67 Comments

• 1. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 6:15 am

  Deleted - uncorroborated allegations.

• 2. bongoman  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:09 am

  Deleted - agrees with uncorroborated allegations.

  (Ed. Note: Bearing false witness is a sin…)

• 3. bagni  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:40 am

  markie mark
  the galactic god loves you
  palin loves you
  but wondering if faith is an issue between the user and god?
  if it applies to earthly muslims too?

• 4. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:52 am

  Our liberals, once again, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their complete and utter ignorance when attemtping to define a relationship with God.

  Displaying his irrational fear, searp resorts to unatrributable quotes from “someone” who over heard Palin say something about dinosauers and man. And this comes from a “man”, and I use that term loosely, who wears the military uniform of the US. Now that’s scary.

  bongo, the ever faithful lap dog, chimes right in with his approval of searps post, proving once again the pure pavlovian tendencies of liberals.

  And then of course bags rushes to the rescue of Muslims in his perceived slight of the religion of peace.

  The three stooges have have made for a very humurous morning. Thanks.

• 5. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:12 am

  Deleted - lends credibility to uncorroborated allegations.

• 6. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am

  SAR,

  I use to have a modicum of respect for your ability to see through the (expletive deleted), of course that credibility is certainly suspect now. Why are you such a pavlovian rube to all things dementedly left? In the absence of your proof of what you assert Palin believes in, I submit the following:

  http://www.watchfreeepisodes.com/sarah-palin-dinosaurs-fake-quote-sarah-palin-did-not-say-dinosaurs-were-here-4000-years-ago/3005/

  Watch it and weep my little mindless minion.

• 7. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:37 am

  Deleted - still on and on with uncorroborated allegations.

• 8. CanadianObserver  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am

  Deleted - and yet more commendations for uncorroborated allegations.

• 9. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:43 am

  Then theres this from the LA times

  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,1440865.story

  Stein said Palin displayed only hints of her fundamentalist Assembly of God upbringing when he first backed her for a nonpartisan run for Wasilla City Council in the early 1990s. But in 1996, when Palin ousted Mayor Stein with the aid of pink-colored antiabortion mailers and busloads of Christian grass-roots activists, she grew more overt about her plans, he said.

  She combined her staff meetings with prayer sessions, Stein said, and upset the town’s chief librarian by asking what the process would be for banning books. According to Stein, bans were never carried out only because “the library director was horrified and stood up to her.”

  Geri McCann, who ran the town museum under Mayor Palin, counters: “Sarah brought it up because she knew there was a moral majority in Wasilla who needed their voices heard.”

  Her personal beliefs clearly have an impact on what social policies she advocates for. Giving her a spare key to the kingdom with the type of executive privileges the president now has is frightening to me.

  She’s on record as stating we should stand by Israel regardless of what they do. This is again something that is completely irrational foreign policy which I can only imagine is rooted in her faith.

• 10. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am

  Searp, I did a pretty extensive search this morning, and all mentions of what you allege refer to the same source. Do you have a link to something a little more solid than an 11-year-old alleged casual conversation with a music teacher to support your contention that Governor Palin believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together? Even the articles that mention her beliefs on creationism say she favors it being taught along side evolution in schools, but has not pushed for that as either Mayor or Governor.

  Something I found interesting in the L.A. Times article that reports your allegation, and which you omitted were the headline and first paragraph:

  Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy

  Her faith views are strong and sometimes controversial. Her aides say she seeks to share but not impose her faith; her critics say she has ‘a fine-tuned sense of how far to push.’

  From everything I’ve read (and I’ve read NOTHING to contradict it), this is one of the things about Sarah Palin that Alaskans truly like. Her actions are guided by a strong sense of faith, and yet she doesn’t attempt to force that faith on others. It’s one of the main reasons that her approval rating is up in the 80’s. Her faith also appears to guide her sense of right and wrong without having a direct impact on policy itself. For example she will pray that God helps her make the right decision, but doesn’t say, “I believe this is what God wants me to do. Trust me — millions of mainstream Christians pray in exactly the same way each and every day.

  OTOH, let’s examine YOUR faith:

  What if your faith requires you to believe things that simply are not true? If you go along, what does that say about you?

  From your comments it clear that you have faith that Barack Obama would be a great President. From all reports there is ZERO evidence that he would be a great President, and a wealth of evidence that he would be a disastrous President. He has show absolutely NO leadership skills, and if there is one single thing that this country needs right now, it’s a LEADER. Barack Obama is a dutiful little Liberal Democrat foot soldier whose only self-promoted legislative accomplishments are ones that had universal or near-universal bipartisan support. The ones that don’t reflect positively on him, he’s tried to hide from public view. He can point to NO ONE in his life that has acted as a positive roll model — only racist-biogot preachers, scam artists/felons and terrorists from who he’s tried to distance himself.

  So, to turn your question around, “what does that say about you?” Well, unfortunately for you, we all know what it says.

• 11. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am

  SAR,

  So now your “proof” comes from the gentleman that she defeated in the mayoral race?? Why not quote previous jaded boyfriends? They may have more credibility.

  Then of course you quickly change the subject to Israel, which begs the question: Don’t you support Israel?

  What exactly are you afraid of concerning the Jewish faith? You seem to have a lot of fear running through you.

• 12. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am

  CO,

  Don’t you think Mr Munger would have a verfiable quote, statement or press conference rather than the off-handed, unverifable, reference from searp?

  Or is innuendos all that is needed from the left these days to be consdiered fact? Of course if you believe the “heal the nation, repair the world” rhetoric, I guess you’ll believe much of anything.

  And this comes from the self proclaimed “reality based community”.

  I gotta tell you, you guys are much further from reality than you think.

• 13. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am

  I guess our “outraged” liberals couldn’t find any more quotes from 11 year olds.

• 14. Observer20  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am

  Claims of someone overhearing what she said without verifiable proof are just as valid as those “whitey” tapes the Obama’s are supposedly trying to hide.

  On the other hand, saying Palin will govern based on her religious beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary, is like saying Obama is likely to start a massive African American rebellion in the United States after he is elected president based on his faith.

  I imagine the only reason the Obama supporters here have a problem with her personal beliefs is because they feel they show a reflection of the soundness of her judgment. Then the same can be said for Obama’s associations with more…unsavory characters. Shouldn’t he have had the moral judgment to NOT risk associating himself with such radicalism and corruption? You can’t have it both ways.

  The difference is Palin is being judged on what she says, but I judge Obama on what he actually does. If Palin was a known member of a white supremacist group for 20 years, served on committees with known terrorists, and was close friends with some of the most corrupt people in Alaska, then I would start fearing Palin almost as much as Obama.

• 15. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Searp, from that same L.A. Times article:

  She’s obviously an intensively religious person,” said Bill McAllister, Palin’s chief spokesman as governor. “She understands that she’s the governor and not preacher in chief. Religion informs her decisions, but she is not out to impose her views on Alaska.”

  McAllister said that he never heard Palin make such remarks about dinosaurs and that Palin preferred not to discuss her views on evolution publicly.

  “I’ve never had a conversation like that with her or been apprised of anything like that,” McAllister said. He added that “the only bigotry that’s still safe is against Christians who believe in their faith.”(emphasis added)

  Is it possible that Governor Palin would share something like that with Mr. Munger whom she had never met, but not with her chief spokesman? I suppose. Is it plausible? Not likely. Am I calling Mr. Munger a liar? Hey, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck……………

• 16. js  |  October 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am

  actually, its not that far fetched to think michelle made a few whitey tapes while obama had his nose stuck up wrights butt…20 years of the same ole stuff is a solid foundation for speculating its true…much more than a jilted bo’…

• 17. extramedium  |  October 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am

  I think the problem that everyone left of the far right has with Sarah Palin is not so much what she is (a devout Christian) but what she seemingly isn’t (articulate, informed and thoughtful). And while I can agree with Sarah’s contention that a lot of people would like a Vice President who would represent Joe Sixpack, I’m not sure that means they want Jane Sixpack herself in the role.

  Like some conservative pundits have said recently, she definitely “one of us” (for conservatives, not me) but she’s clearly out of her league. Just as in business and in sports, the standards should get tougher the higher you climb. Can you imagine an NFL football coach recruiting a wide receiver who was “one of us”, but couldn’t catch the ball? Or a corporation hiring a CFO who’s “one of us” but not very good with numbers? I don’t think so. Why would you accept a VP candidate who can’t intelligently form an answer to a simple question?

  It doesn’t take a superstar to be the Mayor of a little town in Alaska, or the Governor of a state with a population smaller than most US cities. The VP of the US however, needs to be a star- yet some folks think if she believes in God and can shoot a moose, that’s good enough. Didn’t your mothers tell you that if you studied hard and finished top in your class, that you could be president some day?

  I suspect after tomorrow’s debate, a lot of you will be regretting this pick.

• 18. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am

  extra,

  So a Governor with an 80%+ approval rating is not up to the task? Clinton was a Governor with a lower approval rating and arguably an easier state to manage, yet you all seem to be thrilled with the job he did as President.

  In addition, Palin successfully confronted the incumbent Governor, of her own party, on corruption and won, and then defeated a very popular former Governor in the general. And yet you claim she is still lacking in skill?

  Who has Obama confronted within his own party on corruption? What state has he led? What city has he led? What precinct has he led? What gas station has he led?

• 19. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am

  Extra,

  I find it curious that you could say what you said about Palin while giving a total pass to her opponent who had to abandon his Presidential bid in 1988 because he got caught plagiarizing an entire speech from a British labor leader, who admitted to having lied about his educational record, and who is generally known in the U.S. Senate as one of the most vindictive, condescending, back-stabbing members in recent memory.

  Once in a while, a star come along, but not through normal channels. Three that come to mind are Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and LaBron James who all entered the NBA out of high school. None of them had ever played a game in college; none of them had ever been to a Final Four or earned an NCAA Championship ring. All have been immensely successful in their chosen field. One only need to look at Abraham Lincoln to see just how foolish and partisan your comment is.

• 20. CanadianObserver  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am

  One only need to look at Abraham Lincoln

  19. Retired Spook | October 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
  ————————————–

  Sarah Palin = Abraham Lincoln

  yup, yup, that works for me.

• 21. majoriot  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:34 am

  I can only hope that in time those who rely on religion as a basis of judgement will be able to free yourself from your reliance on your belief in the supernatural and chose to deal with the complexities of this world by putting your time and trust into a genuine, unfettered dialogue with your fellow human beings.

• 22. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am

  majoriot,

  Who are you talking about?

• 23. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Sarah Palin = Abraham Lincoln

  Let’s put it this way, CO. If Ricorun had been alive in 1859, he would have been asking, “who’s Abraham Lincoln?”

  I was only comparing their relative lack of experience on the national stage, but you knew that, didn’t you?

• 24. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  Neocon,

  I did not change the subject to Israel, I mainly used her statement on it to further prove my point that her faith will be instrumental in her foreign policy decisions. She is being brought up to speed on world events while trying to maintain this fine line between her fundamentalist beliefs and policy. What happens when she crosses the line?

  Half of my family is jewish, one of my relatives who recently passed away survived years in Auschwitz. I take offense that you claim I fear the jewish faith though I’ll let it slide this one time where you did not know.

  That said, I fear fundamentalist of any religion gaining political power.

  Observer20,

  I think the big thing here is the lack of explanation from Palin. As I’m sure your aware, Obama has addressed the Rev. Wright issue calmly and openly. He has answered to the ‘whitey’ tape allegations with clarity and told the public how he felt and where he stood. He also condemned Rev. Wright for what he said.

  Now, flip this on Palin. This Philip character could be making it up for his 15 minutes or they may have actually had the conversations. Until Palin comes out and lets us know exactly where she stands and what she believes this is going to be spread and repeated. I personally want to know if she does in fact believe the world is only 6000 years old.

  “The difference is Palin is being judged on what she says, but I judge Obama on what he actually does.

  The problem with this is your judging Obama on who he has been associated with. From rev. Wright to Ayers. Obama himself has never said or done anything controversial like they have, he just knows them. It’s the guilt by association meme. Sure he went to church for 20 years and sat in the pews, but this church has never advocated for violence, that the iraq war is a holy one or hosted witch hunters. His church does not advocate the destruction of America either. The two are completely different enties, one is a fundamentalist the other is a Christian.

  RS,

  Yes, you are correct in the title. The key word being ‘Fundamentalist’. If she were a Muslim she would be strung up. But she is a Christian fundamentalist so it’s ok. A fundamentalist of any religion should not be voted into office. It is their right to run, but an educated populus should know better if the separation of church and state are to remain. Otherwise what makes us any different then Iran?

  The article I linked is 3 pages and what I cited and emboldened was an attempt at being balanced. Citing she held prayer sessions with staff meetings but she brought up the book banning because she thought the ‘moral majority’ of her constituency wanted it raised. When she talked to the librarian who raised various concerns about the whole Idea Palin dropped it like a bad habit.

• 25. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  SAR, this is a pretty comprehensive examination of Obama’s church.

  Palin appears to let her faith inform her sense of right and wrong, Obama, not so much. But it’s a free country, and if you’re more comfortable with a person coming from this religious background leading the country, then God bless you.

• 26. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  RS,

  I’ve seen and read that many times. It was copied and pasted almost daily by FMR Marine a couple months ago.

  This is not a fundamentalist view IMO. I personally wouldn’t subscribe to the church, but it is a far cry from the KKK or the Black Panthers. No where does it advocate violence or witch fighting.

  I find it kind of ironic, you are a retired spook so I would think that you would know the war we are in is more of an ideological battle then anything else. We are fighting a fundamentalist view of religion. Placing a fundamentalist in power will only add fuel to the flames in this war. The goal is to eliminate fundamentalism, this is not something which can be bombed or nuked into submission, it can only be achieved through education.

  thought I appreciate you asking God to bless me, I believe I am responsible for my own actions. Their not guided by anyone or anything and as such I take full responsibility for everything I do. I Basque in my victory’s and am humbled by my defeats knowing it was either my ability or inability which lead to the outcome. This is how I think a leader should govern. Anyone who tells me they are guided by god and that ultimately the decisions are his is passing responsibility away from themselves unto a ‘higher power’.

  McCain quoted Eisenhower best during the debate when talking about accountability. how he drafted two letters before D-Day. Thats the type of leader I want in Office. I believe both Obama and McCain can be that leader where both seem to leave faith out of their policy decisions. It’s part of the reason why Palin frightens me so much.

  To be honest, I thought both McCain and Obama would have been good for this country after 8 years of Bush. Since the convention, I’m beginning to wonder about McCain. Sure he’s gambled but he’s been wrong. I’m willing to bet Picking Palin will be hailed as the single greatest political mistake of a generation.

• 27. ho-hum  |  October 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Deleted - uncorroborated allegations.

• 28. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  I’m willing to bet Picking Palin will be hailed as the single greatest political mistake of a generation.

  For entirely different reasons, one could very well say exactly the same thing about Obama’s pick of Biden. You will be proven either right or wrong in 35 days. Actually, we’ll have a better sense of what Governor Palin is made of in about 30 hours. I think this ultimately comes down to which kind of person do you want a heartbeat away from the Presidency; someone who is dishonest or someone whose religious views you disagree with. Since our Constitution contains no religious litmus test, I think the answer is a no-brainer. Sarah Palin is simply a better, nicer, more honest person than Joe Biden.

• 29. Observer20  |  October 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  SAR,

  On addressing the issue, I believe that to be a personal decision. I believe, myself, that addressing the issue is acknowledging that is indeed an issue, whereas not addressing it is avoiding it, or trying to belittle it. That being said, just because someone says they do or do not believe something does not mean they actually believe it. I would like her to make an official statement about it too just so all the speculation can cease, but even if it ends up that she does believe that about the dinosaurs, I will not make an automatic conclusion about her other reasoning abilities. What’s she going to do, attempt to outlaw teaching prehistoric biology? Pffft!

  And judging Obama stretches far more than from association. Yes, I believe that the tendency to associate with these people is a reflection of his character judgment, however I also believe that he has made some poor and controversial decisions with direct evidence connected to him. One being the sex education bill that has been debated at length here. Another being the comparatively large amounts of money received from Fannie/Freddie during his term as a senator. Another being the controversial elements of the Annenburg Challenge. Even if we take away the suppositions and judgments from association, there’s still a lot of dirt. But I don’t think the average person, if he were properly educated about these associations, would be inclined to cast aside their feelings based on association.

  And you are mislabeling fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not violent in and of itself. There is a marked difference between purely having a fundamentalist faith and being a violent fundamentalist. The aspects of fundamentalism that are dangerous are the ones that advocate that, unconditionally, they are right and the rest of the world is wrong, that actively tries to seclude itself from the rest of the world and/or force the rest of the world to take on their views. Violent radicalism capitalizes on the notion that the world is wrong and it is up to them to change the world to see their views through physical violence and intimidation.

  Now, tell me, does Palin look like that kind of Christian that looks at the rest of the world, condemns it, and proceeds to try and convert everyone around her at knife-point or isolate herself from it? No, she is an active participant in this world, being a major figure in Alaska and now mainstream United States. When holding office, she consistently chooses not to enforce her beliefs upon the residents she resides over. She’s even vetoed bills that coincide with her personal beliefs because she values the legal validity of the Constitution over those views. Fundamentalist extremists that you are thinking of don’t do that.

  And yes, I know what I’m talking about.

• 30. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  OK, the arguments seem to be

  1) She really doesn’t believe any of the things that would be considered extreme, logic-denying or otherwise unacceptable to any sensate human being

  2) If she does, it will not affect her in any way professionally

  3) Regardless, searp is a moron.

  ) I’d say there is PLENTY of evidence that she does believe extreme things, the fact that you choose to be evidence-deniers is your business, you probably go to the same church.

  2) This is a simply completely preposterous conjecture. If someone has deeply held beliefs, even if they are so stupid they beggar the mind, the idea that those will be set aside when functioning publically is very, very silly. My God, her attraction to Evangelicals is in fact her belief system.

  3) Whatever, shooting the messenger doesn’t change the message.

  It is hilarious to see soi-disant people of faith, in fact people of faith who cannot be good, pick it, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, you name it, and believe what Sarah Palin believes stand up for her right to be dumb as a brick IN HER FAITH. The absurdities multiply.

• 31. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  3) Regardless, searp is a moron.

  By jove, Searp, I believe you’ve nailed it.

  BTW, I was raised a Methodist but haven’t attended church regularly since the early 80’s. I just happen to think that Sarah Palin is a good, decent, honest person, and the fact that she has the highest approval rating of ANY governor in the United States seems to support that. The only other explanation is that the people of Alaska are a bunch of religious kooks.

• 32. Joe Bananas..in Pajamas  |  October 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  >>>And then of course bags rushes to the rescue of Muslims in his perceived slight of the religion of peace.

  The three stooges have made for a very humurous morning. Thanks.>>>

  Amen, Amen to that, what a bunch of transparent pathetic useful idiots some liberals are.

• 33. sue  |  October 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  And once again we have the resident liberals being intolerant and condemning of something they do not understand.

  But of course THEY ARE ENTITLED to be intolerant and condemning because THEY are right and others are wrong.

  They are also drop dead terrified of religion because morality, right and wrong, good and evil, and being accountable to someone (God) means that they cannot persuade or intimidate those who have faith in God to vote for and celebrate the immoral, far left ideals they have.

  And so they mock and ridicule those who believe in God. And of course they have to portray any politician who believes in God and who is transparent in that belief, as well as religious leaders who are conservative as evil and dumb.

  And speaking of dumb, I find it amazing that any conservative that threatens to take the power that liberals feel is only theirs to have is portrayed over and over and over again as “dumb”, “inarticulate” etc.

• 34. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  RS,

  I’m not fussy on the pick of Joe Biden. I think Obama picked him because of his friendship with McCain, his ability to connect with working class voters and the fact he championed a womens rights bill. It was a political choice, but Biden also came with a lot of experience so it worked. The problem is he talks to much. Of course this is gold for Jon Stewart and Colbert. Frankly I’m suprised SNL hasn’t picked up on it yet. Their skit on the VP debate will be histercial no doubt.

  I have to disagree with you when you say Biden will be looked at as a huge political mistake. I’m assuming your rebuttal would be that he should have chosen Clinton, but then thats exactly what the repubs wanted. If he had, McCain could have chosen Liberman as his running mate and the base would still be motivated simply by their hatred for clinton.

  Anyway, I agree that this debate is make or break for McCain. If Palin bombs it’s all but over. I suspect the audicence will be higher then the 54 million that watched the presidental debate. The only advantage I see her having is that the media has already written her off. If she even makes a couple points against Biden it will be hailed as a victory. It sucks and it’s kind of demeaning to women, but it’s just how it is.

  Observer,

  That was my point. Obama came out and headed the Wright issue off at the pass. With something like this if you sit and let it fester it only gets bigger and bigger until it becomes an elephant in the room. Kind of like the Economy, Bush et al, ignored it and told us we were in great shape since march instead of confront the problem everyone seemed to be raising the alarm about. Now look where we are.

  Though I’m unfamiliar with the ”Annenburg Challege’ the rest of the issues you take issue with Obama for have been de-bunked. McCain in fact could be tied into the Fanniemae fiasco, theres plenty of money and blame to be passed around. This of course is besides the point. If your going to fault Obama for his assocations with people from varying ends of the spectrum then you must also give him the credit he deserves for the brilliant people he assocaites with. People who have been helping him to run his campaign and create policies that McCain and bush have even adopted. It seems to me that knowing a diverse group of people can make a person fairly open minded. I empathise with this where I was never a ‘click’ person. I didn’t like to idea of locking into one said group of friends or people I know. You get no perspective that way.

  As for fundmentalism, your microanalysing the term to prove a point. The religion that is anything but mainstream that believes the end of days is coming, there is a ‘young world’ and has a pastor that is quoted as saying the means to spread their religion is through violence (previous thread) is ‘violently radicalist’.

  You ask if Palin looks like the kind of Christain that could utter and believe such things is disingenious. For instance, your nextdoor neighbour that drives a BMW, has 2 kids a pretty wife and the coolest little dog couple be a terrorist. You could live next to them and not even know.

  The only way to truly know about Palin is to open her up to the media. The above excert from the interview has done nothing but make me question even more.

  “I’m a lot better for putting my life in God’s hands and saying hey, you know what, guide me.” Sarah Palin

  I’d prefer someone in office who looks to advisors for guidance then God. This is just my belief of course and keep in mind that I am not a religious man by any means. I’m spritual to an exent but not religious. So this is just my own opinion on her words.

  Finally, I never purposely implied that you don’t know what your talking about. If I have I apologise. I will say your one of the few that frequents this site from the ‘right’ that can carry a conversation or debate without resulting to petty name calling or gotcha’s so I tip my hat to you sir.

• 35. FmrMarine  |  October 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  syrup

  What if your “faith” involves believing things that are completely at odds with all known evidence? What if your faith requires you to believe things that simply are not true? If you go along, what does that say about you?

  Spare me, oBOMBa is not just a Christian, HE is a kook:
  who belongs to a racist cult!

• 36. FmrMarine  |  October 1st, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  JS

  How quickly and selectively out nut case TROLLS forget………

  ……….Trinity United Church of Christ
  About Us
  We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
  Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the Black Community
  3. Commitment to the Black Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

  ………….

  http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/09/hey-obots-get-your-facts-straight-even.html

  ………….
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76170

  …………..
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjJlsGrlbUs&feature=related

  ……………
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT0nxuqkM04

• 37. Retired Spook  |  October 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  If your going to fault Obama for his assocations with people from varying ends of the spectrum then you must also give him the credit he deserves for the brilliant people he assocaites with.

  SAR, I’ll grant you that Obama has surrounded himself with some pretty brilliant people during the campaign, although I think “politically savvy” would be a more apt description. “Brilliant” to me indicates intelligent in a positive sense, whereas I think most on the Obama team are simply morally and intellectually dishonest. I’ve been thinking about this (Obama’s associations) a lot lately, and done a lot of reading and research on the subject. I can’t find an instance where he has said something like: “Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and Rev. Phlager are not the people who have shaped or had a positive influence on my life. It’s really (fill in the name/s) who have had the most positive influence on my life. Have you ever heard him talk about positive roll models in his life?

  In the end, there are only two ways you can judge a person: by their accomplishments and the company they keep. In both instances, Obama comes up extremely short.

  That was my point. Obama came out and headed the Wright issue off at the pass.

  I know this was directed at Observer, but I have to respond. You have a entirely different perception of what happened if you think Obama “headed the Wright issue off at the pass.” I don’t think it’s possible to repudiate a life-long association with a spiritual mentor who hates whites and hates America by simply saying “that’s not the Rev. Wright that I knew.” I suspect that if Sarah Palin repudiated her association with the Assembly of God in the same way, you would not be so forgiving. And, although her former pastor has admittedly said some nutty things, I’m betting he never stood in the pulpit and said, “God Damn America”.

• 38. Joe Bananas..in Pajamas  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:18 pm

  >>>I’d prefer someone in office who looks to advisors for guidance then God. This is just my belief of course and keep in mind that I am not a religious man by any means. I’m spritual to an exent but not religious. So this is just my own opinion on her words.>>

  What a hypocrite, what did Obama do when he was in Jerusalem?, what did he pray for?……give me a break, you people are so incredible, your prejudice is only matched in size by your selective amnesia.

• 39. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  4) Distort the plain meaning of my posts, where I took care to distinguish between most Christian denominations (I listed several examples) and the crazy ones that attract Sarah Palin. This is for Sue, who seems to have reading comprehension problems.

  Spook: Did I say Palin wasn’t decent, warm, caring, whatever nice adjectives you care to apply? I am agnostic there, as I haven’t bothered to figure that out.

  Let’s see: the intersection of decent, warm caring with absolutely crazy religious beliefs that deny the best-established empirical facts of modern science is… probably lots of people.

  The one does not excuse the other. If you are really a retired spook and don’t like apocalyptic Muslims like Ahmadinejad having nukes because their beliefs make them unstable, then it might follow that you don’t want millenarians of any stripe having access to nukes.

  Or not.

  Fmr: you really know how to rile me up. Call me names, etc. If I were 8 I’d really take exception. As it is, you seem to be a combo 3) and 4) with your own special incoherence.

• 40. Observer20  |  October 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  SAR,

  I do agree that putting an end to the debate would be in everyone’s best interest. I just don’t think making an official statement will stop the philosophizing or keep people from thinking she was lieing. There are a lot of things from both candidates and their VPs that we all probably want the absolute truth about, but even if they say they are going to give it to us doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be, especially if there’s no substantial proof one way or the other on the issue.

  As for the issues, I really don’t think the ones that you say have been debunked are debunked. I’ve read the bill that Obama supported, and yes, it features somewhat comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners and nowhere in the bill does it state that its purpose is to educate children about sexual predators. So, in my mind, the debate isn’t solved at all.

  And I will also give him credit that he does seem to surround himself with some equally savory types. That can be said for almost any politician. But people like to pay attention to the negatives. The flaws in ones character stand out despite the savory bits being there too. Case in point, McCain has a very bi-partisan record in Congress and relatively free of corruption, but the liberals here seem to want to paint him as a corrupt politician because of the Keating Five incident and want to paint him as a Bush clone because he supported many of his economic policies and the decision to go to Iraq.

  My statements about fundamentalism were to prove a point. Obama supporters seem to want to judge her based on her beliefs. Yes, some of her beliefs may not be quite mainstream, I’ll grant you that. The other portion of the argument that you’re not addressing, however, is that you’re implying that because of these beliefs she is dangerous or not a smart decision. I fail to see that. She has proven that she can separate her religion from what she believes is best from the country. I only labeled the fundamentalists in such a way because it seemed you (liberals) wanted to paint her as a violent extremist.

  Your point about the neighbor seeming normal but being a violent extremist may hold some value on its face. But for someone to be labeled a violent extremist they have to at some point indulge in violent extremist actions. If that neighbor looks normal and you have no evidence that she is doing anything extremist, then why should you pass blame? Are you implying that Palin’s religion has affected her previous judgments in ways that we haven’t seen? That’s just speculation and there’s no proof of that whatsoever.

  Again, I ask what’s wrong with different religious beliefs if they do not affect her governing decisions? Imagine for a moment that Osama bin Laden never sponsored any terrorist attacks, never said anything controversial, never set up Al’Qaida or did anything even remotely considered to be a great evil. Let’s also assume he still, out of coincidence, held some non-mainstream beliefs about his religion. Now let’s assume Osama was appointed to be a leader of some sorts; a Mayor, Governor, committee leader or something like that. In his time in that position, he did not do anything that could be linked to his religious beliefs, and did some things that went against his religious beliefs to respect the law of the area. Is there any good reason then, aside from personal prejudice against his religious inclinations, to assume he has an extremist agenda for the government?

  My comment about me knowing what I was talking about was just to forewarn any side commentators that if they question what I know about that issue they would be in for a surprise. It was not directed at you, no worries.

• 41. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  RS,

  I have heard him praise his typical white grandmother. heh. All jokes aside, you make a good point. It seems politicans tend to throw people under the bus but do not praise people that deserve it more times then not. I often wonder if this is for fear that they may need to throw them under the bus later to get ahead.

  As for how to judge people, I would like to inject a third into the mix. Life experiences. The best way example of this would be McCain of course because of the hell he went through in Vietnam. Then Obama has his own growing up under the care of a single mother. I to best judge character all three must be considered.

  Again I agree Obama is certainly lacking in experience when compared to McCain. Theres not debating this. However his judgement over the past year has been more then commendable. I think he’s learned a lot in the short period of time and I think the debate on foreign policy the other night further proved this. Even in the saddleback form, McCain whooped him, hands down. Progress, potential and how quick a person can learn on the fly are also key traits which cannot be overshadowed. All of which Obama has more then proven.

  I guess I do have a different perception about Wright. To me, and the circles I run in (almost all liberal by this sites standards) the issue was put to rest with the fantastic speech Obama gave. That speech won him the nomination and put the final nails in clintons coffin IMO.

  However you are right about what you said about my perception regarding Palin. The reason why it would be harder to change my mind here is because Palin has made some pretty out there comments regarding religion. This is Palin herself. This is not a preacher or church she can disown. Saying that, if she came out with an adequate explanation I’d be willing to listen. Even if she came out and said ‘look, I don’t really believe this tripe, but it gets me votes’ I’d accept that.

  I guess what it boils down to my issue with her really is that I don’t see her remotely qualified and I just can’t get past this 6000 years thing. I’ve read articles and bills which she supported and didn’t support in Alaska which are in-line and also contradictory to her faith so I agree she is capable of distinguishing. But, it is completely irrational to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Such a belief in this modern era of computers and A.I. is least suspect and at best completely irrational.

• 42. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  SAR: to me, you are too nice. If I told you I believed the moon was made of green cheese, but in public I would act as if it weren’t, what would you think? Is that someone you want making important decisions? Can you trust someone like that? I think the question answers itself.

  And just to put things on an equal footing, if I thought Obama was a private crazy then I’d be saying the same thing about him. I don’t. With Palin, the best I hear is that she won’t be crazy in public. I’d say that is cold consolation.

  BTW, it does seem to me the book incident in Wasilla suggests that the craziness is just waiting to express, so I don’t find her professions of sane public behavior in spite of her insane private beliefs to be at all credible. To the degree she is sane in her public behavior, that is simply because she knows she wouldn’t get anywhere otherwise. Can you say Trojan Horse for religious craziness? Why else do the Evangelicals love her?

• 43. Jeremiah  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pm

  Sarah Palin is a true Christian woman.

  As she’s become a tenant of the non-denominational few, I am familiar and can connect with her on her beliefs; and this is why I am so pleased to have her as our possible next VP.

  The basic principle of the non-denominational belief stresses with utmost profundity the need for one’s salvation and asking Jesus Christ to come into one’s heart and life in a personal relationship with Him to go with us on life’s journey, helping us to overcome the many trials and tribulations that Satan throws our way.
  That’s the whole concept of the non-denominational belief, it’s about love of our Savior, Physician, Counsellor, King… Jesus is all these things to the true Christian. And that’s why the left hates her so much … not because of the church she goes to, but because she loves Jesus.

  You see, that’s where the major differences can be seen in the beliefs of the Atheist and the beliefs of the Faithful - The atheist wishes to believe that mankind’s existence is being improved by the process they call “evolution”, and this just simply is not true. Because the Bible tells us that God created mankind perfect in the beginning. So the atheist then asks, “Why then is there disease such as cancer, AIDS, colds, flus, viruses, pain and suffering of all kinds?” …. Well, first realize what was mentioned previously, mankind was created perfect in the beginning, okay? But because man chose to disobey God, which is what we call sin, He cursed the earth, and sin, my friends, is what will continue to lead America downward … take for example the sin of homosexuality, AIDS is a direct result of the sin of sodomy. The same likewise goes for heterosexuals that do not withhold their sexual relations until after marriage. They are at risk of AIDS and the many sexually transmitted diseases although the homosexual lives a much more dangerous lifestyle which are 75-95%much more likely to contract a disease due to their demented practices. The advent of pornography and the internet has contributed immensely to this culture of death…it places a greater emphasis on the desires of the flesh, and thus, leading more and more souls to the death of their eternal soul to the fires of an eternal hell. Ask yourself, What do I desire more…my body, or God’s eternal happiness? Too many folks, because of the teaching that is Atheism in our colleges, high schools, and universities have led them to believe that they need not worry about eternity because they are their own god and should only be concerned about the here and now…thus, more and more people are prideful in the filth that they commit on the internets and elsewhere.

  Other sins would include the sins of drinking alchohol and getting into a drunken state, drunken orgies such as spring break…some having drinking vomiting contests, whoever can drink and vomit the most to fill the waste can wins these are sin … of course, alchohol in any case for the purposes of pleasure is against God’s Word. Now, it’s ok if one has a condition of the kidneys that the doctor prescribes, say eight ounces a day “if” that is the prescribed dosage…but other more healthful drinks have shown to be more safe and effective as a diuretic, such herbal drinks as tea with ginseng and honey, and others that are a good kidney problem solver include but are not limited to cranberry juice, grape juice etc, etc and as an added bonus are high in antioxidants such as vitamin C that help fight infection and the various illnesses as the common cold. These things in their pure state of natural fruit and herb extract are all part of God’s creation to our benefit and are to be used for the purposes mentioned.

  The non-denominational community also believes in the power of prayer, as prayer, whether in the confines of ones own home, at church, walking the street on the way to work, or anywhere at any place, at any time makes no difference…God hears our prayer no matter where we are. Whether one is sincere or not God will know.
  When we pray, we are to pray to Jesus, as He came to break down the barrier between God and man (remember the curtain at the Temple, which was torn from top to bottom upon Jesus’ death).

  Regarding what Gov. Palin’s pastor has said about the punishment of the nations, I agree with what he’s said. What he’s saying is not in any way implying that God is saying we should go out and do as the guy in Tennessee done a couple months back, no way. What he is saying is that God, in His own time will punish the nations for their wickedness, and that He doesn’t just rain on the wicked but all people, because the wicked do abominable, atrocious acts to other people on a nation does the good people, because the good people stood by and let these things that go contrary to God’s Word happen. ‘He rains on the just and the unjust, the righteous and unrighteous.’

  The implications of disobeying God’s Word are many, because there are many different situations as to the particular situation people may be in … one of the greatest problems we have in America is the school system is teaching children to sin and that there’s really “no such thing” as sin … doing that in and of itself will lead a nation down, because children have no understanding of what’s right and wrong in a Right and Wrong world, my friends and this teaching lead a nation down which would be the following .. i.e., this person may be into drugs cocaine, marijuana etc, etc, another person may have committed multiple murder crimes and is serving time in prison to only get out and do it again, another person may be addicted to pornography, another may be a radical atheist, another may be living a homosexual lifestyle, another may be a child predator …. all these combined, can all be placed under on label … sin, and sin, my friends, is what separates us from God’s love & promise of eternal salvation.

  Ultimately, our non-denominational belief system stresses the need as I said for salvation, and an abiding by what God’s Word says and which teaches sexual purity, One man for One Woman in marriage, pro-life, and values that are worthy of God’s favor henceforth accordingly. This is what America needs, someone who will stand up for these values, because there are thousands of people ripe for the harvest, meaning? Meaning they are yearning for the truth, the worldly lifestyle is bearing down hard on them and is thusly not satisfying their want for happiness and true joy in life that only Jesus Christ can bring.

  May God continue to BLESS our wonderful nation!

  :)

• 44. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  searp,

  You need to learn the first of holes son. You have already established your bona fides as a mentally deficient, weak, military punk and then you continue to lower your own bar with every post.

  You’re passing judgement on someone you don’t even know based on false information.

  You are a complete waste of flesh and pray you don’t cross my path.

• 45. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  5) Another response seems to be “Obama is worse”.

  I would like to point out that I didn’t say anything at all about Obama until my fourth post. Opinions about Obama strike me as irrelevant if the discussion is about Governor Palin’s Faith, which I believe is the title of the blog post.

  I see a lot of commenters not wanting to directly address the fact that Palin’s beliefs are crazy. I am unsurprised. It takes some… faith for Mark Noonan, who seems to be a devout Catholic, to post on this topic, although I note he would prefer she return to the fold. So would I, so would I.

• 46. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  Observer,

  This comes down to the age old question of trusting any politician and their promises. Who will do what, who will keep their word and who won’t. Such things have been debated long before you or I have been around and will most certainly be debated long after. You think it’s McCain and I think it’s Obama. I hope we can both agree that neither will be a repeat of Bush.

  I honestly thought before the republican convention that this election would be the first that I can remember where religion was to be left almost entirely out of it. Aside from Wright and Hagee of course, but that was to be expected anyway. Then McCain selected Palin.

  From what I have read of the sex education bill, it is not intended to teach kindergarten students how to put condoms on a banana. It’s more to make them aware so they can recognize advances when they see them. My personal belief is that at that age it should be left up to the parent. Grade 6 - 9 is the minimum level at which sex education should be taught in public schools. Though I do not see supporting this a big deal. I remember when I was 7 or 8 I got my first introduction to the female reproductive system and all it’s wonder playing doctor with sherry-lnn (my baby-sitters daughter and the girl next door).

  Again I agree people like to pay attention to negatives. I think a corespondent on CNN summed it up really well the other day. Say your looking at a ceiling of 1000 tiles, 999 of them are perfect, beyond perfect, they’re pristine, but 1 has a chip in it. The one with the chip is all that you see. No matter what when you look up at the ceiling it’s the one that jumps out at you (or something along those lines). I don’t know enough about the details of Keating 5 to discuss that issue. I’ve read a couple of articles but not really enough to claim McCain is some form of criminal or anything. Though he did support the war (along with a lot of democrats) and he did say that it would be over soon. While Obama opposed it. (Funny enough the dixie chicks took more flack for opposing the war then Obama did, but thats another story all together.) Those are undeniable.

  Ok, I’ll grant you the point that there is no evidence that she will bring about Armageddon and the argument that she will is a fear tactic. That said, as I have said to spook, someone with absurdly irrational beliefs is suspect in my mind. The media cannot report on closed doors foreign policy decisions or meetings with world leaders. If a world power is to make a move (say Russia and Georgia for example) I find it hard to trust someone to act rationally and logically when they hold personal believes that speak to the contrary.

  But for someone to be labeled a violent extremist they have to at some point indulge in violent extremist actions.

  For someone to be a terrorist they have to commit and act of terror. heh.

  It is speculator and disingenuous, but then that was my point about your original statement:

  Now, tell me, does Palin look like that kind of Christian that looks at the rest of the world, condemns it, and proceeds to try and convert everyone around her at knife-point or isolate herself from it?

  I know Palin has voted against he faith in Alaska on a couple of occasions. One vote was because she saw oil and gas as more important then social issues. So I’ll give her that. But it is impossible to tell who someone is or what they are capable of by the kind of Christian, buddhist, muslim, hindu, etc. that they look like.

  I have no problem with different religious beliefs. I do however think though it is possible to separate religious beliefs from political ones it is rather improbable. People tend to make decisions and choices based on their belief system. As we have witnessed from this president, the will of the majority of people can be ignored. With this in mind, and the type of power and clout both the president and vice president now carry, I do not like the idea of someone with an irrational set of beliefs in the executive branch of the US government.

  I’m a pretty easy going fellow so worrying is not something I do often. Regardless of the day it’s nothing a tall glass of Gibson’s or an ice cold beer can’t fix. Except for that pregnancy scare a couple weeks back. I swear my heart skipped a couple beats and I lost 2 years off my life.

• 47. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  Neo: do you ever post on topic, or are you just in it to raise your blood pressure?

  You know, posts like yours actually make me laugh. If this were a debate, you would have lost about a year ago. Grow up and make an argument.

• 48. searp  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  Neo: another point: if I am your son you are at least John McCain’s age. Grow up, Paps.

• 49. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  Can you say Trojan Horse for religious craziness? Why else do the Evangelicals love her?

  Searp,

  Scary thought, though I believe this would most certainly usher in a civil war if she started pushing there nutbag agenda. It gives me great comfort to know that we would have science innovation and rational thought on our sides. But there is a bright side, at least jeremiah would have an excuse to leave his basement.

• 50. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  searp,

  What is there to debate? I have more challenged conversat5ions with my grandkids then you. You are making judgements on false information therefore there is no substance to debate, only points to make fun of.

  It’s akin to me asserting that Obama is Muslim. Care to debate that issue?

  And I hardly get worked up over such a pissant as you.

• 51. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  SAR,

  Do you ever recall McCain calling Hagee his mentor? You’re also basing your opinion of Palin on false information. Both Biden and Obama have expressed a deep belief in God. Does that worry you any?

  searp,

  I called you son because you are my intellect inferior.

• 52. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm

  Neocon,

  No Hagee was not McCain’s mentor, but McCain did seek out his endorsement. When he couldn’t get it he went out and got Palin. GOTCHA!

  Both Biden and Obama believe in God but neither have stated or believe that Iraq is a holy war. GOTCHA!

• 53. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  First of all what is this GOTCHA?
  You sound like my grandkids.

  McCain hardly has control of who endorses him and rebuked the endorsement shortly afterwards.

  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today rejected the endorsement of megachurch pastor and ardent Zionist John Hagee after learning of a sermon in which Hagee posited that Nazism was God’s will.

  And I must’ve missed McCain or Palin calling the Iraq war a holy war. Do you ever deal with facts or is it just bullshit that you feel comfortable with?

• 54. Some Assembly Required  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  Neocon,

  ‘GOTCHA’ are the statements that you made in post 50. I guess you could call it ’stump the poster’.

  Anyway, Palin had some nice words to say about the Iraq war and God. Its all over youtube. Key words: ‘Palin Iraq War’

  http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIHjE0T_ww

  Ok, so not ‘holy war’ but it was ‘part of god’s plan’ though I fail to see the difference.

• 55. neocon  |  October 1st, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  SAR,

  You fail to see a lot of things, so I am not surprised. And where in post 50 did I state GOTCHA? Are you stupid AND blind? Because that’s a hell of a condition you’ve got working there son.

  I am not surprised that you don’t see the difference in Palin’s comments. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Faith (along with a lot of other concepts), so any attempt on my part to inform someone so ignorant, would be a colossal waste of time.

• 56. What?  |  October 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  Observer20 writes writes,
  “Fundamentalism is not violent in and of itself. There is a marked difference between purely having a fundamentalist faith and being a violent fundamentalist. The aspects of fundamentalism that are dangerous are the ones that advocate that, unconditionally, they are right and the rest of the world is wrong, that actively tries to seclude itself from the rest of the world and/or force the rest of the world to take on their views.”

  Whoa there, Observer. First, you are basically saying Mark is a fundamentalist. He believes his religion is the only right one and he would like to see our nation be a more Christian nation. (He never speaks of what this exactly means.)

  Second, fundamentalist Chrisitanity by its defintion, advocates the idea it is right. You cannot be a fundamentalist if you don’t believe your religion is the one true religion.

  Third, fundamentalism is dangerous even when those that practice it aren’t trying to force others to join in. This is because it clouds judgment. Say I am a fundamentalist and I am given two choice as to an important decision. One of those choices more closely reflects my religious faith than the other. I am naturally bias towards that decision. I cannot look at it objectively.

  Bias is fine and will always exist. Bias caused by religous belief is stickier because it is almost impossible to overcome. How can you not choose the option that is sanction by the one true God?

  In the same vein, I think the certainty that comes along with being a fundamentalist is dangerous. Mark is the prime example. If Mark had any power, his certainty in his own abilities and knowledge of what is right would undermine his willingness to explore all options, especially those that are diametrically opposed to his.

  Bottomline, a good leader is one who is willing to not view the world in black and white. Fundamentalists take pride in living in black and white.

  I am not saying Palin is a fundamentalist. My concern with her is that she isn’t that bright. McCain is partially responsible for my opinion. His camp has hidden her from view (apparently with good reason). What conclusion am I to make?
  I also resent that his choice was wholly political. She brings nothing to the ticket besides the base votes McCain was worried about. There were good VP candidates and McCain chose what now appears to be the least qualified one.

  With Obama, I at least have some idea what I am getting. I also realize he is a career politician and that politicans are not babes in the woods. They know bad people and even make friends with them. Ask McCain about Charles Keating.

• 57. Jeremiah  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am

  You cannot be a fundamentalist if you don’t believe your religion is the one true religion.

  I am a fundamentalist then, along with 2 Billion others.

  And yes, indeed, I am unashamed of being a Christian, as there was nothing dangerous about Jesus Christ. Of course, those who do not know Him see Him as a threat.

  The problem today, so many people want favors from God but don’t want to turn to Him in faith and repentance.

  Liberalism has taught the care-free lifestyle for so long that our society has become essentially devoid of any responsibility…looking to themselves and those around them for the answer yet never being satisfied in their idol worship.

  God wants all our praise and thanks, not just when the times are good, but when the times are testing also.

  What you need to understand is that Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps; and being Christian is not easy, as many to most Christians endure hatred and persecution, such as is happening to Sarah Palin …. Yet, through all of it, suffering has its rewards in Christ, it produces spiritual growth, and is why we rejoice, as that suffering reminds of our long-awaited eternal salvation in Christ Jesus. And that’s why I feel confident no matter how the election turns out that it’s all for God’s Glory and magnification in the end.

• 58. Mark Noonan  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 am

  what,

  It depends on what you mean - what purpose is there in seeing both sides to an issue when the other side is clearly wrong from the get-go? You’re falling into a trap which Reagan, for instance, once got the whole United States out of…once upon a time, it was thought that the USA and the USSR should sit down and negotiate their differences until a mutually acceptable arrangement was constructed…the problem was that the USSR was evil from start to finish and any deal the USA struck with the USSR would, essentially, be American complicity in keeping people under the thumb of an evil regime. Reagan saw clearer and his goal from day one was to undo the USSR - to do whatever he could to put a spoke in the wheels and force the USSR to collapse under its internal contradictions…and so it was done, and without Reagan ever having to see things from the USSR’s point of view.

  Informed by our faith of what is wicked, we don’t have to wrap ourselves in knots trying to give the The Enemy the time of day. If you wish to say that something we hold to be evil is nothing of the kind, then demonstrate it to us…but don’t expect us to pre-concede your point.

• 59. What?  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 am

  Mark,

  I think you missed the point. I never said something could not be evil. I said a person who fails to explore all options and listen to opposing views is a poor leader. A fundamentalist’s tendency towards being dead certain without any effort to consider all option is adverse to this leadership quality.

  For example, say you are the President and you decide to bomb Iran out of the belief they are evil. If I come to you and suggest a better way to contain Iran and you dismiss my idea because your faith has told you bombing is the right thing to do, you are a bad leader.

  Why? Because you acting irrationally and without deliberation. Fundamentalism lends itself to this way of thinking because it require inflexiblity.

  Bush’s certainty in Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq strategy is a classic example of this brand of thinking. Bush stuck to this terrible strategy like a religion and refused to consider other strategies until the American people voted his party out of Congress.

  My understanding of Reagan was that he hated Commuinsm but relied on many advisers with differing opinions when he spoke with Gorbechev.

  I am not against holding a basic principle as your Reagan example suggests.

• 60. What?  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 am

  I will add that as soon as you start calling something evil, you are less able to adjust your opinion in the future. “Evil” is a label that does not wash off easily because it is infused with passion.

  Use the word spariningly and generally. Child molestation is evil. National Socialism was evil. This won’t change.

  Iran is not evil. It is a problem that requires solving. This kind of thinking lends itself to calm, rational decision making.

• 61. FactCheck  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 am

  (Ed. Note: Bearing false witness is a sin…)

  Which would make you a HUGE sinner.

  Also, when did you start thinking that uncorroborated allegations are a bad thing, considering how much your site traffics in them?

• 62. searp  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 am

  Evidence, evidence denial. Sarah Palin has attended Pentacostal or Assembly of God churches for more than 30 years. She does not disavow any doctrine associated with those churches, quite to the contrary.

  Of course, if you don’t believe your lyin eyes then you can say whatever you want.

  I hope Ifill asks Palin about the nutty doctrines propagated by these churches. Her answer would, to me, be the most interesting part of the debate. Yes, she should ask Obama about his church also.

  We all seem to want religion in the public square, so lets have at it.

  Just for Neo: you made me laugh again, I am beginning to come here for my morning dose of comedy.

• 63. Jeremiah  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am

  nutty–searp

  “Nutty?” What is “nutty” about them?

  Friend, the only thing nutty is what’s in your head. I can tell ya that right now.

  To stoop so low and call these doctrines “nutty” and not tremble in fear of judgment makes you one “nutty” individual … So, you know what means don’t ya? That means you’re a NUT!

  Only one thing to tell nuts such as yourself …

  May God Have Mercy On Your Soul!

• 64. Some Assembly Required  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am

  There are one of two ways to take those comments by her about the Iraq war. One being that she is stating that the Iraq war is a holy war that christains are waging. The other being that God has a plan for everything and that this war was part of it. If you choose to believe the latter then it’s logical to conclude that God is anti-American. Then because you believe that you are as well because God’s plan lead us to the cluster-F$%^ we are in over there and an economy that is in the $hitter at home. Why, if God has a plan, would he punish Americans / Christians for spreading his word and freedom to the people?

  Either way you look at it, her comments are frightening.

• 65. searp  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  Jeremiah, two nutty doctrines come to mind:

  “End days”
  “Young Earth”

  I am sure I could find more. Why are these nutty?

  – millenarian beliefs have been around since well before 1000 AD, and the millenarians keep being disappointed. Big excitement AD1000, nothing happened. More excitement AD2000. Nothing happened. You really have to be a cretin to think the end of the earth, due to the Second Coming, is upon us.

  – Young Earth creationism is simply stupid. It requires willful ignorance to believe this stuff, as in ignore literally centuries of scientific findings to the contrary. Creationism is simply for people who cannot learn and require a simple, if completely wrong, explanation for things, an explanation that a thinking 6th grader wouldn’t accept.

  So, stupid, and nutty, and very, very telling in my opinion. You are welcome to yours.

• 66. searp  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  Jeremiah:

  It is the refuge of a scoundrel to insist that somehow God is offended at my comments.

  I doubt God is offended by truth.

• 67. js  |  October 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  i think the best description one could provide for the liberal lunacy they keep repeating over and oover is “feeble minded”…

  fee·ble-mind·ed /ˈfibəlˈmaɪndɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fee-buhl-mahyn-did] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
  –adjective 1. lacking the normal mental powers.
  2. Medicine/Medical. (formerly) mentally retarded. Compare idiot, imbecile, moron.
  3. stupid; unintelligent: feeble-minded remarks.
  4. Archaic. lacking firmness of mind; indecisive.

  ——————————————————————————–

  [Origin: 1525–35]

  —Related forms
  fee·ble-mind·ed·ly, adverb
  fee·ble-mind·ed·ness, noun
  Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
  Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006