

That makes no sense at all. How does praying that our leaders will take the right course constitute the establishment of a state religion? This is not an example of blurring the lines between Church and State.

I never so much as insinuated that praying that our leaders will take the right course constitutes the establishment of a state religion. I didn't say that anything constituted the establishment of a state religion. That's quite a leap from what I did say, which was to refer to applying religion to specific political issues as "muddying the line between church and state."

When Palin says that we need a plan for Iraq, that we have to pray that there's a plan, and that the plan is God's plan, that is, as I said, applying her religious beliefs to a very specific political issue.

"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."

That's a far cry from "praying that our leaders will take the right course."

Furthermore, saying "I think God's will has to be done..." in regards to getting a pipeline built is again applying her religious beliefs to a specific state issue.

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

Edited November 16, 2008 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

Obama may be religious in his personal life, but would we ever see him do things like nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? I doubt it.

Therein lies the difference - it's one thing to be religious, it's another to want to legislate your own morality onto others.

[Guest American Woman]

Obama may be religious in his personal life, but would we ever see him do things like nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? I doubt it.

Therein lies the difference - it's one thing to be religious, it's another to want to legislate your own morality onto others.

Exactly. One has a right to one's own religious beliefs, but when those beliefs become part of government/political issues, it's a whole different story.

BTW, I like your signature line.

[kengs333]

That's funny. "If it is God's will", or "God willing", etc are quite common expressions. The meaning of the expression is the exact opposite of your interpretation. It is an acknowledgement that you do not control the future, and that these things will only happen if it is God's will. This is such a common expression in Christianity, I find it hard to believe you don't know it. In fact the root of this sort of expression is the New Testament, where it is recommended when speaking of actions you will take in the future.

James Chapter 4, Verses 13-15

4:13Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow let's go into this city, and spend a year there, trade, and make a profit." 4:14Whereas you don't know what your life will be like tomorrow. For what is your life? For you are a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away. 4:15For you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will both live, and do this or that."

http://www.biblestudyinfo.com/james/ch4.shtml

For instance if I were to say "If it be God's will, I'll go to Moncton tomorrow." Do you think that means I believe God is on my side telling me to go to Moncton? Do you not understand the use of the word "IF"?

The thing is though that God doesn't "will" people to do things that are sinful, worldly, and self-serving...

Truer words have never been spoken, yet Palin appears to have forgotten this whilst out buying a new wardrobe:

"4:4You adulterers and adulteresses, don't you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."

Edited November 17, 2008 by kengs333

[blueblood]

Obama may be religious in his personal life, but would we ever see him do things like nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? I doubt it.

Therein lies the difference - it's one thing to be religious, it's another to want to legislate your own morality onto others.

This is rich. It's all right for Obama to be religious in his personal life, but not Harper. This is gold. I get it, Harper goes to church therefore he is a religious zealot that will impose religious laws, Obama goes to church and everyone realizes because its Obama its okay to be religious and still be a leader.

Stockwell Day could only wish to get a free pass like this. Same goes for Harper.

This is the biggest form of leftist hypocrisy I've ever seen.

[Rue]

I'm pretty sure McCain thought he could pry away Hillary Clinton supporters with a female running mate.

No don't insult the man. She was brought on the ticket to bring back the right wing evangelical Christian interest groups who were single handedly instrumental in getting both Bush's elected as well as Reagan and have been the key to Republican election victories. She was brought on because of her strong anti-abortion beliefs.

McCain is a moderate Republican on gay rights and abortion. She was far from his choice. It sounds like she was the third or fourth choice after all the others refused.

The ideal women candidate had they wanted to woo Clinton voters was Elizabeth Dole but on that one McCain said no because he hates her husband and there is very bad blood between them. Dole the former head of the American Red Cross is widely respected for her intelligence and ability to run large organizations.

That is why they passed on her. There was also too much bad blood for McCain to bring in Huckabee to win back the evangelical vote. The old dude from Law and Order was only running as a favour to McCain who he clearly backed throughout the campaign. Thompson only ran as an added buffer for McCain to balance the odds a bit. Thompson made it clear he had no interest in the VP role from the get go because of his age and health and he never hid he was a McCain supporter.

The question is if you wanted to woo moderate Democrat voters the very last person you would select is Palin. Its an insult to think women are so stupid they will vote for someone like Palin simply because she has a vagina. She is the anti-thesis of everything Clinton and most progressive women stand for.

She might appeal to fundamentalists and a portion of the population that is brain dead and still takes valium but in case you haven't noticed most Stepford wives died out once it got out there wasa G spot and men were not finding it.

[Rue]

The thing is though that God doesn't "will" people to do things that are sinful, worldly, and self-serving...

Truer words have never been spoken, yet Palin appears to have forgotten this whilst out buying a new wardrobe:

"4:4You adulterers and adulteresses, don't you know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."

Now you are a fashion critic. G...od help us all.

[Rue]

Exactly. One has a right to one's own religious beliefs, but when those beliefs become part of government/political issues, it's a whole different story.

BTW, I like your signature line.

I am with you two on this. Do not blame me for Keng deciding to become a female fashion critic. I always suspected he was a drag queen but hey I guess this now confirms it.

Quoting the Bible to critique a woman's wardrobe. Good grief. The Mullah has spoken.

Next he will be on Next American Model as a Judge.

Oy. And another oy.

[BC_chick]

This is rich. It's all right for Obama to be religious in his personal life, but not Harper. This is gold. I get it, Harper goes to church therefore he is a religious zealot that will impose religious laws, Obama goes to church and everyone realizes because its Obama its okay to be religious and still be a leader.

Stockwell Day could only wish to get a free pass like this. Same goes for Harper.

This is the biggest form of leftist hypocrisy I've ever seen.

Obviously I can't speak for all 62% of the electorate who didn't vote for Harper, but to me, it's irrelevant whether or not he would legislate his religious views onto society when I can't stand his evironmental, economic or foreign policies....

IOW, his opposition-days morality is just ONE of the MANY reasons I wouldn't vote for him....

Edited November 17, 2008 by BC_chick

[M.Dancer]

Obviously I can't speak for all 62% of the electorate who didn't vote for Harper, but to me, it's irrelevant whether or not he would legislate his religious views onto society when I can't stand his evironmental, economic and foreign policies either....

Did you mean stand or understand?

[BC_chick]

Did you mean stand or understand?

If I didn't understand, he'd probably have my vote.

[M.Dancer]

If I didn't understand, he'd probably have my vote.

It's just that, well, the foriegn policies are pretty much the same as the Liberals, the environmental policies are arguably better than the liberals and the economic policies are in keeping with what the financial experts and asked for and praised....

So what it it you can't (under) stand?

[blueblood]

Obviously I can't speak for all 62% of the electorate who didn't vote for Harper, but to me, it's irrelevant whether or not he would legislate his religious views onto society when I can't stand his evironmental, economic or foreign policies....

IOW, his opposition-days morality is just ONE of the MANY reasons I wouldn't vote for him....

So if his policies are somewhat similar to the Liberals, and Obama is in the same book as far as being religious, why hate on Harper? Is it the cool thing to do?

[BC_chick]

So if his policies are somewhat similar to the Liberals, and Obama is in the same book as far as being religious, why hate on Harper? Is it the cool thing to do?

Which election are you talking about 06 or 08? In 08 their platforms were nothing alike and in 06 I figured I had a choice between

a ) the guy who stands against everything I stand for

b ) the guy who shares at least some of my views

c ) the guy who has such little support that my vote for him would be a vote for a)

Guess where I ended up....

Edited November 17, 2008 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

It's just that, well, the foriegn policies are pretty much the same as the Liberals, the environmental policies are arguably better than the liberals and the economic policies are in keeping with what the financial experts and asked for and praised....

So what it it you can't (under) stand?

You state your opinion as fact and then imply that I am incapable of understanding just because I disagree with that OPINION.

Stick to the one-liners buddy, your debating skills are feeble to say the least.

[Sir Bandelot]

Stick to the one-liners buddy, your debating skills are feeble to say the least.

Yeah he should be renamed M. Lurker.

[blueblood]

Which election are you talking about 06 or 08? In 08 their platforms were nothing alike and in 06 I figured I had a choice between

a ) the guy who stands against everything I stand for

b ) the guy who shares at least some of my views

c ) the guy who has such little support that my vote for him would be a vote for a)

Guess where I ended up....

dancer figured the Libs and Cons had somewhat similar platforms and he isn't partisan. I'm elaborating on it. Harper hasn't imposed any legislation based on religion and in fact has threw his religious wing of the party under the bus. However, Obama is religious, supports further action in Afghanistan where Harper is pulling the plug. Why does Obama get a free pass, when Harper who is not much different than him (except Obama has infinitely more charisma than Harper) gets called scary scary. If you support Obama, great, just don't criticize Harper for being religious and a neo con just because he goes to church just like Obama.

[kengs333]

You state your opinion as fact and then imply that I am incapable of understanding just because I disagree with that OPINION.

Stick to the one-liners buddy, your debating skills are feeble to say the least.

Here, here...

[jefferiah]

That's a far cry from "praying that our leaders will take the right course."

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

To pray that there is a plan and that the plan is God's is not a far cry at all. It's pretty much the same thing. She is praying that there is a plan and that the plan would be the right one (ie Gods plan).

These are still not examples of muddying the lines between Church and State. Nor is applying your religious conscience to your own political ideas. Political ideas are political ideas. The motives behind your ideas are something you are free to choose.

In the confines of a Church she asked the congregation to pray that these things would be done. She is in no way establishing a state religion.

Edited November 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Obama may be religious in his personal life, but would we ever see him do things like nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? I doubt it.

Therein lies the difference - it's one thing to be religious, it's another to want to legislate your own morality onto others.

Bad argument.

Being pro-life is a political position. Whether you are pro-life because you are religious or not is immaterial. Political opinions are allowed in our society irrespective of the motive. So therefore a politician who is pro-life would likely nominate pro-life judges, whereas one who is not would nominate pro-choice judges. Obama will legislate his own morality based on his own political ideas, whether those be based on religious upbringing or not. The idea itself is what matters. That's what legislation is--a political moral. Beating an innocent person with a baseball bat is a crime because we consider that immoral. Whether the person who legislates that it is wrong to beat a person with a baseball bat is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist is immaterial. You could not say that because this happens to coincide with alot of religious beliefs that this is imposing a religion upon the state. Furthermore, you could never determine whether or not the religious person would support such legislation had this person not been religious. But that is immaterial anyway. Because a moral which happens to be a religious one is not the religion itself. People have a democratic right to agree with such a position irrespective of religion.

Are there no atheist pro-lifers?

Is the pro-life position only valid if the person is an atheist?

Edited November 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

The thing is though that God doesn't "will" people to do things that are sinful, worldly, and self-serving...

How do you know what is God's will? Do you not have a wordly career yourself?

King David was a leader. Joseph was a prime minister in Egypt. Daniel was a royal advisor in Babylon. All raised up to their positions by God's will, according to the Bible.

Do you vote for any of these worldy, sinful, self-serving leaders? Would you only vote for someone who does not believe in God?

Edited November 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[BC_chick]

dancer figured the Libs and Cons had somewhat similar platforms and he isn't partisan. I'm elaborating on it. Harper hasn't imposed any legislation based on religion and in fact has threw his religious wing of the party under the bus. However, Obama is religious, supports further action in Afghanistan where Harper is pulling the plug. Why does Obama get a free pass, when Harper who is not much different than him (except Obama has infinitely more charisma than Harper) gets called scary scary. If you support Obama, great, just don't criticize Harper for being religious and a neo con just because he goes to church just like Obama.

As I've said before , you can't pinpoint single-issues where Harper is in line with xyz politician on the left and then wonder why Harper is singled out.

No politician is ever going have all the same opinions as anyone. We base our opinions on the candidate as a whole and compare it to the alternative as a whole. Sure, I don't share all the same opinions as Obama, Dion, or Layton. Just the same, I may agree with Harper, Bush, McCain etc on certain issues... but in the end, it's the politician's overall platform that wins me or loses me.

Harper's overall agenda is simply too 'right' for me.... before I continue, allow me to make a distinction between what I perceive to be one of the biggest differences between the right and left. IMO, Bush_Cheney's signature line ('economics trumps virtue') is the quintessential right-wing worldview. OTOH, I see centre-left as an equilibrium between virtue and economics (or at least an attempt to find that equilibrium).

Obama has yet to govern, but his ideology so far is much more centre-left where economics and virtue are not mutually exclusive. Harper is much more centre-right where morality is only black or white, where might is right, and where economics trumps virtue.

In the end, that's what sets the two men apart, and the fact that Obama is so much more charismatic is just the icing on the cake, not the deciding factor.

Oh, and for the record, I would never argue that the 'centre-right' is wrong and the 'centre-left' is right.... but rather, that we see the world differently, and as such, we place our priorities in different places as far as the role of government is concerned.

The centre-left platform just resonates with me the same way the centre-right platform resonates with you. No biggie, to each their own.