Ah, perhaps my mistake. I had thought it was a direct quote that Oliphant was satirizing. Upon review, likely not. My misread of the intent. Sorry.
In fact Palin and the McCain camp deny that is now or has ever been a member of the Pentecostal faith.
So it’s sort of like Obama and Muslim except that Palin really did attend a Pentecostal Church since her baptism there as a teen-ager until six years ago (and obviously Obama never was a Muslim).
Meanwhile, it is that what McCain and Palin are saying is nonsense that is being satirized and not her Pentecostalism.
Ahhh, so you’re a cultural relativist.
That is absolutely not what I said. Casting a black man as a monkey is not lampooning or satire. Again, what foible, shortcoming, or idiosyncrasy is being highlighted by comparing him to a monkey? Is he known for being fond of bananas or swinging from trees? Satire and lampoonery can be explained; I implore you to explain to me what monkey-like aspect of Obama is being satirized in this comparison.
I’ll allow that there might be some legitimate non-racist satire to be had in comparing Obama or anyone to a monkey, but you’ll have to explain it to me because my mind automatically avoids that racist third rail.
Pardon me, I hope you’ll let me comment - especially since, as a good Roman Catholic, I have no particular dog in this fight.
But I wonder whether you see the difference between people who complained to a newspaper ombudsman about their feelings, looking for an apology, and to my eyes looking for no other sanction - and on the other hand a major incident that led to death threats, attacks on embassies, and large scale rioting that left more than 100 people dead across several countries.
You really are setting up a false equivalence here, and I think you ought to account for that.
That’s not the comparison that was being made. The point is that theose who are whining and crying about THIS cartoon, did not whine and complain about the Mohammed cartoons. The fact that some Muslims in other countries reacted far more violently to the Mohammed cartoons does not alter the fact that those complaining about THIS cartoon are still being selectively outraged.
For the record, neither of these things is true.
Your cite does not support your claim.
:dubious: No. As you ought to know by know. As, I’m sure, you do know by now, and so do most people who keep forwarding the relevant e-mails. But this bullshit will keep viral-spamming around the Internets, as intended.
His did speak recently on his “Muslim faith”. Of course it was a slip of the tongue & he was referring to the false charge that he was of the Muslim faith, but it did take George Stephanopolis to correct him.
He did not speak “OF his Muslim faith,” because he has no Muslim faith. He accidentally said the WORDS, “my Muslim faith,” but it is factually incorrect to characterize it as “speaking of his Muslim faith,” as Shodan did. He did no such thing.
He also never went to Muslim school.
Really?
Ah. Pentecostal = nondenomination. That’s the ticket.
Before embarking on THIS thankless task :D, let me note that I’ve nowhere seen evidence that Sarah Palin has ever spoken in tongues. That may have been the reason for her leaving the AoG for a more independent Evangelical church.
The New Testament seems to portray two types of glossalalia (the Greek term)- actual miraculous speaking of foreign languages, as the Acts 2 Day of Pentecost event, and ecstatic verbalizations, as in I Corinthians 14. There are anecdotal reports of the former happening. Alas, I know of no replicated study in which anyone showed an ability to speak in actual unlearned languages. In contrast to
common Pentie/Charis doctrine, I am quite comfortable with most Christian speaking in tongues (including my own) being ecstatic verbalizations with no actual relationship to existing languages. Paul in I Corinthians 14 refers to that as “praying in the Spirit” in contrast to “praying with the mind”, noting that both are useful to Christians, but that in public meetings, Christians should speak in known languages. To me, it helps me clear my head & spill my guts out to God in a way that thought-out prayer does not. I won’t make any other claims for it in my own experience. Btw, while I use the word “ecstatic”, I do not mean to imply that I lose consciousness or control during these times, but that I kind of switch frequencies so that I’m fully aware & thinking & in control of my actions, but I’m also praying in what seems to be unintelligible but structured gibberish.
In fact, I just thought of an analogy. Have you ever had a baby or pet “talk” to you? There is actual structure to what they are saying, but dam’ 
if I can make it out, and I don’t know if they actual have thoughts behind what they are saying but just not the words/ability to speak, but they do feel a need to verbalize.
That may be the closest thing to what it’s like.
My own experience:
I have been Charismatic since age 16 in 1978, receiving my prayer language during an AoG revival, and attended an interchurch Charismatic group (which was hosted in the Episcopal Church) after that for about six years, during which my main church was the non-charismatic Christian & Missionary Alliance. In 1984, I joined the AoG. I did believe the basic Pentecostal doctrinal stance back then. I’ve modified considerably, so that I’m probably the most liberal person in my church but still far to the right of most of humanity.
This is just a whole lot of nothing. The Oliphant cartoon is lame, but regardless isn’t out of bounds by any means. The monkey…nah, it doesn’t seem racist. If anything it looks more like McCain anyway.
The Assemblies of God don’t seem to want to describe themselves as a denomination, but as a fellowship. Might be semantics, but whole religious questions have turned on things like this - and the question of ecclesiastic control is typically rather a big question, theology-wise.
So while that doesn’t fit what I’d call non-denominational, neither does it rise to what I’d make a big deal of.
She attended a church where members practices speaking in tongues. As the Republicans have taught us, a person who attends a church agrees with and believes in 100% of what is said and done there. It’s too late to revise that now.
Actually, a Pentecostal can well be non-denominational. There are independent Pentecostal churches, Pentecostal denominations (the AoG is one), independent non-Pentecostal churches which are still hospitable to Pentecostals, etc. Also, she could well have been a member of the AoG, but feel that she wasn’t fully into it if she never got into the “speaking in tongues” part.
It’s not like speaking in tongues is scandalous behavior, you know. Not like repeating “God damn America” over & over in one’s sermon.
Oh- and I listened to Rev. Wright’s sermon on a sympathetic site in which they showed the full context. That full context maybe made it 10% less offensive than it was.
I was going to say that, but then I googled “Assemblies of God” and “denomination”, and the AoG’s site does refer to itself as a denomination.
I know that years ago it regarded itself more as a fellowship or association of like-minded churches, but apparently it now accepts the denominational label.
Ah. An “it depends on what the meaning of is is” kinda moment, eh?
I have no problem with her Pentecostalism and I understand why she would be concerned that it might not play well. I have problems that her religious beliefs clearly bleed into her political beliefs and that she disrespects the borders between Church and State.