Sarah's revelations from heaven.

[rn79870]

I've heard many refer to what they call the looney left. I've found a few comments from a Ms. Palin that pegs the looney meter so far into the red that I'd bet the right never again uses that term. Calling Iraq "God's war" is way, way out there.

“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.”

She also states that the construction of a planned $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska is “God’s will.”

Says Palin: “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.”

Frankly, I think we can look at this without turning it into a debate on religion. **edited by rn**http://www.newsmax.com/insidec....html

[96Qowner]

Ack, you don't REALLY want to talk about Rev Wright's church of Black Liberation Theology ... do you?

[rn79870]

If Obama stands before a group of people and says any such things, then he should be called to task for it. However, he can not fairly be criticized for what his ex-preacher says.

[Jimefam]

See now that worries me. The last thing this country needs is another nut who thinks they know "Gods will" that is what has mad G. W. such a terrible president. That arrogance that comes from those type of people is what has blinded our current POTUS from reason. If these are real quote not taken out of context I have just made my choice of POTUS. And people say Obama has a savior complex.

[96Qowner]

If Obama stands before a group of people and says any such things, then he should be called to task for it. However, he can not fairly be criticized for what his ex-preacher says.

That brings up an interesting question. I never heard whether Obama, the community organizer, ever addressed the congregation in the entire 20 years he attended that church, and if he did, did he ever mention God or his will?

One would think a person would refer to God's will in a church, but ya never know what Obama might have done.

[Jimefam]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes I'm writing from my iPhone and these keys are tiny for someone with sausage fingers like me.

[Encryptshun]

As an athiest, I'm pretty much screwed either way. I've reserved myself to only cry foul when theology blatantly is executed as policy.

I think McCain will temper this side of his VP -- he's savvy and understands the court of public opinion.

[Jimefam]

well one would hope so but McCain himself has undergone a dramatic shift from his views from just last year. He was staunchly anti-religion when it came to political matters. But that is what cost him the nomination 8yrs ago. This time around he made a deal with the devil(just an expression). After basically saying he wouldn't be caught dead there he was the guest of honor at this years conservative Christian convention. He realized he wouldn't win against Obama without the religious right and has been spouting their rhetoric ever since

[Encryptshun]

True, but I still hold hope that, once he's elected, he'll return to his moderate ways. After all, he's been playing up the whole "Maverick" thing at the RNC -- and that nickname came from his attitude toward the Republican Party. I don't think they are changing him...I think he's changing them. Well, I hope he is.

[Jimefam]

he's been playing up the whole mavarick thing because the GOP realized that with them being as unpopular as they currently are it is better for all of them if john distances himself from them. Hence his speech last night. But make no mistake about it neither one of these men are an island and you are electing their party as much as them and if u heard the other speeches given you'll see it's pretty much business as usual. everyone elses speech was designed to energize the conservatives mccains was designed to appeal to moderates.

[Rev_D21]

That brings up an interesting question. I never heard whether Obama, the community organizer, ever addressed the congregation in the entire 20 years he attended that church, and if he did, did he ever mention God or his will?

One would think a person would refer to God's will in a church, but ya never know what Obama might have done.

Explain what's wrong with being a community organizer?

And since when does living close to something say something like Russia make you have foreign policy experience? I live next to an art galley, does that qualify me to be an artist?

Thank you for playing Grasping for Straws.

[AZhitman]

Sorry Bob - Treading dangerously close to the R-word with this one.

I had a response prepared but it's clear no one who posted in this thread would have "gotten" it.

[Cold_Zero]

I was about to reply but thought, nah, I would plung this thread head deep into a full blown religous discussion. Probably good that I didnt..bud

[rn79870]

This thread will not become a religious thread and any religious opinions will be edited out ot the thread.

The thread is about a candidate and whether or not she is the better choice for the office she seeks. What her religious preferences are is not immaterial. What your religious preferences are is likewise not material.

This thread presents Palin in a light that she placed herself in. Each reader is to follow the link and decide of she made the comments and what she meant by those comments. You are equally free to disregard it as mere propaganda.

I will watch this thread and keep it on course and as long as the rules I've set are followed, the thread will remain. If these rules are violated, the thread will again disappear.

[Sentientbydesign]

I think Palin isn't a polished politician like most of us are used to, but on the same note, that might be what makes her exceptional.

I'm kind of stuck in the middle here. I'm not sure if she's going to be the best thing we've seen in the past decade or the worst failure...that won't happen. She'd have to nuke a country to beat GW

[Encryptshun]

NICO Politics Forum Rule #5 (as published by Dano):

5) General discussions on religion will not be tolerated. There are numerous religious aspects within politics and these are open for debate. Attacking a member for having a religious affiliation will not be tolerated.

That said, I am going to post the following. If you screw with my post, please do me the courtesy of explaining how I violated the above rule.

When the Constitution was drafted, the Framers wanted to create a government free from the threat of Divine Succession (i.e. the Divine Right of Kings). I'm sure we all know what that is.

Any time a governmental leader claims a "deity's will" (I don't care which one - I'm not picking on or singling out anyone here) as the basis for a GOVERNMENTAL decision he or she makes, that act and the justification of that act brings us one step closer to a return of Divine Right.

I have no problem if an individual uses a theology as justification for how he or she lives his or her life. None whatsoever. BUT, if that "driving force" is imposed upon others as governmental edict or legislation, then we are crossing a line that forms one of the most important precepts of our society.

[Sentientbydesign]

I completely agree with you statement and I doubt Bob will edit it. However, do you think that Palin may have made her statements to garner support from those who make their voting decision on how similar the politician's religious views are their own?

[Encryptshun]

Oh, I have no doubt that's why she did it. However, at best that sort of action is duping those people and at worst it's showing that you are so uncertain of the validity of your position that you have to resort to "because God said so" in order to justify yourself.

It's humorously like my mom sayinig "Because I said so" as her debate-stopper. I always just FUMED when she did that -- it wasn't playing fair. You can't argue with that, and I always knew that when she played that card, it was because I'd bested her and that was the only way she could win.

[Soravia]

Wasn't she speaking at a church?

For most people going there, everything is God's will. Believe it or not. ***Edited doctrine comment****. You can't tell them otherwise such as it is the parents' gene or random luck or Karma.

I didn't see her say that it was God's will that World Trade Center got blown up.

[ishkabibble]

I feel that some politicians say such things in order to get the ignorant to follow them. If you've seen the movie "Jesus Camp", you know what I'm talking about. Bush is practically heralded as the second coming because he presented himself in a similar fashion.

So, she is either a true loon who believes what she is saying, or is someone who is trying to sucker her base. Either one is a negative for me.

What "will" she say if she and McCain lose the election?

[Cold_Zero]

Wait a minute, I guess I am confused.The OP posts up a bunch of quotes from the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate talking about being an instrument of God's Will. Then we are told "we can look at this without turning it into a debate on whether or not God is really talking to Sarah. "

There is an apparent contradiction from the implication of this thread and the imperative to not move this discussion into the religious realm. Effectively hogtying anyone of the religious persuasion and giving free license to 'irreligious' and 'non religious' people who are really crypto Secular Humanists, because they do not prescribe to one of the classical world religions. Let alone not allowing anyone (specifically of a Christian background) to defend Sarah Palin or give some commentary. For some people moralistic aspects of their religious code does intersect politics, in a very important way.Bud

[Sentientbydesign]

Wait a minute, I guess I am confused.The OP posts up a bunch of quotes from the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate talking about being an instrument of God's Will. Then we are told "we can look at this without turning it into a debate on whether or not God is really talking to Sarah. "

There is an apparent contradiction from the implication of this thread and the imperative to not move this discussion into the religious realm. Effectively hogtying anyone of the religious persuasion and giving free license to 'irreligious' and 'non religious' people who are really crypto Secular Humanists, because they do not prescribe to one of the classical world religions. Let alone not allowing anyone (specifically of a Christian background) to defend Sarah Palin or give some commentary. For some people moralistic aspects of their religious code does intersect politics, in a very important way.Bud

I disagree. The point is that Palin made comments that are "without merit" in the secular eye. Bob's directions are to not make this a religious debate. In other words, don't try to justify that God actually want us to build a pipe to carry fossil fuels so we can be glutonous Americans.

BTW, I happen to be from the "same boat" as she is, even though I may not prescribe to her "flavor" of faith. So you can't play that card on me.

[Cold_Zero]

Nevermind the rule is this:

5) General discussions on religion will not be tolerated. There are numerous religious aspects within politics and these are open for debate. Attacking a member for having a religious affiliation will not be tolerated.

I am unlocking the thread. This is not a general religious discussion and any discussion (Religious or Not) about Sarah Palin being an instrument of God's Will, this country being an instrument of God's Will is does not violate the forum rules. What will violate the forum rules is anyone attacking a poster in this thread for their religious affiliation.bud

[rn79870]

Bud, your point was a valid point and my OP was, as you pointed out, one that might lead to defensive responses. I have edited the OP to fairly reflect the question without putting anyone in the position of having to defending their religion. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

[Cold_Zero]

I feel that some politicians say such things in order to get the ignorant to follow them. If you've seen the movie "Jesus Camp", you know what I'm talking about. Bush is practically heralded as the second coming because he presented himself in a similar fashion.

So, she is either a true loon who believes what she is saying, or is someone who is trying to sucker her base. Either one is a negative for me.

What "will" she say if she and McCain lose the election?

While the movie "Jesus Camp" immediately came to my mind when I saw this thread, mainly because Sarah Palin comes from a Pentecostal background and the movie focuses on people from her theological and political persuasion. One must remember that the movie focuses on a few groups of Pentecostals (with a few interviews from Neo Charismatic who masquerade as Non denominationalists) and implies that all ‘evangelicals’ act in this manner. The movie confuses the (already confusing) political term of 'evangelical' and implies that all 'evangelicals' can be painted into the same mold politically. As a former ‘Evangelical’ I was disturbed in some of the conduct of the people in these movies and can not relate to any of the people portrayed in the movie.

About Palin's comments, her comments strike me as being very Pentecostal and understanding their theology, it doesn't surprise me that she has said such thing. But make no mistake certain groups inside what is known as the political group 'evangelicals' whole heartedly believe in Dispensationalism (especially when it comes to Israel), in America’s Divine Destiny, that America can or does have a Covenant with God and believe that if American follows the Mosaic Laws that America will receive a Blessing from God. Much of this comes from what is known by religious social scientists as the ‘Second Great Awakening’ in the 1800’s. No one is being duped by her comments.

[Jimefam]

nobody is attacking anyones religion. Palin can believe whatever she wants just like any American. The discussion here is will she allow her faith to shape her judgement. I don't know the answer to that but comments such as those above make me wary of her. Regardless of whom she was addressing to speak of a pipeline or the war on terror as gods will is inappropriate for a VPOTUS. Even G. W. Bush the most fervent Christian to occupy the oval office has said the job of POTUS is a secular one.

[Cold_Zero]

The discussion here is will she allow her faith to shape her judgement. I don't know the answer to that but comments such as those above make me wary of her.

So tell me this, how can a person not derive any judgement with out taking into account their religious experience (what you term faith), moral code or their life experience? So you are implying that someone can just flip off a switch and they can stop being religious?

Quote »Regardless of whom she was addressing to speak of a pipeline or the war on terror as gods will is inappropriate for a VPOTUS. [/quote]While I agree that assigning certain historical events as 'God's Will' is very problematic, even to devout Christians, how is her comments inappropriate?

Quote »Even G. W. Bush the most fervent Christian to occupy the oval office has said the job of POTUS is a secular one.[/quote]

Quote please?

[ishkabibble]

I personally know "generic" (so to speak) evangelicals who are perpetually "duped" by comments like Palin's. It happens.

[Jimefam]

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

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.

[rn79870]

Religion doesn't guaranty a moral code anymore than a lack of religion means a lack of morals.

I don't think any person would expect a politician to forget their religious values when they took office. We see television coverage all the time of the POTUS at a religious service and no one things twice about it.

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...