Sarah's revelations from heaven.

[Jimefam]

That is exactly what I mean rn very well put.

[Cold_Zero]

When making a decision a politician can absolutely draw upon their EXPERIENCE not their religious BELIEFS.

Show me in the Constitution or the founding documents where Politicians are prohibited from using their religious upbringing, beliefs or experience in the discharge of their political duties.

Quote »Also morality and religion are not tied together. For example, many religions consider homosexuality a sin to be punished but the majority of us can agree that is not the moral view. Put it another way, if that one Muslim politician that got elected recently said he was making a policy decision because it was the will of Allah many people would be up in arms.[/quote]I disagree with you, the root in Latin of Religion (religious) is 'lig' which means bind. Basically, in the ancient world, religion is the binding codes and practices that make you pious or virtuous. Moral's root 'mor' means custom with the suffix 'al' meaning character of.

Quote »As for the quote well I'm on my iPhone right now but when I get out of work I'll post it for you.[/quote]I think it would be interesting to see what Bush said on the subject.

[Cold_Zero]

The question is whether using a supreme being as justification for a political objective is something that needs to be part of the Washington scene? Can Sarah divest herself of those beliefs when her duties as VP call for a decision that she feels in not inspired? For instance, if she was called on to sign a bill into law that the legislature had passed on gay marriage, is she willing to support it or is she going to reject it as contrary to her religious beliefs? The will of the people verses her personal convictions...

No offence Bob, but the use of the divine (God, specifically in America) to justify political actions to accomplish political objectives has been going on since the Second Great Awakening in this country. Two prime examples would be the Abolitionist and the Temperance Movement.

Also, the way you stated your example is very problematic.1. As you know the VP does not sign any bill into Law, the President does. But Vice President is the Presiding Officer over the Senate. So a case can be made that the Vice President is a part of the Legislative Process, since any piece of legislation signed into law has to go through the Senate. 2. Your statement implies that the Vice President is not an elected position, when it fact it is an elected position. So, a case can be made that she is executing the people's will in the discharge of her political duties. This is a Constitutional Federal Republic right?3. All elected people in the Legislative and Executive Branch of our Federal Government are Representatives. And while most struggle with the balance of "The will of the people verses her personal convictions", they inevitably have to do their job and legislate or administrate.bud

[Jimefam]

You seem to have misunderstood me. Nowhere in this thread did I say that making decisions based on religion was illegal. Where did you get that from???? What I said was IF that is her method I cannot vote for her. Forgive but I like for my leader to make decisions based on facts and reality but that's just me.

As for moral vs. Religious well a few things have changed in the last 3000yrs so how about we use something alittle more current? Websters has the definition of religious as " pertaining to the belief in a supernatural deity. And has moral as "pertaining to right and wrong in behavior"

[Soravia]

Correct me if I'm wrong. This was a religious gathering event BEFORE she was picked as VPOTUS.

She did not say she made the decisions to lay pipes based on 'God's will'. She saidQuote »God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that…

We can work together to make sure God’s will [is] done here.[/quote]it was 'God's will has to be done, in unifying the people and companies to get that gas line built.

"God's will has to be done in unifying"

She probably meant God's will in unifying the people. Not getting the pipeline done.

Quote »Our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” Palin says. “There is a plan and that is God’s plan.”[/quote]A task that is from God.What task? Task to suicide bomb people? Task to start a sectarian war? Task to blow up civil service buildings?

No, task to bring peace to Iraq, task to rebuild Iraq, task to prevent sectarian violence, task to make Iraq an ally of the US and its people.

The plan by God is to bring prosperity to the people of the US who 'Trust in God'. At least that's probably what she had in mind.NOT what the liberals have in mind, i.e. US invaded Iraq in an un-justified war, US soldiers are getting killed. Iraq people should be trying to prevent their own violence, the plight of the Iraqis are nothing to do with US people, US already has done enough by removing Saddam from power.

It's all about how your interpret it, really. This thread has no merits.

[Jimefam]

seeing as mccainis less than 4yrs away from the average life expectancy for a white male and is about to take on the most stressful job in the world I think vetting palin as we would the POTUS is not only acceptable but wise. And the will of the people. Changes all the time, just look at 2006 the people wanted a change in congress and got it but what has bush done?? Begin vetoing bills and threating to.

[Jimefam]

Correct me if I'm wrong. This was a religious gathering event BEFORE she was picked as VPOTUS.

She did not say she made the decisions to lay pipes based on 'God's will'. She said

it was 'God's will has to be done, in unifying the people and companies to get that gas line built.

"God's will has to be done in unifying"

She probably meant God's will in unifying the people. Not getting the pipeline done.

A task that is from God.What task? Task to suicide bomb people? Task to start a sectarian war? Task to blow up civil service buildings?

No, task to bring peace to Iraq, task to rebuild Iraq, task to prevent sectarian violence, task to make Iraq an ally of the US and its people.

The plan by God is to bring prosperity to the people of the US who 'Trust in God'. At least that's probably what she had in mind.NOT what the liberals have in mind, i.e. US invaded Iraq in an un-justified war, US soldiers are getting killed. Iraq people should be trying to prevent their own violence, the plight of the Iraqis are nothing to do with US people, US already has done enough by removing Saddam from power.

It's all about how your interpret it, really. This thread has no merits.

No if she meant just unifying the people she would have said "'God's will has to be done, in unifying the people and coming to a decision" by adding get that gas line built she implied that gods will was to get the gas line built and unifying the people was just a means to that end. But regardless we dont have to sit here trying to decipher what she might have meant. Her words were very clear.

"task to bring peace to Iraq, task to rebuild Iraq, task to prevent sectarian violence, task to make Iraq an ally of the US and its people????? "

You conveniently forget that everything was already like that before the US went in. There was peace in Iraq, We destroyed it our allowed it to be destroyed, the sectarian violence you speak of is a power struggle for control of the government since we forgot then when we topple the old government we better know who is going to replace them. The only thing you added there was make iraq an ally of the US. Well maybe we will achieve that and maybe we wont but you mean to tell us we spent trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives to gain one ally. How many did we lose around the world for going in unilateraly against the advise of the entire world???? Lets assume we do make iraq an ally, what good would that do in the war on terror??? The saudis have been our ally for the last half century at least and 15 on the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were saudi!! Lot of good having them as an ally did. We saved the taliban in afghanistan from the russians the plot was hatched and trained for on their soil. Pakistan is an ally and there is bin laden camped out in there country with NO fear for his life. So dont get to excited about the POSSIBILITY of adding another ally to that distinguished list. PLEASE those justifications are comical at best and downright absurd at worst . And THAT is what she calls "Gods Plan"???? Great Plan

[ishkabibble]

Maybe they feel it's God's plan to bring about Armageddon.

I'm only half joking.

[Soravia]

You're forgetting who's oil you're filling your car up with?

That's Saudi, America's ally for you. Sure you have to pay up your neck, but you want to try having no oil to fill up because all these mid east nations stopped selling oil to US for just a few months?

Pakistan is NOT an ally of US, the top leaders of their government are. If those were not helping out US, we'd have lost the Empire state building and the Golden Gate as well.

Sectarian violence was fueled by Al Qaeda and Iran for political reasons, even a blind man can see that clearly. It wasn't really what the Iraqis wanted.

Did you forget that Iran has been sponsoring terrorlst for DECADES? Oh, you forgot who Jimmy Carter was and what happened during his administration!The only nation with enough strength to stand up to Iran was Iraq. Only fools would believe Saudis would stand up to them. US needed to have Iraq on its side, one way or the other.If Iran were to team up with Russia and somehow take initiative on Iraq as they have more justification for Saddam's card playing on possible stock piles of WMD, it would have been devastating strategic loss for US. Sure, you could say those things never showed up on popular political scene, but neither did 9/11. In world politics, it's all about planning way ahead. You have to pull in DECADES of planning. Look at Putin for example.

[Jimefam]

The entire world buys oil from them whats your point??? its not like we get a discount from the saudis we are paying for that oil in blood. and the situation that you described in pakistan is even more true in saudi arabia. Only the leaders of that country like us and even then its not much. Your right Iran has been sponsoring terrorlst for decades and your right iraq did do a pretty good job of standing up to them till we destroyed their military . Now even we dare not f*** with them as our armed forces are stretched thin trying to save america from the mess your politicians got us in. Oh and by the way oil has gone up more than 300% since we invaded Iraq so I see your point about "You're forgetting who's oil you're filling your car up with?"

"If those were not helping out US, we'd have lost the Empire state building and the Golden Gate as well"

What??? Show me tangible evidence pakistan helped us prevent attacks on 9/11 or since for that matter.

"If Iran were to team up with Russia and somehow take initiative on Iraq as they have more justification for Saddam's card playing on possible stock piles of WMD, it would have been devastating strategic loss for US."

You forget that we were the only country on earth who believed Iraq has WMD. Plus you scenario of russia "teaming" up with Iran against russia is just some bs you made up to try and justify the actions taken.

"You have to pull in DECADES of planning."

Wow your party admits now to not having properly planned for three months after the invasion of iraq and you expect me to believe that this is some master design that will be evident DECADES from now????? Do you realize how absurd you sound? All of your conclusions and justifications are flawed. Why not just do as most of your party has done and admit you f'ed up and say its to late to go back now lets try to make this the best we can and move on. I can agree with that, we f' ed up going into that country for no good reason but if we leave now we just create even more terrorlst than we went in with so bite the bullet and do and spend what is necessary. But stop making it seem like this is some great plan that was unaviodable.

[Cold_Zero]

Back on track, I thought we were talking about Sarah Palin's comments and the religious nature of them. If we want to parse out these comments into separate threads and discuss them each in detail, I can do so.

The problem with the people that pick out Historical Events and declare them God's Will either blessing or curse, put themselves in a pretty precarious position as a defecto Prophet. Generally speaking ancient Israel (which a lot of people are fond of emulating when it comes to this country) either killed or persecuted their prophets, not to mention their false prophets. Great line of work to be in.

This discussion surfaced its ugly head during Pat Robertson's comments about 9-11 and again after his comments about Katrina. It was pointed out to me that the Old Testament's guide for determining a prophet of God and a false prophet was that he had to be right 100% of the time. And the punishment for being a false prophet under the Mosaic Law was death. Sooooo, when it was pointed out that some of Pat's Prophecy had not come true over the years... That puts Pat into a pretty precarious situation.bud

[Cold_Zero]

As for moral vs. Religious well a few things have changed in the last 3000yrs so how about we use something alittle more current? Websters has the definition of religious as " pertaining to the belief in a supernatural deity. And has moral as "pertaining to right and wrong in behavior"

When you look at the etymology of both words when you try to differentiate between both words, it appears are trying to strike a contrast that really doesn't even matter. And yet most people's perception of religion, ethics and morality come from recent history, at most as far back from the enlightenment. But as they say, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Its only the people who delude themselves that I take issue with. Kind of like the people that say, "I am spiritual, but not religious." Hahahaaaa. Well folks I am going to keep this thread back on track, sorry about that.