DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Knutey on September 16, 2008, 01:27:47 AM
-
<object width="400" height="302"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1679097&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" /> <embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1679097&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="302"></embed></object>
Sarah Palin's Churches and The Third Wave (http://vimeo.com/1679097?pg=embed&sec=1679097) from Bruce Wilson (http://vimeo.com/user230390?pg=embed&sec=1679097) on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&sec=1679097).
-
Oh the gnashing of teeth and apoplectic replies that normally would be forthcoming about making Sarah Palin's church an issue...had they not spent two months hammering on Obama for going to a specific church.
I'm not worried. The right-wingers will find some kind of contorted response on the injustice of simply showing Palin's church and the absolutely logical rationality of repeatedly attacking Obama on his choice of churches.
-
Oh the gnashing of teeth and apoplectic replies that normally would be forthcoming about making Sarah Palin's church an issue...had they not spent two months hammering on Obama for going to a specific church.
I'm not worried. The right-wingers will find some kind of contorted response on the injustice of simply showing Palin's church and the absolutely logical rationality of repeatedly attacking Obama on his choice of churches.
Does look like the cat got their "tongues" BWA!
-
These folks have every right to believe in demons, believe that there is something beneficial to blathering in gibberish, and to believe that "this world has nothing for me".
But I fail to see any reason whatever to actually have one of them lead my country.
If this world has nothing for them, they certainly are not the ones to try to lead any part of it.
That said, Palin is a minor issue, while McCain is the major issue. This phony maverick schtick is false: McCain can't change the status quo, he has been the status quo most of the past 30 years.
-
I guess what it really proves is that science so far has failed to provide a rational account of who we are, why we're here and where we're going - - or it it has provided a rational account, it's just not palatable or useful to a lot of "ordinary people." Some people probably just want some magic in their lives and these guys are there to provide it for them.
Normally I wouldn't think it was fair game to go after somebody's religion any more than it would be fair game to attack a veteran's military history but after the Swift-Boating of John Kerry and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright witch-hunt, it looks like the Republicans are finally hoist on their own petard. Guess they failed to realize that what goes around comes around. It is funny, in a deliciously snide kind of way.
-
>It is funny, in a deliciously snide kind of way.<
Thanh MT- I take that as a great compliment ;D
BTW- I was forced to attend a church like this as a child by my abusive mother. It is everbit as bad as this. I still do not favor one religion over another. I think they all suck, but some are suckier than others and these pervs are the worst.
-
This world has nothing for me. This world has nothing for me.
Let us crown Jesus King of Wasilla, Alaska, the US, the World!
What does one call rule by a deceased foreign ghost king, anyway?
Difuntoxenophantasmamonarchist?
Should we elect a leader who believes in difuntoxenophantasmamonarchy?
-
I still do not favor one religion over another. I think they all suck, but some are suckier than others and these pervs are the worst.
I can agree with the sucky part, but I think I prefer Anglicans. They dress nicely, sit quietly in their pews, listen to the sermon without shouting "amen!" all the time, say nice, noncommittal things to the preacher and go home, all within 90 minutes, and they do fund some helpful charities. Plus, they do not annoy anyone on TV.
No one ever gets bruised in an Anglican church, and they don't have all those nasty disputes about Papal infallibility and don't bore people ever so ofter watching to see if the smoke is white or black.
Home Lutherans are even better, because they do not tie up traffic.
-
Oh the gnashing of teeth and apoplectic replies that normally would be forthcoming about making Sarah Palin's church an issue...had they not spent two months hammering on Obama for going to a specific church.
I'm not worried. The right-wingers will find some kind of contorted response on the injustice of simply showing Palin's church and the absolutely logical rationality of repeatedly attacking Obama on his choice of churches.
Can't leave you hanging.
I think the ad speaks for itself. It certainly speaks volumes about the poster and those that agree with him.
It's useful to clearly know where each side stands on the issue
-
Oh the gnashing of teeth and apoplectic replies that normally would be forthcoming about making Sarah Palin's church an issue...had they not spent two months hammering on Obama for going to a specific church.
I'm not worried. The right-wingers will find some kind of contorted response on the injustice of simply showing Palin's church and the absolutely logical rationality of repeatedly attacking Obama on his choice of churches.
Can't leave you hanging.
I think the ad speaks for itself. It certainly speaks volumes about the poster and those that agree with him.
It's useful to clearly know where each side stands on the issue
This is even more obtuse than your usual glancing blows. So you support holey rollers in charge?
-
Well, I never went to anything like Palin's church, but I would have been very glad to have known about it as a child. The Hebrew writing in our prayer books was so strange looking, I always thought WE were a bunch of fucking weirdos and the Christians who put on their Sunday best and sat in neat little rows reading from their all-English prayer books and singing in English were the normal people. I woulda felt a whole lot better just knowing that there were Christian churches with people rolling around on the floor, shouting gibberish and talking about demons as if they really existed.
-
Sister Aimee Semple McPherson was from Alberta, but she had to come to the US to start her immense church.
I don't think the Holy Roller types could get much traction in the Great White North.
I suppose some of them can now, but certainly fewer than in the US.
The really wacky religious movements seem to be most common in the US and Africa.
Islam is pretty wacky, too, when you think about it.
-
So you support holey rollers in charge?
A persons religion or lack thereof really isn't any of my business.
Prejudging a person based on their faith is really no different than prejudging a person based on the color of their skin.
I don't think either action is OK. Apparently you do. Perhaps that is what has Obama's folks so worried.
Who knows what demons will show up in the privacy of the voting booth. Your post gives us a preview.
-
A persons religion or lack thereof really isn't any of my business.
Prejudging a person based on their faith is really no different than prejudging a person based on the color of their skin.
==========================================
If a person's church has the belief that "this world has nothing for me", doesn't that give you the idea that perhaps someone who might be more inclined to believe that the world might be changed in some way for the good might make a better leader?
It's NOT like skin color at all. To wit:
People can say "I think I'd rather be a Presbyterian, and then become a Presbyterian" They can't say "I would prefer to have a burnish umber complexion, and chance their skin tone."
Furthermore, a person's beliefs are lodged in their brain almost certainly affect how they might govern. A person's skin color is not a mental thing, and is unrelated to this.
-
They can't say "I would prefer to have a burnish umber complexion, and chance [sic] their skin tone."
(http://www.whosdatedwho.com/news/pictures/1L/72/16172_large.jpg)
-
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on Today at 12:07:48 PM
They can't say "I would prefer to have a burnish umber complexion, and chance [sic] their skin tone."
=========================================
It is my opinion that Michael Jackson did rather a lot more than SAY what he wanted to look like. The odds are he has spent more on his various forms of chameleonry to consume every dime most Americans earn in a lifetime.
-
If a person's church has the belief that "this world has nothing for me", doesn't that give you the idea that perhaps someone who might be more inclined to believe that the world might be changed in some way for the good might make a better leader?
I think one would be wise to look at the track record of governance for those candidates in question.
That is if your candidate has a track record. Does he?
-
I think you have changed the subject.
Of course, Obama has a track record, rather longer than Palin's. Plus, he does not seem to believe that "this world has nothing for me."
-
So you support holey rollers in charge?
A persons religion or lack thereof really isn't any of my business.
Prejudging a person based on their faith is really no different than prejudging a person based on the color of their skin.
I don't think either action is OK. Apparently you do. Perhaps that is what has Obama's folks so worried.
Who knows what demons will show up in the privacy of the voting booth. Your post gives us a preview.
This is total nonsense one can easily change his religion but not his skin color. I would rather have people face their demons than elect them to office as they did the Bushidiot & Cheney and are threatening to do with McSameastheBushidiot & Palerthanthou.
-
Of course, Obama has a track record, rather longer than Palin's. Plus, he does not seem to believe that "this world has nothing for me."
Really? What has he governed? He was a legislator who voted present 129 times.
And do you have a quote of Palin stating "the world has nothing for me"? Seems to me you are just poking fun at her church which the 85% of Americans who claim to be religious might take issue with.
You guys have enough votes in your pocket that you can discount huge swaths of the American demographic?
What next, poking fun at Catholics for the funny robes their clergy wear, or the Hebrews with their beanie caps, or the baptists with their Sunday morning pew sitting with Saturday night on their breath? or the Methodists who would be Episcopalians if they only drove Lincolns instead of Fords.
You already pissed off enough blue collar dems with the whole clinging to God and Guns disrespect, keep up the good work.
-
And do you have a quote of Palin stating "the world has nothing for me"? Seems to me you are just poking fun at her church which the 85% of Americans who claim to be religious might take issue with.
=================================
This is a song that is on the video of Palin's church which appears several times, and at least one speaker uses for the topic of his speech.
You already pissed off enough blue collar dems with the whole clinging to God and Guns disrespect, keep up the good work.
I am not campaigning for anyone. I do not think that this forum reaches even two dozen people. I pissed off nary a single voter with the guns and God comment, as I didn't make it. It's pretty much right on the money, by the way.
People do not like to be reminded of silly things they do, and Obama mentioned this in a private meeting that was not private enough, apparently.
-
This is a song that is on the video of Palin's church which appears several times, and at least one speaker uses for the topic of his speech.
So you don't have a direct quote. Just as I thought.
BTW we get 65 to 70 unique visitors a day excluding search engine bots.
-
This is a song that is on the video of Palin's church which appears several times, and at least one speaker uses for the topic of his speech.
So you don't have a direct quote. Just as I thought.
BTW we get 65 to 70 unique visitors a day excluding search engine bots.
Big whoop de do! Now that will surely sway the election!
-
So you don't have a direct quote. Just as I thought.
I GAVE you a direct quote from the video. If you want to hear the video, play it. Why should I spoon-feed you a transcript of something so readily available?
Are you deaf? Does your mouse lack a clicker button? Can you click? Can you scroll?
Please. You are a grown up, see the fr%$#@in' video if you need assurance.
-
I GAVE you a direct quote from the video.
You gave a direct quote from the video. You did not have a direct quote of Palin saying it, yet that is what you implied.
Try to keep it semi honest.
-
I said that this attitude seems to be a major belief of this church, and as such, would cause me to not support anyone who held it. If you will read what I have posted I have been honest in the extreme.
-
I said that this attitude seems to be a major belief of this church, and as such, would cause me to not support anyone who held it. If you will read what I have posted I have been honest in the extreme.
I suppose you weren't referring to Palin and Obama in this paragraph?
If a person's church has the belief that "this world has nothing for me", doesn't that give you the idea that perhaps someone who might be more inclined to believe that the world might be changed in some way for the good might make a better leader?
Awaits your honest answer.
-
A persons religion or lack thereof really isn't any of my business.
Generally I would agree, until they start making it my business. They can do that by ignoring the signs on my door, figuring they don't apply to them because they are carrying a Bible. They can also do it by running for one of the highest offices in the land while spouting that the Iraq war is a task from God. I also wouldn't want a president or vice president who might believe, as their church apparently teaches, that "this world has nothing for me". A person who believed that might be more inclined to take risks that might get them killed, along with a lot of other people. I'm not sure I would want such a person one melanoma away from the codes to launch nuclear weapons.
-
And a church member who's former minister preached a blacks value system, and that Whites invented AIDS to destroy the black man. And that's mild compared to the new minister. That all gets a pass, apparently?
-
I'm not supporting Obama either.
-
Well, at least you're consistent.
-
BTW, you might recall Obama repudiated the Rev. Wright and his teachings.
Has Palin done the same?
-
BTW, you might recall Obama repudiated the Rev. Wright and his teachings.
When it became politically in his best interest to do so........20years later. Doesn't say much for the man, I'm afraid
Has Palin done the same?
Depends on what you want her to repudiate. At this point you have Xo implying she's lock stock 100% in accordance with said teachings on a wall....minus of course the proof of either the support or the church practicing said teaching at the behest of its preacher
-
Has Palin done the same?
Why should she?
-
Sarah Palin's Faith, and Mine--Stuntz
I didn't like Mike Huckabee's campaign in the Republican primaries, because Huckabee argued, sometimes explicitly, that Christian voters should support him because he's a Christian. I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but that sealed the point for me. I won't vote for any candidate because of that candidate's faith, or lack thereof. Often, I don't know anything (and don't try to find out) about the religious convictions of the candidates I support. I'm sure I've voted for candidates with a wide range of religious commitments, including some--probably a lot--with no more than nominal religious affiliations, or none at all.
Though you won't read it in the New York Times, I'm pretty sure that most of my fellow Christians follow a similar practice. We vote for and against candidates' political programs, not for and against their religious practice. That is as it should be in a society as religiously diverse as ours is.
But there's a flip side to that proposition. While my faith should never be treated like a job qualification in a political campaign, neither should its absence.
So far, in the press coverage of Sarah Palin, I've seen Palin mocked because (1) she prays and evidently believes that prayer matters, (2) she believes in a God who is actively engaged in this world's affairs, and (3) she wants to be the person God made her to be in the circumstances in which she has been placed. These beliefs and desires are shared by an enormous number of religious believers, and not only Christians. They would be politically problematic if Palin claimed that she knows God's plans, that when she prays God gives her specific instructions about how she should do her job, or that her faith dictates a political program that she is unwilling to disclose. (Even if she believes her faith requires some political stances--how could it not?--that is hardly a problem as long as she is open about her politics. Voters who don't like pro-life candidates can vote against them; the religious or philosophical underpinnings of the relevant candidate's stance shouldn't be dispositive.) But I haven't seen or heard her come close to making any of those claims.
In one talk that Charlie Gibson quoted misleadingly, she made nearly the opposite point: that religious believers should pray not that God would be on our nation's side in wartime, but that our nation would be on the side of a just God--that we would fight for good ends, and use the right means to achieve them. Lincoln said as much, as Palin rightly noted in answering Gibson's question. Pretty scary guy, that Lincoln.
If an overwhelmingly secular press treats religious beliefs like those as disqualifying in a candidate for political office, a great many Americans will be effectively cast in the role of non-citizens. I hope that isn't the view most of my non-believing friends take. If it is, I'm going to have to rethink my own voting practices.
Obviously, many of us on both sides of America's ongoing cultural divide have gotten this question wrong in the past. (I'm sure I have.) This might be a good time for all of us to take a deep breath, think about what kind of political culture we want--and commit to treating those who think differently about the world with respect. In this campaign, that would represent a marked change.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/dskeel/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_faith_and_mine--s.html (http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/dskeel/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_faith_and_mine--s.html)
-
Pretty scary guy, that Lincoln.
==================================
Are you implying that Lincoln was NOT scary?
Perhaps a history review is in order.
-
Lincoln scared you?
Was it his proclivity to free slaves?
-
I would think that the scary part about Lincoln was the fact that his election triggered the Civil War, which was a decidedly catastrophic event. I am thinking that the election of John Bell (the Constitutional Union candidate) or even Stephen Douglas (the Northern Democrat) might have avoided said war.
And that would have been a good thing.
not to mention less scary.
-
Why should she?
Didn't say she should, just asked if she had. I'm sure everyone can form their own opinion on whether she should or not. Doesn't matter to me either way, because I wouldn't be voting for her ticket regardless whether she does or doesn't.
-
I would imagine that Palin should renounce soem of the wackier beliefs shown in that video for the same reason Obama denounced the wackier beliefs of his preacher,
The goal would be to assure the public that if it votes for her, it is not voting for a wacko.
-
I would imagine that Palin should renounce soem of the wackier beliefs shown in that video for the same reason Obama denounced the wackier beliefs of his preacher,
The goal would be to assure the public that if it votes for her, it is not voting for a wacko.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't she drop out of that church a few years ago (ie, she didn't wait for it to become politically expedient...)?
Edit: Just looked it up, she dropped out of that church 6 years ago.
-
...and commit to treating those who think differently about the world with respect.
Figure the odds. Just look around in here and you'll see that doesn't happen.
As I've said before, I have no problem with anyone's religious beliefs, up to a point. When those beliefs might affect that person's world view as president or vice president of this country, then I pay attention, and if I feel those beliefs are liable to interfere with their rational performance of those duties, then of course I take issue with them. If you don't believe they are problematical, then don't.
-
If I'm not mistaken, didn't she drop out of that church a few years ago (ie, she didn't wait for it to become politically expedient...)?
Edit: Just looked it up, she dropped out of that church 6 years ago.
==================================================
Perhaps it was simply politically expedient 6 years ago.
I still won't vote for her because I disagree with her on pretty much every issue that matters these days.
-
Perhaps it was simply politically expedient 6 years ago.
Not likely. That was after she left her position as Mayor, and years before she ran for Governor.
-
What about her stand on Creationism?
What does she believe and how does that apply to her thoughts as to what should be done about the Evolution vs. Creationism issue?
-
What about her stand on Creationism?
What does she believe and how does that apply to her thoughts as to what should be done about the Evolution vs. Creationism issue?
That's been discussed. She is not against teaching evolution in schools, she only feels that if a child brings creationism up that it should be discussed. BT has already provided the references for this.
Why do you care anyway? You have already made up your mind.
-
Why do you care anyway? You have already made up your mind.
===================================================
That is not a rational response.
Suppose she is elected. Then her beliefs and what she might do are a lot more important than they are now. She is only a candidate now and cannot do squat.
I am actually more interested in what presidents and vice presidents do than in what they say they might do. The former might affect me. The latter is far less significant, as every candidate has always thought they'd get a lot more done than they ever did.
I can't vote based on what they have done because of the unidirectional flow of the time continuum and the unknowability of future events, so I have to settle for what they say they will do.
-
Suppose she is elected. Then her beliefs and what she might do are a lot more important than they are now. She is only a candidate now and cannot do squat.
Most school curriculum decisions are made at the state level, so she would have more input into that process as Governor than as VP.
-
Suppose she is elected. Then her beliefs and what she might do are a lot more important than they are now. She is only a candidate now and cannot do squat.
Most school curriculum decisions are made at the state level, so she would have more input into that process as Governor than as VP.
===========================
I was thinking of more than just school curricula. I was also thinking that there is the possibility that the ancient McCain would kick the bucket, become intensely apoplectic or get Altzheimers and they would make Palin president. I am relatively certain that I would be most dismayed by her Supreme Court nominees.
-
When it became politically in his best interest to do so........20years later. Doesn't say much for the man, I'm afraid
So, we should hammer on Palin relentlessly by showing all the crazy nonsense that goes on in her church over and over again on every network until it becomes "politically in [her] best interest to do so......."?
As far as that goes, ANY political figure should repudiate their church (because they're all crazy and do really crazy things) if they want to gain office? That might not be a bad idea, sirs. Good one, sirs. That would keep the wall between church and state sound.
-
When it became politically in his best interest to do so........20years later. Doesn't say much for the man, I'm afraid
So, we should hammer on Palin relentlessly by showing all the crazy nonsense that goes on in her church over and over again on every network until it becomes "politically in [her] best interest to do so......."?
Do what? According to ami, she left the church years ago, BEFORE there was anything remotely political about it. At least from a national level
As far as that goes, ANY political figure should repudiate their church (because they're all crazy and do really crazy things) if they want to gain office?
Putting aside your twisted opinion of what's "crazy", that depends on what the church is "teaching", now don't it
-
As far as that goes, ANY political figure should repudiate their church (because they're all crazy and do really crazy things) if they want to gain office? That might not be a bad idea, sirs. Good one, sirs. That would keep the wall between church and state sound.
The wall works both ways. The state has no compelling interest whatsoever in the religious beliefs of its elected officials. Period.
The first amendment says so.