Sacred Space: Politics and faith entwined

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Politics and faith entwined

At 7:43 on Aug. 20, jason k. responded: "While Church and State should be seperate, Politics and Faith should not, and cannot be seperate. ... To suggest someone check their faith at the door, when they step into the ballot box, is akin to telling them not to vote in accordance to their values."

He raises an excellent point. On an individual level, politics and faith cannot be separate in anyone who takes both seriously. Sincere faith shapes - or should shape - every perspective, every decision, every action. And choosing a president is not a minor decision.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone voting based on his or her values. We don't leave that part of us behind when we enter the voting booth.

The problems arise when politics and faith become entwined on the institutional, not the personal, level. That's why the tax laws prohibit pastors from making political endorsements from the pulpit or using church resources to help a candidate. The government can't tell you what church to attend and the church can't tell you what party to elect.

That's as it should be.

In this nation, there are limits to political power. Those who hold it can't tell you what to believe - and they sure can't keep you from voting in accordance with those beliefs.

How will faith shape your decision?

325 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 325 of 325 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Big Fake.; August 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe the Miss Alaska runner-up for1984 can help us all find Bigfoot.

-anon1; August 29, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Iztok said...: Anon1: "Maybe the Miss Alaska runner-up for1984 can help us all find Bigfoot."

Bigfoot is real, all you need to do is believe in it.; August 29, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Bobby Jindall,governor of Louisiana, who was also speculated as a VP pick is strongly influenced by fundamentalist doctrine and even documented in writing the performing an "excorcism" and signed a state bill recently pushed by the creationists and the Discovery Institute(Intelligent Design) to allow Louisiana schools to teach the "alternative theories to evolution so they will get a "balanced" curriculum.

Right...so to be really fair now lets teach all the other creation myths of the world in our schools. Students can compare all of them and choose what suits their religiously correct ideology.; August 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Iztok said...: J, LA is weird yes. I think the power of Flying Spaghetti Monster should be revealed to them and theory be part of curriculum in LA.; August 29, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Or you could do something sensible, like teaching about the "argument from design" in philosophy or history class. No wait, you're right, it's more fun to blog.; August 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Too bad Tina Fey is no longer on Saturday Night Live. She and Palin look enough alike to be twins.

Fey could have a great ride doing Palin imitations...at least up until early November.; August 29, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon, good call, but Palin is a much better looking version of Fey.; August 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Iztok said...: Bob: "Or you could do something sensible, like teaching about the "argument from design" in philosophy or history class."

You are right. I honestly have no objections for teachers to teach theory of design in biology class. Unfortunately I have not seen mentioned theory yet. If anyone actually has a link to theory of design that should be included in biology class, please point me towards it.; August 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I didn't say science class. I said philosophy and history class. You could include the "argument from design" in relgious studies and sociology, too. The Teaching Company website lists courses called "Philosophy of Religion" and "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It" that appear to have lectures which address this subject from some of these perspectives.; August 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Iztok, I love you, so, given your concession on theory of design, please go to a Comfort Inn at least 50 miles from home. call me, and I will get the Witness Protection Plan people to you. The Darwin zealots do not abide any heretical aberrations from orthodoxy.

see Stein's expelled; August 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: The so-called Darwinists(a arachaic term)aka biological evolutionists would abide aberrations from the "orthodoxy" if those aberrations were based on empirical science,rationality and peer review.

All that Stein and company(the Discover Institute, Creation "science")can deliver is ludicrous ideological nonsense and utter wackiness. Ben Stein is an embarassement as a spokesman for almost anything including economics, much less science.

I do agree with Itzok and Bob if creationists etc. want to teach the so-called controversy; teach it in religious history or philosophy class.

Religious indoctrination and creation stories do not belong in science class because these ideas have nothing to do with science.(other than perhaps an comarative illustration of the nonsensical myths that humans used to believe in to explain the universe)

Bob,

I have taken many of those Teaching company self-study courses and they are excellent resources.; August 29, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If only we could get students to restrict "philosophical" questions to classrooms outside the inner sanctum of the state established church in science classes and for the ACLU and 5 lawyers on the supreme court to respect free speech to all 4 walled rooms on government property and not allow lawsuits for money damages if a teacher dares respect students enough to answer questions from students.; August 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Iztok said...: Gamecock: "see Stein's expelled"

Expelled is full of lies.

Which particular person in Expelled are you referring to? Let's be specific so all here can get the facts straight.; August 30, 2008 at 5:50 AM
Iztok said...: Gamecock: "given your concession on theory of design"

What concession? As I said, there is no such thing as theory of design to be presented in biology. I have not seen or heard of it. If you know of it, please point it to us.

So do all of us a favor and point us to a document explaining theory of design. Bare in mind that we are talking science here so when we talk about theory we talk about scientific theory. After all what else then scientific theory would be presented in science (biology) class?

BTW: Stein's Expelled doesn't even present their version of theory of design.; August 30, 2008 at 5:54 AM
Iztok said...: Gamecock: "if a teacher dares respect students enough to answer questions from students."

?? Can yo show me a single example where such questions in proper classes (I assume questions were "theory of design" type and proper classes would be religion and mythology type, certainly not science type) and ACLU would go after those teachers?

You are not seriously considering "theory of design" to be discussed in biology are you? Because if you do, I do have a bridge to nowhere (built by Republicans? ;) to sell to you as well.; August 30, 2008 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,

If a sciece teacher had to respond to every philosophical and religious question that a student proposed in their class then they would have little time to teach the core principles of science.

I would imagine that on some occassions these questions are meant to subversively disrupt the learning environment anyway to challenge and trip up the "orthodoxy".

Challenege to scientific theory happens all the time in the academic world but it is done through a process of reasonable information and backed up by peer review,experimentation, empirical evidence or mathematics.

A high school or college science teacher is not expected or has insufficent resources to address the philosophical queries of various religious views in a science classroom. Those questions can be addressed in the another setting.

That is not an infringement of free speech but simply a form of respecting the boundaries of the setting and rights of others who are in a science class to learn not to subvert the classroom environment into a political/ ideological/religious battleground.

If a student or parent objects so much to the curriculum that has been approved in public schools then they should be at a private school that teaches what they want to hear.; August 30, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Iztok said...: j: "If a student or parent objects so much to the curriculum that has been approved in public schools then they should be at a private school that teaches what they want to hear."

Sure thing. I agree with what you said (more then quoted above). I would like to add that such parents shouldn't expect their kids to be accepted to any serious scientific program in college if they can't accept basic scientific principles. (I think one of the Univ. of Cal. colleges started to reject credits for those "intelligent design biology classes" at some private high schools. And they should.)

We should support future president who emphasizes science over mythology, that is for sure.; August 30, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: The problem with the "intelligent design" campaign is more funadamental than merely injecting religion into science. Its project is to redefine science back into a branch of natural philosophy, where science got its start. Sorry, Gamecock, the Middle Ages are over, and Ben Stein can't bring them back in the name of a faux-pluralism. But we can still agree that the Middle Ages are still worth studying in some context. We don't have to just turn the pages.; August 30, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Itzok,

I agree with your posts also. It is very sad and sometimes discouraging that this country even argues about things like teaching evolution.

I am glad that some schools California are setting needed standards of what is accepted as legitimate science.

That we would ever vote for any leader that rejected the core principals of science should be a huge embarassement to our image as country of supposely intelligent and informed individuals.

Instead it seems that many voters are very proud of their willful ignorance and obstinate denial of reality.; August 30, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: "We should support future president who emphasizes science over mythology, that is for sure."

We should also support a future president and vice president who can separate the roles and beliefs required in their sectarian lives from the roles and beliefs required in their secular jobs. And require voters to do the same.; August 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it is commendable that Palin chose to follow her beliefs and not abort her Downs Syndrome child.

Now if she and the rest of the evangelicals would just let the rest of this nation make their own choices based on their individual beliefs, what a great democracy this could be.; August 30, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: anonymous

Amen to your last posts :); August 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has already hit Louisiana once this decade and it looks like it's headed back for seconds in just a few days.

That should make believers of them all.

-anon1; August 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Actually a class which included the basics of logic and logical fallacies would be great.

It could be studied as part of Philosphy, English, or
History.

Unfortunately, we are now struggling with basic literacy in many schools.

-anon1; August 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm just so glad that the Bible doesn't pontificate on Mathematics or Engineering or we'd all still be riding on donkeys.

-anon1; August 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I have been reading that Half-Baked Alaska is a creationist. (I know, I know, it's juvenile. But Just Miss't Alaska was too complicated). If the election becomes a referendum on that, it would be a good thing.; August 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Ben Stein is apparently a well-rounded crackpot. I know of him through his economic feel-good BS.

That guy is living on another planet.

I can't believe anyone takes him seriously on anything beyond a gameshow.

-anon1; August 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Iztok said...: anon1: "I'm just so glad that the Bible doesn't pontificate on Mathematics or Engineering or we'd all still be riding on donkeys."

Well in fact it does. I Kings 7:23-26

It says 30/10 ratio for what science would consider Pi (3.14...). One would understand somewhat rationally if it would be 31/10 but no.

I guess Pi is "just a theory" :); August 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Iztok, the good thing about that calc is that no Christian or Jew I have ever heard uses it to claim that Pi is 3 and get textbooks altered.

It's just one of those stupid quotes that people like to argue about to no good end.

Instead, Bible believers search for alternate explanations or "interpretations" which make it seem more plausible
that the Biblical quote is NOT saying that Pi is 3.

I'm aware of at least two such arguments defending the quote.

And those are arguments I certainly don't care one whit about as they is just as irrelevant to mathematics as the Genesis stories are to science.

If the ancient Jews knew how to approximate Pi, then good for them, it's nothing that Babylonians or Egyptians of the same or earlier eras didn't know.

-anon1; August 30, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Iztok said...: anon1: "Iztok, the good thing about that calc is that no Christian or Jew I have ever heard uses it to claim that Pi is 3 and get textbooks altered."

Well not many claim Earth is flat anymore either, but at one point there were many Jews and Christians claiming both based on the "inerrant" Bible. First the "Pi=3" believers disappeared, now "flatearthers" are disappearing breed and even the largest Christian branch no longer thinks evolution is not true.

It slowly moves towards the truth. Giving another few hundred years and reason will prevail.; August 30, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Re: Politics and faith entwined (inextricably?)--Has anyone else watched the political convention and been left with the impression that it very much resembles a religious service?

A charismatic speaker making outlandish and improbable pronouncements and promises that the crowd knows on a gut level bear no relationship to reality, but nonetheless enthusiastically
accepts on "faith" [knowin' what you believe ain't so--Mark Twain]; August 31, 2008 at 6:39 AM
Anonymous said...: No, I didn't think the Democratic convention resembled a religious service. Maybe you've been influenced by McCain's effort to have voters think Obama is the Antichrist (see Time.com article).

It's not outlandish to say everyone can have affordable health insurance. It's not outlandish to say we can make college education more affordable. Or to say we're going to invest in clean and renewable energy. If Obama is elected, these changes are probable. There isn't much this country can't do if we set our minds to it. Really. Whatever we want.; August 31, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Iztok,

I really have never heard of any Bible believer seriously claiming that Pi=3 based on Bible quotes.

I've only seen it used by non-believers to ridicule the Bible.

And there is usually plenty to ridicule in any holy book. The Quran is just as nutty.

But, seriously, I don't think Pi was ever controversial even among fundies.

Best I can tell it was/is a non-issue.

No where near even the flat earth question, much less the creationist argument.

And I've never had it brought up in a math class, whereas my freshman Biology teacher felt compelled (for some bizarre reason) to explain why all men descended from Adam weren't missing a rib.

-anon1; August 31, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Geez, Obama is either the Antichrist or a Muslim (or both) according to the rumors.

Where do these ignorant fools come up with this crap?

And where do the bigger fools that believe it come from?

I can only think of such crap coming from church-based rumor mills.

I have a neighbor who believes this stuff and actually tells you about it when she drinks too much.

Of course, Joe Biden wants people to pray that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't destroy the levees.

Really, there is no choice. Which is why I put my "faith" in random number generators when it comes to this election.

-anon1; August 31, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Iztok said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjfxCp92pc; August 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Iztok said...: Rumors has it that Palin's latest child might actually be a grandchild.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223; August 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Iztok, you should be banned for that unless you apologize and never post another vile rumor again.

Rumor doesn't have it that you have any class.; August 31, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Iztok said...: Gamecock, what if it turns to be the truth?; August 31, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,

I don't know the veracity of the story from the DailyKos yet but I am sure there will be more information coming out about it in the next few weeks. It could turn out to be a legitimate issue. The idea of a mother protecting her daughter like this is not so unreasonable. However in Palins position not being honest about this issue would raise many credibility issues for her in the position of VP.

If a Christian on this forum had posted a link about some of the questionable rumors that have been circulating about Barack Obama would you also ask that that person also be banned?; August 31, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, it's time to get the National Enquirer's Fair and Balanced report of this Palin rumor.

-anon1; August 31, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: The truth is the balance. Where are the witnesses (see nurses)? Not to dignify vile rumors from and lapped up by anonymous iztokian co**rds that can't abide republican women for life that have careers, but...

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redhot/2008/aug/31/the-palin-scandal-is-even-worse-than-the-koss/

In this despicable post, the anonymous Kos diarist ArcXIX asserts that Sarah Palin's son Trig is actually Palin's grandson, the bastard child of Palin's eldest daughter, Bristol. If true, it would appear to mean that Palin's doctor, Cathy Baldwin Johnson, or other medical officials at the hospital lied about the birth on official records. The story could easily be verified, one supposes, by calling the hospital as well as to whom checked in. And if course would there not be some nurse, orderly, or clerk eager to come forward for the millions that might be available? We also have to assume that every Alaska reporter eager for a Pulitzer just missed this one for the last 5 months.

But let's leave all that aside and look at this: ArcXIX gives us as evidence two photos, about which he declares without caveat, "Bristol is pregnant in these pictures."

So when was this allegedly incriminating photo taken: Read the caption from the source, the Anchorage Daily News - it was taken in 2006! It took me all of 10 minutes to track this photo down at its source - and I did that because my local paper carried the photo, and noted that it was from 2006. So this scandal is worse than it first appears, I guess - it appears that Bristol has had not one, but two illegitimate children, one in 2006 or 2007 (or will ArcXIX figure this one was aborted) plus Trig in 2008.

Of course, there is another explanation, which is that Kossites such as ArcXIX are a bit scummy, and too lazy to even check things out before smearing not merely a prominent politician but that person's daughter. Despicable.; August 31, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Heretic nailed it on the first post. 242 posts later we're still talking...

Going back for a bit, most Atheists don't have anything in common besides a lack of belief in a god(s). I should amend that -- most good Atheists find it highly unlikely that there is a god.

So what Iztok, myself, Heretic, pornstudent, and others "want", besides some degree of respect in 'real-life' is probably pretty different. We're a varied bunch which makes us pretty hard to get organized, unfortuantely.; September 1, 2008 at 7:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,

I have no comments on the truth of this rumor other than you have done some appropiate investigation and brought up some legitimate arguments,but I do think the term "bastard child" is an very inappropiate and offfensive term for a human being no matter what circumstance brought them into the world. My objections are not about being politically correct but simply asking for basic respect for our common humanity.

I presume you are a pro-life Christian and find it very curious that you would use such a term to describe a child.; September 1, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 1, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: J.
Even I was taken back by "bastard child." The words are from another blogger's post that gamecock failed to quote--he has its url above the four paragraph quote.

Chris,
In Charlotte there is an atheist/agnostic group. I'm not a member, but maybe Iztok can give you some info about it.; September 1, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Does Palin's "faith/politics intertwined" lead her to believe that she can get away with saying she turned down Fed money to build the "bridge to nowhere" when, in fact, Alaska took the money? She believes she can she get away with saying she wasn't in favor of the bridge? "In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity." See Anchorage Daily News article).; September 1, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: pornstudent,

Thanks for the clarification.

Gamecock,

Sorry for the mis-understanding. I was not aware you were quoting a blogger statement. I had not looked at that website.; September 1, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Iztok said...: What scares me about Palin is not that she would take her daughter's child as her own. What scares me that she would take a risk and travel many hours after she started labor to deliver in a small hospital in Alaska. She risked her child's life and exposed crew and passengers to possible emergency landing (8 hr flight when your water is leaking and baby is premature?).

What also scares me is her basic ignorance as far as our pledge of allegiance is concerned (and probably many more important things).

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Q: "Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?"

A: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

What kind of person doesn't know when Pledge was written and modified?; September 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: A kossack puts out a rumor and Iztok puts the burden of proof on the person rumored about. I quote a blogger that did some actual fact checking that makes the rumor look even more ridiculous and discredits a photo the rumor mongers said was from 2008 which was actually taken in 2006 (which still insults a young woman).

This is all the time I will waste on Iztok's threadjack, or him in the future unless he apologizes for this slimy business of his.; September 1, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: J et al

I will love it when more of you are "taken aback" by totally unsubstantiated rumors and then when said rumors are discredited, those that take them seriously.

That's what takes me "aback", not politically incorrect speech.; September 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Palin has five children and soon will be a grandmother. The entertwining of her faith and pro-life politics grows stronger:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

excerpt (Iztok et al, esp see last paragraph):

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

MCCAIN KNEW

Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.

In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party's conservative base, giving the McCain camp fresh energy going into the campaign for the November 4 election against Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites.

According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.

A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.; September 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,
It's disheartening that American politics is about who does the better job of smearing the competition. The embarrassment of Palin and her family is a small thing compared to the influence this country has on the planet. It seems most of those involved in the campaigns think their lies and mistruths are justified.; September 1, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: I've been thinking about people's objections to abortion. When I hear of someone having an abortion, I don't think, "Oh, my, an innocent baby was murdered!" I don't think most people do, any more than we think, "Oh, my, thousands of babies have died today from malnutrition!" It doesn't mean that much to us. We don't care about aborted fetuses any more than we care about starving babies in Africa. Why should we?

Abortion is getting so much more attention than starving babies because it's being talked about more in church. But the preaching isn't about loving fetuses and babies, but about how wrong and unacceptable abortion is. If it were about love, there would be more money and effort spent on adopting fetuses. It's similar to the kind of faux morality that thinks lust and homosexuality are wrong.

What we think are our values may not be ours at all, but someone else's.; September 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Iztok said...: Gamecock, I just passed the link to a rumor and didn't make a comment about it. You made up the rest out of it.

What so far it turned out that.

1. Palin's daughter is pregnant unwed teen. (Abstinence only education doesn't work I guess.)

2. Palin did travel a long way endangering unborn child and exposed crew and passengers to emergency landing. (Raise your hands if any of you would risk almost a day worth of travel to give birth in remote small Alaskan hospital vs. major hospital in Dallas, TX.) (Fluid was leaking plus baby was premature, yet she gave speech, traveled for almost a day etc.)

3. Shotgun wedding in the future.

While I do not subscribe to the above values for several reasons.

1. It is obvious that abstinence only education doesn't work. Thus I teach my kids about human reproduction as well as protection. I also teach that pills, while they can protect against unwanted pregnancy do not protect against STDs. Condoms help but only safe way is to not have sex until you are ready (financially stable, married etc.)

2. I would not risk life of unborn child with such long travel and would suggest anyone to go to the nearest major hospital equipped to handle premature babies. (There are plenty of them in Dallas, TX.)

3. With #1 #3 decreases to a minimum. I would also not expect a child to marry a child to raise a child.

On the other hand I do admire them that they are able to not only keep their job to raise their newborn with Down syndrome but take additional responsibility by running the campaign as well as helping their teen unwed daughter through the pregnancy and assume help her raise their child as well. I certainly would not be able to find time babies deserve even with my job let alone with what Palin is doing now. So my hats off to her there. My wife is stay at home mom so we can take care of our teen child so I can't imagine two of us working with two newborns and 3 others living at home as well.; September 1, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Iz, you don't have time to do anything but spread lies on the Internet. Quite a man, you are.; September 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Iztok said...: Bob, how does that compare to thousands years of lies in the Bible?; September 1, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Iz:

What? You mean the Jezebel thing? Okay, mistakes were made.; September 1, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll believe it when I read it in the National Enquirer.

-anon1; September 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Anonymous said...: This Palin baby thing is pretty much a non-issue.

I never expect much from professional athletes, preachers, or politicians.

And I expect even less from their families.

-anon1; September 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon, it is an issue to the left because they can not abide a conservative woman)or black) being acceptable to the general public. Hence their attempt to discredit her with a lie that Palin's 5th baby was actually a grandchild all weekend. It really grates on them now that McCain picked her knowing of the pregnancy of Palin's daughter. That Palins don't abort babies and get married to make sure children conceived out of wedlock aren't born out of wedlock pours salt in their wounds. They see their warped sense of feminism and culture of death dreams going down the drain.; September 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Iztok said...: "That Palins don't abort babies and get married to make sure children conceived out of wedlock aren't born out of wedlock pours salt in their wounds."

Nah, salt in our wounds is that Palins risk their unborn children's lives with almost a day worth of travel when amniotic fluid is leaking and baby is premature. It is salt in our wounds that Palins fail to understand the meaning of contraception and comprahensive sex education (obvious that 5th child and grandchild were not planned). It is salt in our wounds that Palin herself is US history illiterate (If "Under God" is good in pledge for our founding fathers is good for me type of nonsense).; September 1, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not going to put myself in a political box, eg, left and right, and I'll try not to put others in boxes ( see Finding yourself outside the box), but it's hard not to when they do it to themselves.; September 2, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,

This is just part of the stupidity that is typical in our "democracy".

Even the excerpt you posted had this little gem:

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them,"....

Maybe this is an attempt to imply that Obama had something to do with the rumor? Or else why even mention that the blogs had Obama's name in them.

More mudslinging to cover the mud.

Even though this whole issue is a load of crap, I don't think the right wingnuts would have been nearly as forgiving if it had been
Chelsea Clinton getting caught having sex before marriage.

We would have heard nothing but what a horrible example her parents had been and what moral reprobates all "liberal" Democrats were.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon, I never said Obama had anything to do with the rumors, and in fact, so far, he has shown true class in his reaction. My problems with Obama are with his stands on the issues; lack of a resume; and character flaws that are mainly pathologies of the left with the Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and his radical pro-death views re abortion, refusal to protect children surviving abortions and his view that a baby is a punishment for sex outside marriage.

But he seems like he is good at heart. so far; September 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Iztok said...: So if we bring Wright into the picture with Obama, is Palin's pastor fair game too?; September 2, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,

I know that quote wasn't from you personally, but from a Republican "senior aid" of some sort, an obvious spin-doctor trying to fling some mud in the Obama camp for no good reason I can tell. Obama's been pretty cool on it.

This probably won't stop soon as current speculation is whether the daughter's situation qualifies as "statutory rape" or not.

Apparently, a lot depends on the actual ages of the two at time of conception.

And perhaps even whether they had sex before this conception.

Maybe no one will go there, but given past situations, I expect it.

Again, a typical, but worthless diversion that probably won't end soon.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Iztok said...: "But as youngsters strike out with meanness and test their elders, i.e. doing bad, it is necessary to discourage bad behavior. To nip it in the bud before it matures, and being ashamed of doing bad is crucial. The whole destigmatization of having children outside marriage comes to mind."

So it is crucial to make sure Bristol is ashamed of her unwed pregnancy and we should stigmatize her so she gets married before she gives baby?; September 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon

It won't be a worthless diversion as it will reveal the left for the vile creatures they are. They and proven failed liberal policies, are why I left the Dem party.

Every attack on Palin and her children will increase the landslide for McCain. Anon, I have great experience in these matters as a Dem party loser for 18 years before my conversion.

The left is making a huge mistake.; September 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Conservatives welcome comparisons between the din of the 20-year pew-parked Obama butt in the hate whitey America welcome to Farrakhan church and our churches.

Come on in!

The left in the msm can turn up their noses all they want on Meet the press, and the more of their nostrils/boogers we see, the more votes for the GOP.; September 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock,
"... the left for the vile creatures they are." You've got to see something good in people who want health care for everyone and more opportunities for people to get ahead.; September 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Right now it looks like a folks are more interested in winning by a mudslide, not a landslide.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Iztok,

If you are going to investigate Palin's pastor, you may need a glossolalia glossary.

Apparently half his church has the "gift" of "tongues".

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Iztok said...: "Apparently half his church has the "gift" of "tongues"."

Not unusual for people to make stuff up.; September 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Catholic101 said...: A Newsweek poll in 2002 found that 87% of respondents favored keeping "under God" in the Pledge, and 9% were against.

In 2003, a Gallup poll found that 90% of Americans surveyed were in favor of the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins. In addition to the 8% who said they opposed it, 2% said they didn't know.

A 2004 Newsweek poll yielded 87% in favor of keeping "under God," 12% against, and 1% "not sure."

A 2005 online poll launched by MSNBC posed the question "Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?" When last I checked the ongoing results, 80% had voted no and 20% had voted yes.

I guess the atheist are more of a miniority than they claim.; September 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: How big of a minority do atheists claim?

The numbers you posted sound about right to me.

Actually, they sound a bit higher than what I would expect.

I had always thought we were around 5%-8%, depending on definitions.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Iztok said...: "I guess the atheist are more of a miniority than they claim."

In US we seem to be somewhere around 10%-20% which would make us amongst the biggest groups (certainly bigger then Muslim and Jew groups and majority of Christian branches).

The "Under God" issue has really nothing to do with majority but with our constitution. I don't expect GOP VP nominee Palin "if it is good enough for founding fathers is good enough for me" to understand.; September 2, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: "Jew groups"? I can't believe this!; September 2, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Iztok,

I seriously doubt the 20% end of that range, 10% perhaps. And if you only count those who call themselves "atheists", probably lower than 10%.

I've been hanging out at the "atheist" watercooler for a long time now and don't ever recall seeing very high percentages.

I do wonder, however, how it compares to the percentage of Americans who "speak" in "tongues"
or attend churches where people regularly do this.

The closed-eye arm-waving in churches seems odd enough, but the "tongues" thing seems a bit extreme to me.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I like being special. There's no one like me.; September 2, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: I don’t care if 99.9% of our population favors “In God We Trust” or “One Nation, Under God”. All that would prove is that 99.9% of our population doesn’t have a clue about what this nation really stands for – individual rights, not “God”. It’s wrong to “favor” otherwise.

Throughout most of Western history, folks were geared toward “majority rule” only. The only right the minority had was guaranteed persecution. And that was because the Church – which is a “majority rules” form of government – kept intruding into the State. Finally a bunch of enlightened 18th century dudes found themselves with a unique opportunity to finally form a government where “majority rules” was helpful in electing representatives, or deciding upon legislative bills or court rulings, but where the EMPHASIS was on freedom for all, and protecting and respecting the freedoms and rights of the whole populace, not just those of the “majority rules” crowd.

One of the first guarantees people wanted was the right to believe as they choose, and not having your beliefs forced upon them as is the case with the Pledge and the coinage.

I’m not an atheist. But as long as there is but one atheist in this nation, it is wrong – and probably unconstitutionally wrong at that if the proper Court ever heard the case – to adopt and/or modify a national pledge of allegiance that forces that one person to go against his beliefs or lack thereof, or to discriminate against he or she by trampling on their right not to believe in “God”.

Inserting “God” into the pledge in 1954 is a classic example of church interfering with state, of Majority Rules versus Individual Rights. Sure, it seems innocuous enough. We all believe in God, and we all believe in the same God, right? Right? Nope, that’s not correct. But what harm does it do? Isn’t it just like having some sort of good luck charm? So what if it tramples on minority rights?

What’s wrong is that it just encourages more and more intrusion and trampling, and serves no rational purpose whatsoever.

Of course many of the wonderful folks who favored the insertion in 1954 were the same people who voted to acquit the self-confessed killers who lynched Emmett Till a year later. Yep, just one example of how having God in that pledge really helped make us a “good” nation. The laughable thing is that back then we had a house committee on “Un-American” affairs. How this un-American matter of God in the pledge escaped their notice is beyond me.

Tell us, Gamecock, just whose God is the God of the Pledge or the coins? Your God, mine? Is he (or she) Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Bhuddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Mayan, Aztec, FSM or what?

-Not Anon1; September 2, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock:

Don't say the "Jew God." I know it's tempting, but Iztok will blow a blood vessel.; September 2, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: PS

The left to me are the cynical leaders of the left, not the naive followers that help them advance proven failed policies.

Conservative poilicies actually acheive results towards the good liberal goals.; September 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: pornstudent, I agree with you on the motives of most of the average liberal voters. I distinquish between them (I used to be one of those naive voters for years!) and the hard left that holds this country and its institutions in contempt. They run the dem party now and have for years.; September 2, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon

Nice turn of phrase re mudslide. I would say this. Obama is where he is due to muddy Chicago machine that required he abide a hate whitey America church and cavort with his first political fundraiser, Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist that is part of the Chicago establishment, not to mention felon rezko.

The left is trying to throw mud at Palin, but her teflon is her life as lived.

The winner will be free of clinging mud and the mud on Obama is the mud he chose to wear.; September 2, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Nice poll info Danbo. I guess that will shut up Iz...never mind.; September 2, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: gamecock,
What do you think the hard left's and the Democratic Party leaders' motives are?; September 2, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The Obama/Weathermen "terrorist" connection is pure crap.

It's on the same level as the Bush/Bin Laden family "terrorist" connections.

-anon1; September 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...: PS

Their motives are primarily power to maintain the big government, jobs, spoils, etc but also the ideological core is hostile to our judeo-christian values and constitutional and small r republican principles of federalism. They desire to re-make the country to conform to the marxist utopian vision they have never given up on despite the fall of the Berlin wall. I know these people. I used to converse with them in the back rooms of the party. The elites among them have contempt for the actual America in history. They love an America that has never been and never will be. They think we aren't smart enough to govern ourselves. They think we need them to take care of our poor ignorant bourgeois selves.; September 3, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama held his first political fundraiser in Ayers home. Ayers said after 911 that he wished he had set more bombs back in the 60s. Obama served on the Annenberg Foundation Board with Ayers and they are fighting to keep the records secret at the Univ of Chicago. It is not crap. It is his political ally and mentor in Chicago. An unrepentant terrorist that hates America.; September 3, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Iztok said...: I see RNC spin machine is working hard. Hope you are getting paid for this Gamecock.; September 3, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Iztok said...: Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

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

Further more:

"ut Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode." "; September 3, 2008 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: gamecock,

Thanks for your views.

Your mention of the "Marxist utopian vision" reminds me of the similarity between:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

and

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." -Acts 2:44-45

I'm sure you are familiar with the quotes. I mention them to show that even atheists and Christians can have common values, as do Republicans and Democrats. Even if, as you say, Democratic leaders "have contempt for the actual America in history," they may nevertheless agree with Republicans that the most important Judeo-Christian value is to "love your neighbor as yourself."; September 3, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, Gamecock, I could regurgitate all the Bin Laden/Bush family oil money "connections", but everyone can find those themselves.

And what's the point?

That Obama is a terrorist? A secret Muslim, the AntiChrist?

Is Obama going to start mixing Molotov coctails?

Maybe you could offer us an expose of the KKK connections to the Republicans, or do you think they're all voting Obama?

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Better yet, I'd like to know more about this "gift" of "tongues" stuff practiced in Palin's church.

Does Sarah Palin have this "gift"?

If not, does that mean God doesn't think she's good enough or what?

If she does, then is it controllable?

Is she likely to start speaking in "tongues" during a VP debate to show the world her "gift"?

Are we going to be subjected to a Robert Tiltonesque exhibition when we least expect it?

That will make Admiral Stockdale's "Who am I?, Why am I here?" quote pale in comparison?

I can just hear it now...

"Who am I? Why am I ballaboo humding nano mana figga jumbalee"

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 8:00 AM
Iztok said...: "The elites among them have contempt for the actual America in history."

Well I have to wonder if he is talking about Sarah Palin. It is known that she has no good understanding of US history (pledge was amended in 1954, founding fathers were mostly deists and foremost secularists etc.)

What bothers me more then above is that "average hockey mom" seems to be the motivation???

Who the heck wants an average brain surgeon? I sure would like someone towards the top, not an average one. I want a good carpenter not an average one to fix my house. And we want "average hockey mom" as our 45th president? (Chances are more then 10% that McCain will die within 4 years and if he gets second term, then we'll have more then 27% chance that McCain will die while serving as a president - we are not counting his health issues and additional stress as a president here.)

I don't want average for a president any more I want an average neurosurgeon.; September 3, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock, our Founding Fathers didn't think we were "smart" enough for the amount of "democracy" we have now.

Check out the 17th Amendment.

Before that, "elites" elected our Senators.

The "actual America in history" didn't allow a lot of the people who now vote to vote.

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: According to the New York Times, McCain's new Trophy Vice also revealed to her congregation that it was "God's will" for the federal government to appropriate money for a pipeline that she said He said was going to be built in Alaska. It is believed, however, that the Almighty later reneged in a backroom deal with Satan over two earthquakes and the rezoning of a church parking lot. Alaska politics is very sleazy.; September 3, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Catholic101 said...: God bless McCain and Palin. It's nice to see candidates who know that seeking God is the ONLY path to true equality, justice and peace.; September 3, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: anon1,

I speak in tongues. I got the gift when I was 16 as part of my baptism in the Holy Spirit. I can do it right now. "Por ti la tah mein diso. lepti men don deusch to be nelin." I can do it any time.

Being a member of an Assembly of God Church, Palin almost certainly has the gift of tongues. She should be able to control it, but it could slip out if she starts doing some serious praying.; September 3, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Anonymous said...: If conservatives wanted to really put our "Country First" they would not be practicing this destructive and non-productive policy of demonizing and alienating at least 50% or more of the nation by their divisive and fracturing statements designed to put us into warring camps.

If you really wished to put "country first" you would try to call out the best in us,asking for our compassion and our strengths, our cooperation and advocatiing the performance of our mutual responsibilities as citizens to ensure the health and sustainability of this nation.(and the world)

We are on a pathological path that will continue to fracture and possibly dissolve what unity we still have in these "UNITED" States.

Conservatives and liberals both have their obnoxious and extreme elements. None of us are pure. Both sides have made bad choices and bad policy.

While we should be grateful and proud of our accomplishements and for the good qualities of the people and freedom ideals of this nation,this mythological and narcissistic notion that this country, or religion and our desires is all that really matters is an example of self-absorbed infantilism.

We can be much better than that, but it won't come through blind nationalism and chest thumping displays of shouting "USA, USA" as if real life was some sort of sports competition.; September 3, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Danbo59

How do you KNOW its the ONLY path?; September 3, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Gamecock said "...but also the ideological core is hostile to our judeo-christian values."

Can you enumerate "our" Judeo-Christian values? How are they different from Judeo-Moslem values, or Albigensian-Christian values, or Atheist-Deist values?

- Not Anon1; September 3, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: The problem is knowing when to be Conservative OR when to be Progressive. In other words, building on J.'s comments, what this country sorely lacks is a Moderate Party.

A die-hard Conservative will always take a conservative stand on any issue. Ditto for a die-hard Progressive. You'll know without turning on the radio that Rush would be dismissing the Second Coming (I'm just using it as an example, not as my belief)as an unnecessary and unwanted government "change", because that would be the Conservative approach. A commentator at the other extreme would be playing it up as a desired change toward freedom of the people.

Actually the real result will be somewhere in the middle, and only visible to those who haven't bound themselves to the main mast of extreme Conservatism or extreme Progressiveness.; September 3, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Few of these folks who proclaim devotion to traditional values would go back to the national motto chosen by our Founding Fathers, "E Pluribus Unum".

Of course, now that we're actively courting the dumb jock crowd, maybe the motto should be:

"USA! USA!"

Or for those who prefer it in "tongues":

"Bop bopa-a-lu a whop bam boo, Tutti Fruitti"

I hope the press corps has some "tongue" depressors handy.

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Members of the Assembly of God Church believe the rapture, tribulation and Armageddon are imminent realities (see Assemblies of God End-Time Events). Since Palin has been a long time member, I assume these are her beliefs.

How hard will Palin try to prevent a nuclear war (any war) if she thinks it is inevitable and a requirement for the return of Christ?; September 3, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Apparently, she's of similar churching as John Ashcroft and James G. Watt.

I wonder if she'll anoint herself in Crisco cooking oil if she wins the election.

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: James Watt former Secretary of the Interior under Reagan was reported to have said that since Jesus was returning it didn't matter what we did to the environment.

Such profound irrationality as this is one example of what great harm fundamentalism can to the human mind(and to the rest of life); September 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Iztok said...: "I speak in tongues. I got the gift when I was 16 as part of my baptism in the Holy Spirit. I can do it right now. "Por ti la tah mein diso. lepti men don deusch to be nelin." I can do it any time."

Anyone can make up some words. Question is if anyone would know what they mean. I claim that no one can actually prove that they can. Simple experiment of recording and playing back would reveal that subjects are not consistent in interpreting what they say. If one would record 100 of such tongue speaking and replay it later we would never get consistent "translation". Same "words" would mean something else 2 years later.

It is the "fake it 'till you make it" type of mentality.; September 3, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Speaking in tongues as done today is usually a heavenly language to God with no interpretation. The reason for tongues is to express things that can't be expressed through normal speech, so believers have an unconscious, if not conscious, knowledge of what they are saying. There is also singing in tongues (or, in the Spirit) where the participants put a little melody to their tongues. There are usually enough good singers and harmonizers who make it sound good; but, if the believers can't sing, they wouldn't know it sounds like crap and they'd still have a good time.; September 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Iztok said...: pornstudent: so what you are saying is that they are making stuff up. why didn't you say so in the first place?; September 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This "tongues" stuff sounds like what used to be called mass hysteria.

-anon1; September 3, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's a little melodic singing in tongues:

"Who put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp
Who put the ram in the ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong
Who put the bop in the bop-she-bop-she-bop
Who put the dip in the dip-de-dip-de-dip?"

- Not Anon-1; September 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "Por ti la tah mein diso. lepti men don deusch to be nelin."

Don't I see a little German and Yiddish in there? Is that Judeo-Christian?

- Not Anon-1; September 3, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Iztok said...: "But as youngsters strike out with meanness and test their elders, i.e. doing bad, it is necessary to discourage bad behavior. To nip it in the bud before it matures, and being ashamed of doing bad is crucial. The whole destigmatization of having children outside marriage comes to mind."

Gamecock, do you agree with that and how should we apply this to Palin's unwed pregnant daughter?; September 4, 2008 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: The subject of Jane's blog in "politics and faith entwined".; September 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: My e-mail is madevinelaw@hotmail.com for off topic questions.; September 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Iztok said...: Sarah Palin is prime example of what religious in this country would do if they had control and secular laws wouldn't prevent them.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

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

People like that shouldn't be even considered as candidate for leading this country. They seem to have no respect of our secular constitution. They are no better then their Islamic counterparts in countries like Iran.; September 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: So Palin gets her first taste of power and immediately wants to start banning books and firing librarians who don't "fully support" her...

Forget laws, it's all about
personal loyalty.

No wonder the Repugs want this election to be all about "personality".

-anon1; September 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Heh, just read that Heart won't let the Palin campaign use their song, "Barracuda".

Of course, they didn't ask the first time it was used.

That would be respecting the law.

-anon1; September 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Gee, now the Republicans can scream louder against "big government".

Bush just nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The government just may own your home.

Is Republican socialism great, or what?

But let's all just ignore the economy and put the focus back on rednecks, whores, and other "personalities".

USA! USA! USA!

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

-anon1; September 8, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Faith drenched in hypocrisy is useless. That’s the type of polluted faith, which is intruding into our politics today. Consequently, it serves the country no useful purpose. Religion usually is one of the most divisive and destructive forces in the world.

We have a classic example before us today. Any author writing truth to history will record the hypocrisy filled faith surrounding and permeating this current election.

In this connection I ask: If Obama had picked a woman, who had a special needs child and a pregnant teen, what would those, who are giddy over Palin be saying?
I suggest to you that McCain would, today, be practicing presidential oath-taking protocols.; September 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Iztok said...: Catholics show their true color... are we returning to middle ages? Are they any better then Muslims reacting to cartoons of so called prophet Mohammad?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4732048.ece

"An Italian comedienne who said that Pope Benedict XVI would go to Hell and be tormented by homosexual demons is facing a prison term of up to five years."; September 12, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: The world is surely ending.

Ben Stein (feelgood economics carnival tout) has finally figured out that something IS wrong with our economy.

He still won't admit how bad it is, but at least he learned about credit default swaps and what a danger that unregulated market is.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/109609

He really should stick to comedy and Visine.

-anon1; September 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Iztok said...: His recent move (Expelled) was a flop and full of lies. Someone here touted it as good one and when I've asked which particular so called scientist was expelled because of doubting evolution all was quiet.; September 23, 2008 at 12:59 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 325 of 325 Newer› Newest»

Sacred Space

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Politics and faith entwined

325 comments:

About this blog

Blog Archive

Legal