‹ U.S. Military Presence Worldwide •
It hasn’t been easy to find anything about Sarah Palin’s positions on foreign policy issues, but this clip from a speech to her church gives a clue:
“Pray for our military. He [Palin's son] is going to be deployed in September to Iraq – pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what he have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.” (about 6 min into the clip)
The #1 problem with people who think they are on “a mission from god” is that they eventually adapt a mentality that anything goes. It perhaps is best exemplified quite humorously by the movie _Blue Brothers_. They constantly claim that they “are on a mission from god” and do whatever it takes to complete the mission. They are successful in the end, but at great cost.
What a terrible thing to say. The Blues Brothers had a coherent goal.
Sometimes successful. Sometimes the successes are more shameful than failure would be, like the First Crusade.
Did she mention obeying the great U.S. Constitution and its call for a declaration of war from Congress? It is the Constitution she will swear to uphold and defend, not her religion.
I agree completely. How they can delude themselves with the blessings bestowed on them while ignoring the blessings not bestowed on others allows them to accept and allow horrible things happening to others. An example of this is using scripture that says the poor will always be with us as saying its okay to allow members of our society to be forced into poverty, while ignoring the scriptures that tell us to lift up our fellow man and alleviate their sufferings because it may cost them money or time. Convenient isn’t it.
A little intellectual honesty, please, and a little less cheap distortion, Eric. The woman didn’t aver that the Iraq war was from God as your caption would have us believe, merely the hope that any mission on which soldiers are sent is one that has God’s blessing. I have no truck with the McCain/Palin ticket, believe me, but you owe her and the folks here a retraction. The truth is the truth.
War? Guantanamo…Fallujah…cluster bombs…depleted uranium…bodies of helpless women and children…torture…rape…millions homeless…millions slaughtered, including our own sons and daughters? God’s blessing?
The truth is that it would be better for anyone with such a “mission” to have a millstone hanged around his neck and tossed into the sea — a sea of fire.
Why should G-d bless a US war more than other countries’? I think she IS assuming some kind of divine sanction for Bush’s wars. Lots of evangelicoids assume that such a war will lead to the Rapture, the Second Coming, them ruling the world with a rod of iron. It’s as routine in the US as can be.
Lester Ness
Lester,
What specifically did she say in this clip that assumed some special kind of sanction for Bush’s wars? Who else do you hate, Lester, do you want to list them for us. Jews, Catholics… You know.
I have a low opinion of the killers. Have you heard of the sixth commandment? It makes no exceptions for the USA.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
While you’re drawing a bede on killers, why not try to do something about the war on humanity the Chinese government has launched against its own people with its forced abortion policies, Lester. Chinese that lost children in the recent earthquakes who were forced to abort their second children and who were sterilized suffer a tremendous agony, and that to say nothing of the little ones that were murdered. You’ve got a cause right in front of you and you didn’t even know it. Why you won’t ever again have to point a supercilious finger at “evangelicoids” in the USA in order to feel righteous.
“The woman didn’t aver that the Iraq war was from God”
wrong
“our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God”
nic
That’s an out-and-out distortion, nic. Here’s the quote you point to in context:
“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 them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to pray for, that there is a plan and the plan is God’s plan.”
Would I really need to explain to you that it’s dishonest to take a person’s statements out of context. Are anti-religious prejudices at this site now so profound that any calumny, any lie that suits our purposes are to be found acceptable? If so that would be tragic for a site with as much truth-telling as can be found here at anti-war.com.
Bravo! Thank you. Finally one sane voice. It is amazing how anti-Christian people take what this woman has said out of context. How many times in the past, and thank God, said, “By God’s will”, and took out Hitler.
John Lowell,
Don’t put words into her mouth, and attempt to re-interpret what she clearly said. Read it again if you are that challenged.
Thats one of the problems with your country…no-one is taking responsibility for what your country is doing…everyone is too busy making up lies and more lies…and excuses for the lies.
You all have millions of innocent Iraqi blood on your hands…start cleaning.
Sick war mongers.
Proud non american,
Speaking of challenges, here’s one for you, ace: Take your Proud non american opinion and place it where the moon don’t shine. Think you can manage that? If not, maybe we can arrange for a little foreign aid. We’ll take care of evaluating the statements and policies of our politicians without requiring contributions from a supercilious aliens, thank you. Get lost.
I take you’ve enlisted, Mr. Lowell? The infantry is taking 40 and 50 year olds these days.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Lester,
To say that your logic here must be tortuous is understatement. I couldn’t possibly make sense of this statement of yours. But don’t consider that fact a curtain call, I’m not that curious.
“A little intellectual honesty, please, and a little less cheap distortion, Eric. The woman didn’t aver that the Iraq war was from God as your caption would have us believe, merely the hope that any mission on which soldiers are sent is one that has God’s blessing. I have no truck with the McCain/Palin ticket, believe me, but you owe her and the folks here a retraction. The truth is the truth.”
Grammatical and textual analysis does not get very far when meaning and feeling are key.
In fact most of what Palin says is confused and rambling, and that throughout her whole talk.
But to translate the word “pray” as she and her co-sectarians use it–and do it–here as “merely the hope that” is dry textual analysis belied by the video and, in my considered view, constitutes serious distortion.
Perhaps “merely the hope that” is how John Lowell defines prayer. These folks pray hard, and hope or aspiration, or even suffering, seems to have very little to do with it.
Prayer here, as in much of the Old Testament, appears tribal and seems to be seen as the way to power–the power to make things so in this world, not merely to hope, in some dreamy optative, that they may be so.
Whatever the theological niceties, this in practice approaches collective invocation or incantation, and seems not far from spellbinding and magical in some of its manifestations.
What to make of it psychologically or politically or otherwise? I am not an admirer of James, but he did come to grips with the intensity of the religious feeling he discoursed upon, and perhaps, under all the urbanity, was even sympathetic.
In fact, however, Ms. Palin is clear that the military, including her son, are “striving to do what is right” in Iraq and elsewhere presumably. In “praying that” it be made right, and part of “God’s plan”, therefore, one sees less mere hope than firm invocation that it be so.
This is one thing in a child who wishes so hard it hurts, quite another in an adult who prays so hard it is so, though personally I suspect the two, as both psychology and aetiology, are closely connected.
On the other hand, it has a curiously aggressive and preemptive ring to it, does it not? What Bush does smirkily, Palin seems to do sincerely and desperately and with all her might.
The post that mentions Cromwell and his Roundheads is apt. The apter and more homely echo perhaps is Twain’s War Prayer, though without the gore.
Does prayer–and religion–have an offensive and defensive side?
The emotional and psychological aspects aside, Serbs lighting candles at orthodox services while NATO aircraft, cowardly and risking little, even accuracy, drop bombs from 5,000 feet, has one context and psychology, while sending an army to attack Yugoslavia or Iraq from half a world away has quite a different tone.
Sorry, but she could have done a little more clarification. That would have been intellectually honest. Yes, I would have taken her comment as an endorsement of the war in Iraq on behalf of God.
That being said, how can she (or you) believe that the invasion of Iraq could have even possibly been the will of God? Oh! I get it. As long as the US can keep its imperial conquests going strong so that “we” benefit, that must be God’s will. Have I got it right?
Kendall,
“That being said, how can she (or you) believe that the invasion of Iraq could have even possibly been the will of God?”
Well, Kendall, I can account for myself here. From the very outset I have considered the war in Iraq as entirely unjust. Additionally, I share passionately the view expressed by Pope Benedict XVI that “today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’”. That said, here’s a question for you: Don’t you think it was a shade presumptuous to have assumed that my interpretation of Palin’s prayer meant of necessity that I otherwise shared her vision of the war itself apart from the prayer? I do.
John, Eric is being totally honest, Palin says the task is from god: “that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what he have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan” They actually believe their superstition guided them to this war; it ludicrous! …it’s also the exact same reason the 911 guys did there deed.
This is definitely taken out of context. I’m not a fan of her or McBush, but there is no goldmine here. Her message is hopeful, religious and tailored to the audience (church people). Rather than insisting that this is gods plan, she is asking people to pray that this is part of his plan. As much as I want to see this as a strike against Palin, I can’t.
Well John, I believe that we can safely infer from the context of her speech–and the fact that her own son is a U.S. soldier in Iraq–that she’s implying that the war in Iraq DOES have “God’s blessing.”
I don’t think that that’s safe at all to infer from her statement, Sayin It Like It Is. She may be the biggest warmonger in the world and she may support the war in Iraq but she also deserves to have her statements taken at face value. And she simply didn’t say on this clip, “Our Leaders Are Sending Our Troops to Iraq ‘On a Task From God’” as she is alleged to have said. I wouldn’t want to be defense counsel in a libel suit brought on the basis of your inferences. They’d be seen as prejudicial and justly.
You are simply wrong here, John Lowell. Sarah Palin says exactly the following, starting at the 05:57 point, in above video:
“…our national leaders are sending them to Iraq on a task that is from God…”
The problem is exactly as another commentator here said: when people think (imagine) that they are on a mission from God, anything goes.
Sometimes this sort of thing happens because of a religiously minded person prays about something and afterwards feels some way and thinks that the feeling was an answer from God. In the case of Sarah Palin, however, I suspect more that the reason for her talking like that is because she is in a church.
Nevertheless, she is using religion to spread lies, or more correctly, propaganda. And then some Americans criticize Putin for feeding propaganda to the Russians? In fact the U.S. politicians seem to be worse than the Russian politicians; at least the Russian leaders do not involve God in their personal decisions.
JJ,
That’s an out-and-out distortion, JJ. Here’s the quote you point to in context:
“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 them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to pray for, that there is a plan and the plan is God’s plan.”
Would I really need to explain to you that it’s dishonest to take a person’s statements out of context. Are anti-religious prejudices at this site now so profound that any calumny, any lie that suits our purposes are to be found acceptable? If so that would be tragic for a site with as much truth-telling as can be found here at anti-war.com.
Here’s my issue with it. I presume by “pray that …. our leaders are sending them [military] out on a task that is from God” she is saying that they are praying that the the decisions made in the past by the leaders were righteous (i.e. from God).
Not sure of the date of the clip, but what disturbs me is the idea that this is a sophisticated way to stick your head in the sand. I’m guessing that at the time of the clip, there was a mountain of evidence coming back that the decisions were *not* righteous (e.g. the lies, the trickery/fabrications, and the naked pride) and that the stated goals (”democracy” “freedom” “blah, blah”) were just a pathetic front to trick the uninformed. So, the message is to pretend that the evidence contradicting your position never came out and clothe the willful ignorance in “faith” language.
One is supposed to have faith in God, not faith in your own faith (that’s basically the opposite of humility). Anyhow…
Sifta,
“I presume by “pray that …. our leaders are sending them [military] out on a task that is from God” she is saying that they are praying that the the decisions made in the past by the leaders were righteous (i.e. from God).”
Yes, I think so, and that presupposes a lack of certainty about whether actually they were. What she most specifically is not saying - as she is being accused -
is that God’s will is clearly expressed in the Iraq project and that that point is a settled matter. I think the main sense of her remarks is what’s important to her is that there be some correspondence or identity between decisions political leaders make and the will of God. One wonders who might sanely oppose that hope. Beyond that, I wouldn’t be able to speculate on what you propose.
John Lowell is absolutely right. Anyone with a normally developed understanding of English should see that Palin is not saying our Iraq war is God-sanctioned, but that she is imploring that our government be doing the right thing.
Essentially, she’s crossing her fingers that the government is working righteousness for the sake of the soldiers it has sent to war, but implies it might not be.
Long live the Crusade!!!!!!!!!! in the historical sense
R.Nelson,
Thank you, R. Nelson. Couldn’t possibly have said it more succintly or effectively.
Remember, the Crusaders massacred “heretics” too. I doubt they’d have more mercy on Palin’s Assemblers of God than they did on the Albigensians.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Surely you realize the Crusades were utter failures? The First definitely did not bring Jesus back, as it was supposed to. Later ones did not do much to strengthen the feeble Crusader realms. The Fourth Crusade largely destroyed the Byzantine Empire, which had been the leading Christian state. So are you saying “Long live utter stupid bloody failure”?
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
We have been moulded by history through its rights and wrongs. Human nature leads us down our own path and that usually means we follow my leader.
There has been very few leaders who have trod the path to make humanity a thing of understanding, beauty, enlightenment. Power is the goal and in that way humanity can be shaped to its own destiny. Can we alter our direction? One hopes so but humanity may be its own down fall–just a poor example of life.
I do hope her son gets home safe, and not mentally damaged, either. Killing people always changes you, and usually not for the better, or so old soldiers tell me.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
more theocracy and holy wars. wonderful.
Puritan Massachusetts, Cromwell’s England, are what the Religious Right have in mind for the USA.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
John, that is exactly what she said, even though she did add the part you mention. Refering to her son being deployed to Iraq, she said: “that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.” I don’t see this as a distortion. In fact, if you listen to her tone, she seems to be quite a dangerous theocrat.
Sorry, Eric, that is not what she said. Here is is verbatum:
“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 them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to pray for, that there is a plan and the plan is God’s plan.”
If anything, the woman is expressing anything but certainty that the “task”, so-called, enjoys God’s blessing. If she were so certain that the “task”, in fact, enjoyed God’s blessing, why would she then emphasize that the audience need pray that “our national leaders are sending them out on a task from God”? What’s crystal clear is her very lack of certainty in this regard. You don’t seek prayers about matters which you hold as settled, eh? You owe this woman a retraction, Eric.
If she’s not claiming divine sanction for this war, why not just pray for peace or that the soldiers get home safely?
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
@Lester Ness
You asked:
If she’s not claiming divine sanction for this war, why not just pray for peace or that the soldiers get home safely?
I say:
Because she is in fact ASKING for divine sanction for this war. You might be tempted to ask why she didn’t do so before the war started (she may well have). Of course, that’s not how religion actually works, because the Divine Being rarely if ever reveals It’s views of a particular human event, if It has any. What’s interesting here is that in the very act of asking for divine sanction, you are in fact presuming that you have a good case to make before the Almighty, and that in fact such an incredibly powerful and extensive Being would either know or care what puny humans do to each other. It’s a great way to cover one’s bets: if you win the war and there are “good” consequences, then God has blessed your venture; if you lose or there are “bad” consequences, then God has withdrawn his favor for some reason, leaving the faithful to figure out why - but at least you had the decency to ask, like a good and faithful believer should. So Eric Garris may have caught the underlying hubris behind this display of faith, but John Lowell correctly pointed out the literal meaning of what the governor actually said. And your very pertinent question (and hopefully my answer)demonstrates the ironic connection between the two.
As should be obvious to everyone who has seen this discussion, you could interpret Gov. Palin’s words in two ways. She could mean “pray that the decisions are from God,” she could mean, “pray for them because their decisions are from God.” There’s no way to tell. But either way, Palin is full-out supporting the war and the administration and implying that we are on God’s side. That’s one scary Valley Girl.
Disagree completely. John Lowell is right on this one. She did not say that “our leaders … are sending them (the military) out on a task that is from God,” but rather that we should be praying that this is what our leaders are doing. It’s like saying “I hope they’re right,” not “we know they’re right.” Personally, I think that she’s probably more in the “know they’re right” crowd (McCain wouldn’t have picked her otherwise), but it’s not what she said. Why else would she have followed up with “that’s what he have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan,” if she were making a statement of certainty? Her preceding statement “pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country” should have made that clear as well, but she forgot to put the word “pray” in front of the phrase that started with “our leaders,” but the context makes it clear that that is what she meant. When speaking off the cuff, rather than from a set of written remarks, it’s easy to make this sort of mistake.
Amen!
I’m willing to pillory this gal for views she actually holds but I won’t be a party to distortions that spring from prejudice. That latter kind of thing will surely sink antiwar.com if it is embraced here and it will deserve to be sunk if those are its motives. A little too much knee-jerk anti-religion around here lately for my blood. You can see what it does to the truth.
If you say “I pray that 2+2=5, even though I’ve been told that it’s four and that makes a lot of sense to me, but I really need it to be five for my previous plans to work out” Is that not an insult to the one whom you are praying to? Faith is supposed to apply to the unseen and unknowable, not the observable.
Sifta,
If what you’re asking - and I’m not sure that you are - is whether it makes sense first to arrive at a purpose and then subsequently to employ prayer as a kind of device for realizing this purpose, such, of course, is the fantasy of the child or the adolescent: God-as-tool. If one settles first on the fact that God loves you - and this settling would seem very much to be something about which we decide and on which we take a chance - then the question of purpose-setting is best left with Him, eh? In such cases, prayer takes place in the context of faith and its efficacy is self-disclosing. I really don’t think we’re capable of insulting God in any real sense. While in time and in history He identifies with us in every way, going so far as to take upon Himself the consequences of all of our imperfections, thereby surpassing them and uniting us to Him, the thought that He might consider human abuse as definitive is not to be taken seriously.
@John Lowell
You said:
If what you’re asking - and I’m not sure that you are - is whether it makes sense first to arrive at a purpose and then subsequently to employ prayer as a kind of device for realizing this purpose, such, of course, is the fantasy of the child or the adolescent: God-as-tool.
I say:
And yet, it seems to me that that is exactly what Governor Palin is doing, although I don’t think she is doing so consciously. As Lester Ness asked elsewhere in this discussion, why not just pray for peace or the safe return of the soldiers, if she is unsure of the good purpose of the war? Does one ask permission of one’s superior at work to do something they know is wrong, or bad for the company? Do we ask permission of the authorities to steal, rape, or kill? One usually has to believe at least in the rightness of one’s intentions before asking permission to do something. Does such a prayer not also presume the rightness of our leaders’ intentions? She did not ask us to pray for wisdom on the part of our leaders, but only for permission from God to carry out their will. We may have better understood the literal meaning of the governor’s statement, but I think Eric caught the hubris behind it, even while twisting it’s literal meaning. Lester’s simple question brought this irony to my attention.
A.G. Phillbin,
While I think that your’s is a construction that one might be tempted to place on Palin’s remark, I don’t believe its the correct one, actually. The prayer, more than anything else, was a prayer for the troops, that they be immersed in the cause of a government whose decisions enjoyed God’s blessing before the fact. She went on, of course, to emphasize that it was of the essence to have that kind of blessing. What seemed certain to me from the outset was that she wasn’t at all clear that they actually possessed that kind of support, but - and this is important - no more than that. I don’t think anything justly can be read into the statement beyond this one, very simple idea. That’s where her thought would seem to comer to an end.
And, of course, there were a million things that Palin might have prayed for, simply for the will of God most important among them. But are we not being overly critical to require a kind of politico-theological precision of her in the circumstances of an extemporaneous presentation? I’d be inclined to think that we were. She did the best she could and not badly, actually. In those environments, one might easily hear prayer that falsely lays firm claim to God’s good purposes.
Evangelical leaders have been saying “kill them all, G-d will know which ones are His” or the equivalent for a LOOONG time. If Palin is NOT talking along those lines, then she’s the rare evangelical lefty.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Lester,
You know, I have no truck with Evangelicals particularly, but I must say that I find your noxious hatred of them patently offensive, frankly. Next time you deign to post your scurrilous prejudices here, do us a favor and put on a bed sheet. You’ll be both properly identified and easier to smell that way.
The analogy to Cromwell is perfect.He coined the term Judeo-Christianity and created a fundementilist dictataorship in England.And as for sheets.Some Klansmen in my area are GOP committee people.Love there Bible,and idolize Bush,and the war.The USA is a violent country.It;s been Bolshivized,fundimentilized,Marxized,and Finance Capitalied since the end of FDRS war.The anti-war,anti-peace party is now not propmoted by the old left;Wilso’FDR,Truman,Johnson.But by the neoconservative(right)There footsoldiers(Cromwells Roundheads)are the fundementilists.
“pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what he have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.”
And how would we know that task is from God?!
“pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country”!??This country,not the vicitim country of American blessings!
Just makes me want to run right down and vote for McCain, NOT.
Who Would Jesus Bomb? My new motto.
Peace!
John, any uncertainty with which her statement is worded is purely rhetorical. The implication is clear: She’s a state governor, in a church, her son has gone off to Iraq, and she asks the churchgoers to pray that BOMBING AND INVADING Iraq is “God’s plan.”
Now, admittedly, there may be a few subtly different ways to interpret her words. One way to interpret them is that she’s telling the parishioners to pray that the Iraq War BECOMES “God’s plan,” if it isn’t already.
There is also the implication of a line of communication between God and “our national leaders.” (How could they know if they’re doing something that’s “God’s plan” unless they’re receiving “communications” from “God”?)
If you can’t see Palin’s attempt at blatant manipulation of her audience’s religious sentiment to vindicate that horrible war in her speech, then you may want to check for blinders.
As for me, I would gladly take my chances in any court with a libel suit. I wouldn’t need to split any rhetorical hairs to make my case.
The implications are clear only to persons who have made up their minds going in, Sayin’ It Like It Is. That’s called prejudice, fair-minded people discount prejudice as unworthy and so would a judge. So if you feel as confident of the “rhetorical” nature of Ms. Palin’s statement as you tell us, why not take out an ad in the New York Times and posit what you have here as material fact there. Good luck in court.
God had nothing to do with the Iraq war. George Bush and his warmongers did. Does anyone really think God would send our military out to kill innocent women and children on a lie (or for any other reason, for that matter.)
What she is really saying is she hopes her son’s military service will not bring him dishonor.
What’s with all the god-talk? What year is this? There is no god, anymore than there are fairies in the garden.
Maybe not, but lots of Americans believe in God, and act on that belief. GW Bush has told lots of people that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I severely doubt this is true, but he believed it and acted on the belief.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
People who use the phrases ‘to pray, and ‘bless our troops’ usually believe that they are doing God’s work.
John, she basically said:
“We don’t know for sure whether or not going to war is God’s will, but PRAY THAT IT IS.”
Do you deny that that’s what she’s saying?
Sayin’ It Like It Is,
You’re no longer certain that she considers the war God’s will? Lets get that one out of the way first.
From this vantage point, sure looks and sounds like a religious zealot. Your call as to whether that’s dangerous or not.
Recall the sage observation that what’s really dangerous is not that which is unknown, but that about which you are absolutely sure.
Note her pronunciation of “Iraq.” Draw your own conclusions.
If there is one, God help us.
Don,
OK, Don, tell us. How to distinguish between simple belief and zealotry? I’ll bet you dollars to donuts you don’t bother yourself with such questions, do you? I’d venture that to you belief IS zealotry. Am I right?
Dweling on foreign policy, most above miss the rude and blatant Corporatist Theo-Fascism:
“God’s Will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that….”
Got it? Madison is turning over in his grave.
Two things.
FIRST, where is TimR? I miss his incoherent ramblings.
SECOND, It is reported here in OZ this morning that this Palin person was a “last minute” selction by the McCain pack because of an ultimatum from the “gun toting” religious right that they would defy McCain at the Convention if he picked his preferred running mate ( Leiberman?) because he is a pro choice supporter. Also that Palin was selected after just one meeting and minimal vetting. Now we find she is a “Jesus freak” like all the other neocons. Can you imagine a pre menstrual President Palin in delicate negotiations with the “axis of evil” types with this “mission from God” crap.
I think I am pretty safe here in OZ, can’t say the same about you guys in the “land of the free”
FIRST, where is TimR? I miss his incoherent ramblings.
He broke his leg and they shot him. :-)
I think you need some remedial reading comprehension, John Lowell…or lessons in reasoning. Is English not your first language?
This wacky little incompetent-mother zealot is obviously saying exactly what the headline states.
The biggest reason that there is an anti-religious predjudice on this site is that Religion has been used to justify countless wars. This occured in my own Church and I walked out and haven’t gone back. Using Jesus to justify war is profane. I am a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Jesus. I have yet to find any reference to Jesus saying it’s ok to bomb your neighbor. One of the largest parts of Fascism is the use of religion to whip up the masses for the goals of the state and business interests. I’m not sure what Palin is trying to say exactly, but it is clear that she is implying something more than pray for my son.
When I was deployed overseas I was touched that the local Catholic church said a prayer for my safety (I’m a Lutheran). If she had kept it as simple as that there would be no room for arguement. If she had said pray for our leaders and help lead them in the right direction, that would also have left no room for arguement. However, what she said implies that God is on our side. God has his or her own plan and and we can only have faith that it will always be for the good (in the long long run).
Mixing politics and religion is a recipe for disaster, that has been remixed too many times to count. That’s one of the reasons that the seperation of Church and State is a good idea, whether you believe it’s in the Constitution or not. when you mix Politics whith Religion you delute both.
Peace!
Brad,
With all respect personally, to say that “the biggest reason that there is an anti-religious predjudice on this site is that Religion has been used to justify countless wars” is like saying the biggest reason the Germans built extermination camps during WWII was that Jews were getting too pushy. People are prejudiced because they choose to be all by themselves, Brad, they don’t need any outside help. Today the most generally acceptable of public hatreds is that leveled at Evangelicals, they’ve long since surpassed blacks or gays in that department. And we have a classical example of it right here. And I’d submit to you that prejudice has been used to justify countless more wars than religion ever thought to, Brad.
Why is the assumption being made here that everyone has a religion? How can someone who does not believe in a “God”, “Allah”, or whatever supreme being, look at the events as they unfolded in Iraq and not think that the whole religious overtones are nothing but a front to justify a war of aggression? “God” had nothing, or will ever have anything to do with it. Is the “God” of America’s believers any better than “Allah”? Is this what its all about? Is this another crusade? NO. Its a war of aggression. Stop trying to justify it in the name of “God” or whoever.
If there is a “God” I hope he uses his powers to strike down all those that use his name to justify murder, plunder, torture, and whatever transpires in his name. Those that invoke his name in prayer are nothing but hypocrites. Think about Vietnam, Serbia, Lebanon, and countless other places where direct or proxy American aggression wreaked havoc with property and life. Is that your God’s will?
Get off your pulpit. See things for what they are. And please, stop apologizing for the lady from Alaska. She doesn’t deserve your time or sympathy. She said what she said…period.
John, I am so sick of people using God to push their adjendas. You write about WWII but do you know how many times Hitler brought up God in his speaches? He used God in every speach he made! God bless Germany was actually printed on the belt buckels of SS uniforms. As for prejudice look up the actual psychological meaning of the term and how it comes about before you start throwing the word around.
You state “And I’d submit to you that prejudice has been used to justify countless more wars than religion ever thought to” So your saying that untill more wars are started by religion than are started by “predjudice” that it’s ok to start wars for religion? How many wars should we start or justify using religion before it becomes unacceptable by your standard? How would it ever be OK to justify war through religion?
I actually have no idea what you meant by “is like saying the biggest reason the Germans built extermination camps during WWII was that Jews were getting too pushy” Please explain how that has anything to do with my comment.
Much of the “predjudice” that you rant about is started by the steriotypes that religion begins. Just face it, although religion can be a force for good it can just as easily be missued for the very evil it says it’s fighting against. Case in point is the Evangelicals your defending. The Reverand Hagee’s of the world are NOT a force for good. Their Christian Zionism is part of the problem not part of the solution. I’m not sure who you are trying to kid (probably yourself) but it won’t go far with me.
I personally have enough faith in my own beliefs that I don’t care who believes in what or if they believe in anything at all. I don’t care if you believe that aliens came down and altered us genetically so we would make marshmellows. My point is it’s just crap to use religion to manipulate people into fighting one another.
How does it go? My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend and if you don’t believe me I’ll send some very real people to kill you. Sometimes it’s enough to make me wish I were an Athiest.
Peace! (or should I change it to Who Would Jesus Bomb?)
Truth be known, I think I’ve made a mistake in trying to engage you here, Brad. We have a long history, of course. Hope, nevertheless, springs eternal, I suppose. Lets just say I’ll let my first comment stand and accept the fact that I can’t be of any further helpful.
No problem John, I of course was very rude to you in our past debates. I don’t have a whole lot of tact. However, I have been reading your newer posting and your attitude seems to have changed for the better.
Peace!
Brad,
Understand one thing - Evangelical Christians worship the God of the Old Testament. The old god that was always pissed-off, the old god who loved the Jews and had no use for any other race (and even then smacked the Jews around when they irritated him), the old god who was pleased with animal sacrifice and blood sprinkled on his altar, the old god who practices collective punishment (–yea, unto the tenth generation —). The Evangelical Bible goes straight from the Old Testament to Revelations. Watch some tele-evangelist sometimes - he will be preaching from Deuteronomy or Kings, etc and won’t touch Jesus and message of forgiveness with a 16 foot rod. Evangelicals have no use for Jesus and his wimpiness.
“It is pathetic to observe how lowly the motives are that religion, even the highest, attributes to the deity… To be given the best morsel, to be remembered, to be praised, to be obeyed blindly and punctiliously - these have been thought points of honor with the gods.”
George Santayana
Richard, your exactly right. I know because I was raised that way. Joined the military and was used and abused for my ignorance. I feel comfortable speeking out for just that reason.
Peace!
Richard,
My, is your’s an oversimplification, Richard! Its also an wholly erroneous one. You make a false distinction between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New, one that no Christian denomination would ever recognize or countenance, Evangelical or otherwise. The God of the Old Testament IS the God of New Testament to every Christian community carrying even a smattering of orthodoxy. The view that a distiction between the Hebrew God and the Christian God licitly can be made was the contention of Marcion, a bishop of the Church, who was excommunicated in 144. Without getting into an exhaustive description of his teaching, Marcion was a dualist who identified the God of the Old Testament as a kind of lesser demiurge associated only with the creation. He saw this Hebrew God as utterly incompatable with Jesus Christ.
Evangelical theology may have its shortcomings, but Marcionism isn’t one of them. To characterize Evangelicals as having “no use for Jesus and his wimpishness” is entirely inaccurate and unfair. It is of a piece with the kind of generalizing that avers that “all blacks got rhythm”. I’m surprized. You’re much more capable than this kind of output.
Many of these type believe the war on Iraq is a good war and the US is doing what God had planned.It brings us closer and closer to Armagdon!
“These types”? Not a bit of prejudice here, of course. Do you categorize blacks as uppity and Jews as pushy also? Same idea, you know.
I agree that one should not be knee jerk, anti-religion.
The Virginia religious liberty statute was written by Jefferson and is widely seen as the basis for the First Amendment. As Jefferson wrote in his autobiography, some had wanted to put an amendment into that statute saying that Jesus Christ was a source of religious liberty. Jefferson said, ‘It was rejected by the great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination.’…Part of what I seek to do in my book is show that this [Christian Nationalism] is not just a political movement, but an entire parallel reality. It has its own revisionist history, including its own revisionist American history. There are volumes upon volumes that essentially rewrite the history of America, cherry picking various quotes and taking things out of context to try to show that the founders intended to create an Evangelical Christian America, and that separation of church and state is something that they never intended, and indeed would have been appalled by….”
Michelle Goldberg
Whatever one thinks of her politics, I highly recommend the whole interview with Goldberg on “Christian Nationalism” and separation of Church and State, also the subject of one of her books, here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06020.html
Goldberg’s treatment includes the virtue that she is historically quite erudite, and also sees clearly that in the present struggle the Christian Nationalist zealots, and their allies, wish not only to destroy the Constitution (in which there is no mention of “God” at all, and quite deliberately so) but to destroy and reverse the very Enlightenment of which the Constitution was surely the finest modern embodiment in regard to liberty and the natural rights of men.
On the lighter side, in choosing Palin as his VP, and not his now “very close friend” Lieberman, once Al Gore’s “very close friend” and VP as well, does not McCain, according to the reasoning of the Neo-Cons, prove himself an “anti-Semite”?
On the other hand, the feverish machinations of the Neo-Cons cannot be underestimated even here, and even as the remotest possibility.
Who would have predicted a Georgian attack on Ossetia and Russian peace keepers as issues in the presidential election even two months ago?
It is clear, surely, that McCain picked Palin to solidify the Christian Nationalist vote behind him. That alone will not win him the election, though perhaps he also sought to add the western factor, the solid support of Big Oil, and some appeal, if as specious as that in regard to Ms. Clinton, to the “feminist” vote.
Given all that, Palin has dire legal problems, which McCain had to know about, and could reign or be re