Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

There's a definite disconnect between your comment and any dialogue between Lanz and me. You're making less and less sense lately.

Meh. I agree with her words, but she'll have to back them up with actions before I take her too seriously.

In the end, this.

Eh. My take on Sarah Palin is, there are some strong parallels to her, circa 2008, and Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was elected as the VP to balance the ticket then the President died unexpectedly early in his term, leaving TR in charge. That didn't happen in 2008--and I don't think it can happen now.

...and I think I'm going to have to take a tennis ball away from The Dog. She's obsessing over it.

It's not a knee-jerk vote. Her stance for the last 4 years has been hard Christian Right. I'm not putting anything in her mouth that she didn't put there herself.

And I will not contribute to her getting into office for fear that if she does get in office, her very vocal stance on mixing religion and politics will give others the idea that mixing politics and religion is what I want.

I don't. There are plenty of other politicians with the ideas listed in the OP who don't want to mix politics and religion. Those are the politicians for which I will vote.

She may be right about the ruling class that has developed in this country, but that doesn't even mean that she's any different. And given the many other things she's against that tromp all over individual rights, she's still just a statist, like all the others.

Links?

FYI- "separation of church and state" (a phrase that occurs nowhere in any official documents) means (historically) that Congress cannot establish a state religion where certain denominations can receive tax money. That came from a letter from the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in a letter to Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that Congress was considering establishing four "state religions" that could receive tax money, which was done in Europe at that time.

Many of our laws are based on "religion", like laws against murder, kidnapping, theft.

If you think your so-called "separation of church and state" means that the state has to be secular, then you have a lot of reading to catch up on.

These things are pretty universal, and religion isn't needed for anyone to know that these things are wrong.

As for your hemming and hawwing over the establishment clause, you sound like a gun-grabber arguing why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to private gun ownership. The state is secular and it should be, because the only way to guarantee the freedom to practice religion (or lack thereof) is for the state to not take any side at all.

This is not a Christian nation.

Congress cannot establish a state religion. States can. Or do states = congress in your world?


Posted from my iPad 2 with iOS 4.3.5 using Tapatalk for iOS.

That, IMO, should be a prerequisite for getting to sit in the big chair. People that don't do it for the money, don't do it for the prestige, don't do it for the perks, but do it because someone has to.

No, it's not a Christian nation. But it was founded as a Deist nation which was extremely friendly toward Christians. Ignore that all you want; all that is, is ignorance.

I'm not ignoring anything. The people who are ignoring history, in point of fact, are the people who claim that this was founded as a Christian nation. It wasn't and it still isn't.

Examples? Citations of her own words, please?

Contrary to the stereotype - Palin has never given off that vibe nearly to the extent that Bachmann has. To my knowledge, she's hardly ever said much of anything on the subject.

It wasn't founded as an official Christian nation, but it was founded within the context of a universally Christianized culture and worldview. So much so that even a man who made no profession of being a Christian in the theological sense - Jefferson - had a very great deal to say that SOUNDS like a Christian conception of government.

The phrase "this is (or was) a Christian nation" is sloppy at very best because it implies too much . . . but it is nevertheless true that virtually every important Founder held a worldview that was thoroughly saturated in the Christian belief system. And they designed the government within the context of that worldview.

Thankfully for all of us, they transcended that enough to recognize the dangers of having the government take sides on matters theological.

Every time she brings up God or "God's Will" or "God's Word" or any other damn thing in a political speech, she's bringing religion into politics.

And the term Trinity never appears in the Bible, nor is it, the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or Homoousios, etc. every explicitly stated (thus generating the Arian and Macedonian Heresies).

However I bet you would argue that the concepts are most definitely Biblical would you not?

In that way 'Separation of Church and State' while not explicitly stated is most definitely Constitutional in nature.

Sorry, but that is bullocks. There are plenty of moral systems to be found outside of religion. Just b/c some moral values are common and thus commonly found in religion doesn't mean their origin is from religion.

No more so than about 90% of all our other politicians have done.

(See-Threepio voice)
No, I don't like them either.

How do you propose she make decisions based on a belief system other than the one she holds?

Tell you what, Jenee -- I'll take your posts seriously when you stop basing them on your own beliefs and opinions.

like I'm going to waste my time scouring the internet looking for references to shit that you and I both know exist. Especially when I don't give a rat's ass about the subject.

My only comment was that while I agree with her sentiments in the OP, that doesn't mean I find her a credible candidate.

FTFY

fuck off.

Jefferson liked to go through the Bible and cross out the parts he didn't like. The founding fathers were very heavily deist, and thanks to England shoving the Anglican Church down their throats they weren't in on the whole state religion thing. When they came up with the founding principals, they drew from a lot of different sources, such as French and Greek philosophy, as well as England's Magna Carta. In other words, not from the Bible. When people ignore that history, it makes me pretty glad that at least I know it, so I know better when some fool makes the claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation as an ignorant argument against secularism, because they're buthurt at their nation having to be more inclusive of other belief systems, and have apparently forgotten that the establishment clause is there to protect more than their own religion.

So I take it that's a "I can't really answer that", then? Hey, I know! Maybe there's a way to give someone multiple personality disorder! Then she could make decisions other than the decisions... that... she would make... hmm.

Well, there's got to be some way for her to make decisions based on something other than the belief system you hate, right? Oh -- sorry, my bad. It isn't hate when libs do it, is it? What's the word you guys use for your own intolerance and bigotry? I know there's some cutesy phrase you use for those qualities when they're your own.

You can buy copies of it on Amazon.

Jefferson put in a "freedom from religion" clause in his original draft of the Virginia state Constitution.

The Founding Fathers viewed government as a science, the same way we think of physics as a science. They no doubt would be dismayed to discover that we hadn't replaced our Constitution with a mathematical formula by this time.

Sarah Palin is a populist motivated by applause lines. If she gets hoots and hollers by implying that educated city folks aren't "real" Americans compared to country folks who eat what they kill, she'll do that. If the red meat quota is filled by bashing corporations, she'll do that. I really doubt that she has any fixed political viewpoint other than what generates the most applause and adoration.

I do not, in fact, "know it exists" - in fact, I doubt it exists in any greater measure than it exists for - say - Bill Clinton.

Her reputation in this regard well exceeds her rhetoric, or more importantly, her actions while in office.

There are certainly reasons to consider her a less than ideal candidate, but she hasn't remotely pounded the Bible (metaphorically) in her public discourse.


Anyone here who thinks differently is invited to prove me wrong, if she has done so, i DO want to know it.

Which is a perfect example of how easily people misunderstand the concept of "separation of church and state"

it does not mean what you think it means.

So? My post rather specifically said he did not profess to be an orthodox Christian.

Kinda said that already. you are singing a song i've heard about 400,000 times, i know the lyrics and the return verses well.

Why are you arguing against a claim I did not make?

Wait, what? You are telling me there are Americans who don't know genuine history but get riled up over the bullshit they've been fed by folks who think for them? there are people that let their biases affect their positions and arguments?


just....damn.

i'm stunned. nothing makes sense anymore.

Soon there will be dogs and cats sleeping together...



In any case, none of what you just said counters what i said in my own post. Get off the script and THINK about what i said instead of just reciting the same shit that turns up every time the words "christian nation" appear.

Right. the same guys who were also influential in state governments - every one of which had an official state Christian Religion at the time the Constitution was drafted?

Why is it so hard for you guys to get that European culture was SOAKED in Christian assumptions. It's not just that all the European states had State religion (which the Founders rightly recognized as an evil0 or that they spent half their time killing each other over their politicized religion - it's that all the day to day assumptions in life were saturated with a Christianized worldview.

Which is why a non-Christian like Jefferson could say:

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

And a great many other things which could only arise from a God-centric world view. That English Natural Law that everyone points to as a supposedly alternate source was itself saturated by Christian assumptions.

The problem you lot have is that you have some kind of paranoia that if you admit the obvious that it then obliges us to jail the gays and not open stores on Sunday and all such shit as that.

It doesn't. CX spoke of "knowing history" - part of knowing history is seeing past self serving denial and acknowledging, as best we can given the source material, what actually was and not retconing what we would like to think happened.

Those folks who would like to think the Constitution establishes a Christian nation are wrong.
Those who wish to think that the founders had to hold their nose to even write "in the year of our lord" are also wrong.