The Nomination Of Sarah Palin: Religious Extremism Triumphant

[IAMX 3,055]

Religious dictate and individual freedom and liberty simply do not go together.

Nothing could be further from the truth. America started out as land for religious dissenters and it's no coincidence the Founders put freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. No one church could seize power or push its own doctrine because there were too many other sects who would get pissed off. Even individual states had different sects s they didn't want the federal government too powerful. If you protect religious freedom for indivduals you protect a right that can be impediment to tranny. Christians believe man is fallen and no mortal is without sin; therefore, placing a leader above God is a big no-no.

America has the highest individuality and religiousity in a Western developed country so the two traits aren't mutually exclusive here in America. In fact, you could argue that they reinforce one another.

About those differentiating voices and how they influence things..

Where are all the Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Scientologist people in our elected government (Congress, Pres/VP) ??

I bet you anything with more diversity having a say-so there would certainly be less Christian push in this country. I also bet many Christians would become skittish just like the white "Minute Men" at the border afraid of Mexicans invading this country.

When I see Christians willing to put in Atheist/Agnostic/Muslims, like some extremely scarce places in this country, then I consider things more even-footed and unbiased. Until then, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, etc. are still voting for Christians. So this weight is certainly coming from one side, just like the push for Creationism isn't calling for the Muslim religion to be taught.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Religious dictate and individual freedom and liberty simply do not go together.

Nothing could be further from the truth. America started out as land for religious dissenters and it's no coincidence the Founders put freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. No one church could seize power or push its own doctrine because there were too many other sects who would get pissed off. Even individual states had different sects s they didn't want the federal government too powerful. If you protect religious freedom for indivduals you protect a right that can be impediment to tranny. Christians believe man is fallen and no mortal is without sin; therefore, placing a leader above God is a big no-no.

America has the highest individuality and religiousity in a Western developed country so the two traits aren't mutually exclusive here in America. In fact, you could argue that they reinforce one another.

Read my statement again. Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

Religious dictate excludes freedom of religion - or any other freedom for that matter.

It's very simple, really.

[Pooky 3,348]

And the Republicans are the only side to flirt with religious fanatics? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama had to disown his church.

Will someone please put forward a valid argument that makes one sides' religious "background" (left or right) less awful than the other?

P

P.S. I find it really interesting that it's the Republicans' Vice-Presidential nominee that is being faced off against the Democrats prime-timer. Is it because they can't find anything in the GOP headliner's religious past to argue with?

Edited September 13, 2008 by Pooky

[jundp 191]

How many more weeks till the election and when it's over...can we please stop with this?

[Pooky 3,348]

How many more weeks till the election and when it's over...can we please stop with this?

I wish. I was bored with this election back in 2006.

P

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If nothing else this shows that the local Alaskan news services are a better guide to her views and competence than slick campaign marketing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the Republicans are the only side to flirt with religious fanatics? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama had to disown his church.

Will someone please put forward a valid argument that makes one sides' religious "background" (left or right) less awful than the other?

P

P.S. I find it really interesting that it's the Republicans' Vice-Presidential nominee that is being faced off against the Democrats prime-timer. Is it because they can't find anything in the GOP headliner's religious past to argue with?

Palin is in the headlines for the same reason that Obama was a few months back - a rank outsider who came out of nowhere and gained popularity. McCain has plenty of controversy in his background - but he is an established figure - who can't really pass himself off as dynamic or exciting. To some extent the selection of Palin upstages McCain (not that this would really be to his detriment as far as winning this election) - especially as it looks like she is being groomed to take over from a 1 term president.

[alienlovechild 75]

Where are all the Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Scientologist people in our elected government (Congress, Pres/VP) ??

There's no prohibition against their running for office and no guarantee of quota seats in Congress. Men far outnumber women in Congress so does that mean voters hate women in general. Oh that's right, females are the majority of voters. How many of the groups you mentioned run for Congress?

I bet you anything with more diversity having a say-so there would certainly be less Christian push in this country. I also bet many Christians would become skittish just like the white "Minute Men" at the border afraid of Mexicans invading this country.

Many Mexicans are devout Catholics stupid. They tend to push for more conservative social issues but more liberal economic policies. More likely American Christians would attempt to convert them if they weren't Christians. Any in case apparently you didn't notice nearly 20 million legal immigrations and the lack or any organized Christian oppostion for the last 20 years.

When did you arrive in his country?

When I see Christians willing to put in Atheist/Agnostic/Muslims, like some extremely scarce places in this country, then I consider things more even-footed and unbiased. Until then, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, etc. are still voting for Christians. So this weight is certainly coming from one side, just like the push for Creationism isn't calling for the Muslim religion to be taught.

What places are you referring to? Weight? The 5 Pillars of Islam are taught even in Bible Belt South Carolina public schools so what the hell are you talking about?

[Pooky 3,348]

And the Republicans are the only side to flirt with religious fanatics? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama had to disown his church.

Will someone please put forward a valid argument that makes one sides' religious "background" (left or right) less awful than the other?

P

P.S. I find it really interesting that it's the Republicans' Vice-Presidential nominee that is being faced off against the Democrats prime-timer. Is it because they can't find anything in the GOP headliner's religious past to argue with?

Palin is in the headlines for the same reason that Obama was a few months back - a rank outsider who came out of nowhere and gained popularity. McCain has plenty of controversy in his background - but he is an established figure - who can't really pass himself off as dynamic or exciting. To some extent the selection of Palin upstages McCain (not that this would really be to his detriment as far as winning this election) - especially as it looks like she is being groomed to take over from a 1 term president.

But the level of vitriol being directed at Palin by the media far outweighs the scrutiny to which Obama was subjected. As a neutral in this campaign, I have to wonder why a No.2 on a ticket that was the overwhelming underdog is being treating so much more harshly than the headliner on the ticket that was widely seen as unbeatable. That alone can be seen as proof positive that the media has no impartiality.

If you accept that as a given, it proves that McCain made a seriously smart choice for his VP nominee, as the election is now being represented in that very same media as a contest between the Dems No.1 and the GOP's No.2. Obama must be pretty upset that he is now seen as running not against the opposing presidential candidate, but against the undercard. And Joe Biden? Disappeared. This also proves that the biased media is also seriously dumb, in that they are culpable in subverting the election along the lines I've just mentioned.

The USA needs to shorten the election season down to 2 months or less. That way, you might get a contest about the issues and not the personalities.

P

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the Republicans are the only side to flirt with religious fanatics? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama had to disown his church.

Will someone please put forward a valid argument that makes one sides' religious "background" (left or right) less awful than the other?

P

P.S. I find it really interesting that it's the Republicans' Vice-Presidential nominee that is being faced off against the Democrats prime-timer. Is it because they can't find anything in the GOP headliner's religious past to argue with?

Palin is in the headlines for the same reason that Obama was a few months back - a rank outsider who came out of nowhere and gained popularity. McCain has plenty of controversy in his background - but he is an established figure - who can't really pass himself off as dynamic or exciting. To some extent the selection of Palin upstages McCain (not that this would really be to his detriment as far as winning this election) - especially as it looks like she is being groomed to take over from a 1 term president.

But the level of vitriol being directed at Palin by the media far outweighs the scrutiny to which Obama was subjected. As a neutral in this campaign, I have to wonder why a No.2 on a ticket that was the overwhelming underdog is being treating so much more harshly than the headliner on the ticket that was widely seen as unbeatable. That alone can be seen as proof positive that the media has no impartiality.

If you accept that as a given, it proves that McCain made a seriously smart choice for his VP nominee, as the election is now being represented in that very same media as a contest between the Dems No.1 and the GOP's No.2. Obama must be pretty upset that he is now seen as running not against the opposing presidential candidate, but against the undercard. And Joe Biden? Disappeared. This also proves that the biased media is also seriously dumb, in that they are culpable in subverting the election along the lines I've just mentioned.

The USA needs to shorten the election season down to 2 months or less. That way, you might get a contest about the issues and not the personalities.

P

I think it seems that way because Palin is currently the center of attention, not necessarily because there is a greater 'volume' of stories. I mean a few months ago - McCain couldn't get any media exposure whatsoever because of the to-ing and fro-ing between the Obama and Clinton camps.

McCain had to select someone like Palin, to suggest that he really is committed to political change (even though Palin doesn't really represent that). Obama selected Biden for the opposite reason - he needed an established figure to give his campaign the perception of experience.

I certainly agree that the election season needs to be shortened - nothing useful has come out of the last few months except silly back and forth. I suspect it will put the talk radio guys out of business perhaps - but that can hardly be a bad thing.

[Pooky 3,348]

And the Republicans are the only side to flirt with religious fanatics? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama had to disown his church.

Will someone please put forward a valid argument that makes one sides' religious "background" (left or right) less awful than the other?

P

P.S. I find it really interesting that it's the Republicans' Vice-Presidential nominee that is being faced off against the Democrats prime-timer. Is it because they can't find anything in the GOP headliner's religious past to argue with?

Palin is in the headlines for the same reason that Obama was a few months back - a rank outsider who came out of nowhere and gained popularity. McCain has plenty of controversy in his background - but he is an established figure - who can't really pass himself off as dynamic or exciting. To some extent the selection of Palin upstages McCain (not that this would really be to his detriment as far as winning this election) - especially as it looks like she is being groomed to take over from a 1 term president.

But the level of vitriol being directed at Palin by the media far outweighs the scrutiny to which Obama was subjected. As a neutral in this campaign, I have to wonder why a No.2 on a ticket that was the overwhelming underdog is being treating so much more harshly than the headliner on the ticket that was widely seen as unbeatable. That alone can be seen as proof positive that the media has no impartiality.

If you accept that as a given, it proves that McCain made a seriously smart choice for his VP nominee, as the election is now being represented in that very same media as a contest between the Dems No.1 and the GOP's No.2. Obama must be pretty upset that he is now seen as running not against the opposing presidential candidate, but against the undercard. And Joe Biden? Disappeared. This also proves that the biased media is also seriously dumb, in that they are culpable in subverting the election along the lines I've just mentioned.

The USA needs to shorten the election season down to 2 months or less. That way, you might get a contest about the issues and not the personalities.

P

I think it seems that way because Palin is currently the center of attention, not necessarily because there is a greater 'volume' of stories. I mean a few months ago - McCain couldn't get any media exposure whatsoever because of the to-ing and fro-ing between the Obama and Clinton camps.

McCain had to select someone like Palin, to suggest that he really is committed to political change (even though Palin doesn't really represent that). Obama selected Biden for the opposite reason - he needed an established figure to give his campaign the perception of experience.

I certainly agree that the election season needs to be shortened - nothing useful has come out of the last few months except silly back and forth. I suspect it will put the talk radio guys out of business perhaps - but that can hardly be a bad thing.

It seems that way because it is that way. McCain couldn't get himself into the news is he strolled naked through Time Square at the moment. All the attention is on Sarah Palin and how she compares to Obama. McCain is asleep on the sidelines, probably giggling as he takes an afternoon nap, and Joe Biden may as well not exist, because he's a bumbling idiot.

As for putting talk radio out of business, I still need something to make the left hand side of my brain laugh, just as the TV media make the right hand side of my brain laugh. It's all about balance.

P

[akdiver 3]

What values specifically?

God..the list is so long - I couldn't possibly enumerate them all. But let's start with the notion that we should use taxes to redistribute wealth rather than paying for the cost of actual government. You can add to that the notion that it is somehow government's responsibility to "look after" the basic needs of people (and even the advanced needs of people), rather than having them take responsibility for themselves. Continue with the notion that everyone is "equal" or should be equal, regardless of how much or how little they contribute to society. Just off of those few nuggets, you can derive an awful lot. Edited September 13, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

There's no prohibition against their running for office and no guarantee of quota seats in Congress. Men far outnumber women in Congress so does that mean voters hate women in general. Oh that's right, females are the majority of voters. How many of the groups you mentioned run for Congress?

How many actually get elected? This speaks nothing about the election bias, which is the entire point before you went on your little tirade.

Many Mexicans are devout Catholics stupid. They tend to push for more conservative social issues but more liberal economic policies. More likely American Christians would attempt to convert them if they weren't Christians. Any in case apparently you didn't notice nearly 20 million legal immigrations and the lack or any organized Christian oppostion for the last 20 years.

Evidently you fail to recognize the difference between Catholicism and it's sister Christianity, Eastern Orthodox, for one, prominently known as "Christian" today, differentiated from Catholic. But nice try, and even more pathetic at the attempt at calling names.

What places are you referring to? Weight? The 5 Pillars of Islam are taught even in Bible Belt South Carolina public schools so what the hell are you talking about?

Funny, because if people in the south were educated about the Muslim religion, they wouldn't be perpetuating uneducated stereotypes about them. Hah. And it's not surprising in any Muslim-favored sect that they teach Muslim religion, however, it is indeed Christians making the heavy push to teach Christianity in school. Particularly of Kansas, but this push is certainly spread across the "Bible Belt". Evidently people there have no respect for the Constitution. People who give the Bible more authority than the Constitution over the country need to be placed into some theocratic country that's not here, like Israel.

Edited September 13, 2008 by SRVT

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

I just wish the U.S. had a system whereby if a politician is doing a good job then s/he stays in office for as long as s/he is doing a good job. When the politician starts slacking then a vote of no confidence could be made and new elections called for.