This is scary. She says she can do her job in Alaska by getting the schools funded, developing natural resources, making sure cops get their guns and uniforms, BUT...that won't do any good UNLESS the people's hearts are right with God.
I ask: Why won't it do any good unless the people's hearts are right with God? If there are atheists in Alaska, then none of what she is trying to do will work? Do you realize how crazy this kind of talk is? It is like when Bush said that God told him to go into Iraq.
11 comments:
In this same speech she said that troops in Iraq were on “a task that is from God."
Robert Said: Don’t you think you should mention what context this speech was made in? For example: If this speech was made to a group of ministers or at her church it would be perfectly fitting. At any rate I applaud her for her comments. If you recall this nation believes in God, as in “One Nation under God”.
One nation under whose god?
One nation under God, sent to invade other nations in his name?
I see a problem with that. We all know now that the Bush adminisration lied to take us to war with Iraq.
Now it is OK to say it was "a task from God"???
I wonder how God feels about that.
Which god?
Yes, Tavia. That's my point. When the name of God is used, anything goes. Al-Queda uses the name of 'Allah' and we use the name of 'God.' Now, tell me, what is the difference? Both sides kill innocent people.
Robert: This nation believes in God? SOME people in this nation believe in God. And, SOME DO NOT. This nation believes in freedom for everyone to choose their own religion and the freedom to choose NO religion. The flag salute did not always have those words, "One Nation Under God." It was added half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor. It was an attempt to distinguish us from the godless Soviets.
That's interesting, Linnette. I did not know that. So this nation was not formed as "one nation under God"? Very interesting, indeed.
And Lisa, "whose god" is a good point because obviously that could mean anything.
The interview was full of stock phrases she was made to memorize, and which she repeated over and over again when stumped. She knows nothing about how Iran is run, or about Pakistan, or about al-Qaeda, and even is ignorant of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare. It was a shockingly bad performance.
Example:
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.'
John here, going by Sturdy. Well, I didn't know y'all had this hot little discussion going on here.
I'd like to offer my two-cents worth. Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers tried to make it clear that the United States was not founded upon religion, but rather upon a clear, distinct separation between church and state. Our Founding Fathers were not that far removed from the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. They knew well the dangers of a government in which the church held sway over the affairs of state:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
--Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802
Our Founding Fathers wisely sought to guard against the employment of securlar power on the part of the church with its inevitable result, intolerance and persecution, but President Bush is the first president to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to the churches through his so-called Faith-Based initiatives. He is dismantling church-state separation and this is extremely dangerous because, historically, whenever the church has gained control of the state she has used that power to punish dissent from her doctrines.
Few perceive it, but president Bush's Faith-Based Inititiative is TYRANNY over the citizenry! Giving the tax dollars I pay to my government to church's I do not believe in is forcing me to support beliefs and opinions I object to. Thomas Jefferson understood this:
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern…”
--Jefferson’s “Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,”
Adopted January 1786
President Bush has laid the foundation of a theocratic dictatorship.
Another Jefferson quote:
“[The pro-establishment clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.”
--Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
Another inconsistency of president Bush: Notice how he has bestowed supreme honor and regard on the pontiff of Rome, letting one church mold and guide Ameican policy to a fearful extent. Compare this dangerous policy with this from Thomas Jefferson:
“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
--Letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
--Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own."
-Thomas Jefferson
And lastly this from Founding Father James Madison:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies."
-James Madison
Very, very, very good points. Religion and government = bad combination!
Post a Comment