Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FAI

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

Recommended Posts

When one pretends that is their position on every thought then I can understand why some do not see.

No pretending involved. Religiously-dominated personalities behave this way almost without fail. This is from observation, not assumption. When one accepts membership into the body of the religiously inclined, one by definition concedes control over the external world (and often the internal one as well) to this removed power. This power can be dogma, leaders, assumptions, beliefs, values...the key point is that the person takes responsibility from their own shoulders and yields it to the religious aspect of their lives. Now responsibility is magically removed from them as long as they follow the religious script they have signed up for and announce to all that they follow. And they can then allow others to modify this script because these religious elders are entitled to so so because they have direct communications with the deity.

It's like handing another person your puppet strings and saying, "manipulate me, I'm yours to move and to shape."

In that respect, I see Christians as being similar Muslims, Hindus, Satanists or Jews for that matter...each group is locked tight into its belief system and membership excludes heretical or individualistic thought. Each religion is free to then attack the others as "false" and their members as "infidels." And obviously, no one outside of the religion can possibly have a decent value system, since only "god" can confer one worth observing and respecting.

"Pretending?" More like 50-plus years of direct observation and study of present affairs and past history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But overall, left or right, the rest of the world looks at America's poltical and military religous zealotry and shudders.

what this guy said

are they really going to wheel this insanity into the white house?

ok we know she is there to appease the religious GOP voters who think McCain is a communist fag but that says it all.....

Boris

London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BZZZZZZZZZZ! Nice try, but wrong answer. Sorry. We have some nice consolation prizes for you. Johnny, tell him what he's won!

Well Rob, You win a years supply of Turtle Wax, Turtle Wax, it's sticky and that's what turtles like! AND a gift certificate to Chuck E Cheese. Chuck E Cheese, eat pizza, play whack-a-mole and leave your Jehovah worries at the door. At Chuck E Cheese, god is dead and Pizza's KING!!!

Unless I missed the last two decades I don't think god was the reasoning behind finally starting to kick these guys in their asses. Something you lefties need to remember...I know it's hard but think...hmmmm. What might have set this ball rolling? Was it Jesus' insatiable blood lust or something a bit more down to earth?

Anything else is just more whining. As per the last 8 years.

And as much as I'd love to get into another why, what, who, when and where on Iraq...I am gonna pass....5000 is my limit.

Mord.

Meh. You are the sum total of the right/religous wing - i.e. a total ****ing retard. After porking your sister can you try to think about what I'm about to type one more time.

WMD was the 'reason' to invade Iraq.

But it was the most heavily monitored state in the world, broken from a previous war, and we all knew it was not any threat to anyone other than its own people. Not exactly unusual in that regard.

We all knew that many Americans needed to feel good about theseleves after 9/11. Kick someone! Anyone!

We all knew that Bush wanted to posture and strut because 'with us or against us' types like you would be voting.

We all knew that people saw an opportinity to make **** loads of cash on the back of flag wavers.

Except, apparently, not all of us could admit it.

No, the magic sky fairy was not the reason behind invading Iraq, I certainly never said it was. However, I didn't care about the shallow money/political inspired excuses, that's what I thought 'human nature' was all about. Yeah. I don't expect much, but you never know.

This 'mission from the sky fairy' bollocks that is being resorted to, after the rest is acknowledeged by even your crowd as by patent bull****, is actually scary.

BTW your first two 'paragraphs' make you look about 12 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why the general forum has this heading.

General Discussion Forum Off-topic posts go here! (NO POLITICS, NO COMMERCIAL LINKS, NO SPAM)

Speedy, it is ALL politics - religious politics, sexual politics, family politics, military industrial politics; crikey, even the football threads are politics at some level. It's all about "I'm me, here I stand, oh and by the way, there's a couple thousand mates standing with me." mostly pfffft...

At least they're not frightened to post their opinions - a signal victory in the fight against the politics of fear that has been practised so well for the last 10 years

hic :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with people's opinions, it is simply a forum policy that was instigated last US election as Battlefront staff were wasting to much time trying to moderate political threads that continually descended into personal abuse as this thread seems to be heading.

At the time they provided a redirect to a political discussion forum that doesn't appear to have survived the move to the new forum, here it is for those that want it http://www.worldaffairsboard.com .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the following might be of interest to paste in here. It's from a speech given by one Tim Hawkes, who is the headmaster of one of our top 5 private schools here in Australia. It appears in full in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

4. Intimacy The Western world does a poor job in preparing its students to be intimate. There are always exceptions, but in general students are required to navigate their way through the sexual swamp with minimal direction. Signposts can be vague and contradictory. The parents say this, and the school says that, but the porn site says something completely different. Where adult direction falters, peer direction takes over. The "leader of the pack" can, in strident and boastful voice, suggest the way forward to the forbidden fruit and encourage all to eat thereof. The proper people to educate students about sex are parents.

Some parents are wonderful at giving their children guidelines on sex, but others are delinquent. The latter can be because of the sin of omission. The lexicon of excuses is extensive: "It's not my job - the school will deal with it"; "I'm too busy"; "It's the sort of thing you have to learn yourself"; "They probably know more about it than I do"; "I'm not quite sure what to tell them." There are plenty of excuses to choose from. For other parents, it is the sin of commission. They teach their children an attitude towards sex that is unworthy of them. They model abusive and angry relationships, unfaithful relationships, degrading relationships. The child watches it all, memorises it all and repeats it all.

Schools can also fail their students. Classes will do pencilled drawings of reproductive organs, and become experts on how "tadpoles" swim upstream and how babies grow in the womb. They will be introduced to the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases in that theoretical, antiseptic way. Some of the luckier ones may get to roll a condom onto a banana and giggle their way through a lecture on dating. The mind is fed but not the heart.

The questions students want to ask, they are not allowed to, as it is not in the syllabus. So answers must be sought on the net, in magazines and on the back of toilet doors - they are certainly not in text books. We must do a better job of teaching our children about sex and intimacy. They have little need to hear more about the biology of sex, for this is generally done well in schools. Nor do they need to hear about the morality of sex from adults with dehydrated loins who have no connection with the virility of a teenager.

They want to know what they can, where they can, why they can, when they can, how they can, if they can. They no longer need to know how they measure up in an environment of unconditional love, but how they measure up outside, in the swamp of life where love, like and lust churn dangerously. It is not just smut and titillation that students want, for they can get these quite easily these days. What they want is something more elusive, something rare, and that is wholesome advice on how to be a man, how to be a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ban on Politics is both old, and on the old Forum, pretty much ignored, after about 2 years.

It was a post 9/11 thing...the forum shut down for, I think, 2 weeks after 9/11 because of all the hot hotheadedness...then 9/11 conspiracy threads started popping up about 2 years later, and it got political fast, and tinfoil infested.

As to the ban on commercial links - it seems they only really want to ban those links to commercial competitors - www.cnn.com is OK, but www.matrigxames.com is not (yeah I mis-typed it).

The anti-Spam is the only thing consistently done - all else gets loosely applied.

If political threads were completely banned, this thread would be locked. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And she thinks intelligent design[creationism] should be taught equally with evolution. Oh that is just great : (

Reported in the New Scientist. In the same issue reports on a type of beetle that has in the space of 50 years become 4 new species - i.e they can no longer inter-breed with each other. Is that accelerated natural design or is there something in evolution.

Science sure does not have all the answers but some of them sure have a lot of corroborating evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly, according to the AP -

Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying. . . .

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion." . . .

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. . . .

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DW for the fuller story.

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

Two thoughts come to mind:

that counts as being a conviction politician

or

20 months is not actually a long time anyway to stay quiet

However I am prepared to believe that she can be pragmatic - but then look at where Blair got us - a religious streak hidden until he had power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However I am prepared to believe that she can be pragmatic

I'm not prepared to believe someone who doesn't understand the difference between science and religion can reliably recognize "pragmatic".

Hell, she bet she can't be pragmatic *by definition*:

1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.

2. Philosophy Of or relating to pragmatism.

3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.

4. Archaic

a. Active; busy.

b. Active in an officious or meddlesome way.

c. Dogmatic; dictatorial.

Ok, I stand corrected. I can easily believe that she'd be busy, or even officious or dictatorial. So she fits the archaic definitions... which is only appropriate, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. 9 pages and I don't think anyone bothered to look at the full quote. Sad how easily even intelligent people are manipulated by media.

“Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also 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 we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Pray that what our leaders are sending my son and others sons to do is good. Yup, total fanatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.

This is from an op-ed that sums up the situation nicely -

Of course, a careful examination of any church or any denomination would find plenty of potentially embarrassing or offensive details. Assaults on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism followed the same game plan as the nasty cracks about Palin: take a religion that enriches the lives of millions of good and decent people and focus on its distinctive or unusual aspects to try to discredit the candidate (and, incidentally, the entire faith community). ...

... Every religioun looks odd from the outside – very much including my own. ...

[...]

...Those unfamiliar with Catholicism might find themselves perplexed by doctrines ranging from transubstantiation, to the virgin birth, to papal infallibility.

And then there’s the Afro-Centric theology and raging anti-American sermonizing of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity United Church of Christ. Will the new scrutiny of the theology and preaching in Sarah Palin’s home churches in Wasilla bring us back for another round of debate about Obama’s relationship with the crackpot mentor he followed for twenty years?

It’s much better to leave discussion of any candidate’s faith alone and to accept two basic propositions about such debate:

1) Every religion seems weird to those who haven’t been raised in that tradition, and

2) The only way to judge a church or synagogue or mosque is to evaluate that community’s acts of kindness and compassion, and the extent to which that congregation encourages decent behavior and discourages self-destructive violence. ...

[...]

...The attacks on Governor Palin as a “religious extremist” demonstrate once again that militant secularists display less openness and acceptance of other points of view than do people of faith. In her Convention speech, Governor Palin never gave any sort of religious pitch, or even addressed the issues of abortion or marriage.

In other words the angry response to her stems not from what she says or what she does, but who she is. There’s a word for that sort of response. It’s called “bigotry.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pray that what our leaders are sending my son and others sons to do is good. Yup, total fanatic.

Good catch. How about the pipeline statement? She says "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that pipeline built, so pray for that. Watching the video again I'm still thinking she means it's God's will. She "thinks it has to be done", not "I think it's God's will." ie, no qualifier on the "God's will" part.

Simply a minor misstatement? Could be. Or she's in a church so of course she's bringing God into it? Could be.

I still worried by her attitude. The whole "What I think is right" thing seems to lead very quickly to "It's what God wants." I've some experience with churches - even Evangelicals - and they're not all so quick to make that jump. (Way too many are, though.)

I imagine (or hope) she'd say it's exactly the other way around: What God wants leads to what she thinks is right. Obviously I'd like to see her biblical references on pipelines. But as far as I'm concerned that's still worrying: There are too many people who say that God's the foundation of their morality when He's really just the excuse. And there's still the question of really knowing what God wants.

But maybe Palin's really holding right end of the stick. But given her stance on ID, the book banning thing (few details but I don't think she should have even considered it), sex ed, etc. I think she's a theocrat. Not a err... rabid one. I don't think she'd start burning people. But I think she's the other kind. The lazy thinkers, prone to un-pragmatic decisions, frequent appeals to authority and difficulty in distinguishing disagreement from rebellion against God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Governor Palin never gave any sort of religious pitch, or even addressed the issues of abortion or marriage.

As VP or president will she promise to do the same: Never give any sort of religions ptich or even address the issues of abortion or marriage?

Given her background the lack of a religions pitch might not be restraint so much as it is deception. Hmm... same thing with the issues, actually. They're important political issues.

One of her most appealing characteristic to the religions portion of the Right is - not surprisingly - how religious she is. The fact that America isn't a theocracy should make it equally unsurprising that a lot of people are going to be critical - or at least concerned - about that very characteristic.

You can't just tally it up as a "Pro" for the RR and say "No one else is allowed to talk about it." Well, OK, you can. But it's stupid.

In other words the angry response to her stems not from what she says or what she does, but who she is. There’s a word for that sort of response. It’s called “bigotry.”

It's called "not just going by her Convention speech." If you want to base your impression of her off of what amounts to an advertisement, go ahead. As of yet, though, there's no law against critical thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God's will?

Those who know realize that true Christianity is about Choice, Free will.

To borrow a line from 'Kingdom of Heaven'.

'Christ asks us to choose, Allah tells us to submit.'

Equating Christianity with Islam is a huge error.

So she says is is part of God's plan, and Obama uses the term God's will - so let's chastise him as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she says is is part of God's plan, and Obama uses the term God's will - so let's chastise him as well.

No - she prayed that what was going on was part of God's plan. (Obama's statement, if we're looking at the same one, was the same sort of thing.)

She said it's God's will that a pipeline be built. Well, technically, that people and corporations unite to get the pipeline built. So maybe she's just preaching that the intolerance toward corporations end and that people accept them and their overwhelming hunger for profits into their lives just as they do their friends and loved ones.

Or maybe not. It's possible to read too much into any one indirect statement.

You gotta look at a bunch of statements, or positions. My conclusion, looking at Palin's past positions and actions, is that she's a theocrat. And I've defined just what I mean by that. My conclusion, looking at Obama's past positions and actions, is that he isn't.

Yeah, even though they both uttered the phrase "God's will."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what was/is the difference?

In my opinion, neither is a theocrat and are pragmatic about their religion.

Christian Conservatives need to think that Religion is important in their candidates as do those who are non left wing supporters of Obama - the Civil Rights crowd and Black America.

I think it is mostly pandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...