# Sarah Palin - Religious Conservative Wacko **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621 "2009-03-07T02:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/101 "2009-03-08T06:38:17Z")
That Sarah Palin, this is so fucking transparent, she’s just appealing to her atheist liberal base with this appointment. God can’t any of you see that? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/102 "2009-03-08T06:58:27Z")
I just find it humorous that a thread whose OP claims that Sarah Palin isn’t a religious whacko has devolved into a 100 post debate on precisely what she means when she does address Yahweh directly. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/103 "2009-03-08T11:56:18Z")
It’s always humourous when people argue with complete conviction something that can’t be known. Even funnier when they profess to know the mind of something they don’t believe in. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/104 "2009-03-08T13:13:30Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > Last question first. Though I do disagree that it’s apt, I don’t take offense (I’ve read you for years, and agree with most of what you say, how could I? 🙂 ). Gosh–thanks! :o I appreciate that you answered the questions, and I’ll just address a few more things. MOst importantly, you suggest that > [@](#): > > The media just looooooves to spin stuff and make some of it up outright This is true, but when I say “from everything I heard about her,” I’m talking to a very large degree about her own words. I heard her unable to name a newspaper she read or a Supreme Court decision other than Roe V. Wade. I heard her argue that her proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience. I heard her lie repeatedly and in the face of correction about her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere. She doesn’t just want to reduce abortions, she wants to deny abortions to victims of rape and incest. She’s open to teaching creationism in schools. She denies anthropogenic global warming. I didn’t form my “crazy Sarah Palin” opinion based on Tina Fey’s impersonation. I formed it on Sarah Palin’s crazy words. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/105 "2009-03-08T15:30:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Yeah, we do, in the same sense that Democrats hate America, want to turn all school children gay, and encourage them to have sex in the 1st grade. > Stupid comments like that, make you a stupid person. Show a little intellectual discipline, for chrissake. Damned straight. It’s the Republican _Party_ that approves of torture. Individual Republicans may vary. get it right! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/106 "2009-03-08T15:34:10Z")
Does no one care that she’s a fifth column communist in the GOP!? This proves it! ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/107 "2009-03-08T18:55:06Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > There’s a simple saying that might help explain it. I don’t know who originally wrote this (Billy Graham maybe?), but here goes: > > God always answers prayers, he just doesn’t always say yes. This logic has made millions of dollars for churches and religious charlatans since the original concept of a “god”. Gamblers call it a “craps shoot”; scientists call it “the law of averages”. I call it bullshit. > [@](#): > > When we invoke God’s will within a prayer, we’re saying we understand this, and (we hope)we’ll submit to it, even though, being human and imperfect, we’re hoping we get what we want. No, you’re saying you buy into what some guy who says he talks to god tells you to believe. The notion that you won’t get what you pray for because you’re “imperfect” is part of the straw dog argument. It’s called “the setup”. > [@](#): > > If you think that that means that we’re being contradictory in our beliefs sometimes…well DUUUUUUH! Again, that’s inherently understood, after all, again, we’re human beings, contrary to popular belief, that IS allowed by God. > > Sheesh, other than a few small “yeah, I’m also a christian, no longer a churchgoer” posts, this is the most I’ve ever talked about my faith on the Dope. I do believe in the “don’t shove it down others’ throats” passage (and no Bible experts, I don’t know where it is, I told you, I suck at theology). Quoted for completeness. Your beliefs are your own, just like Palin’s are, and mine are. They have ZERO place in politics, and when somebody brings a bizarro brand of religion into it as Palin has (and Bush did, and Romney wants), it’s a very scary proposition. Bush claimed that god spoke to him, he made decisions based upon that fantasy, and nearly destroyed the country. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/108 "2009-03-08T19:19:51Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > I do believe aspects of ID What aspects do you believe, and why? > [@](#): > > There’s a simple saying that might help explain it. I don’t know who originally wrote this (Billy Graham maybe?), but here goes: > > God always answers prayers, he just doesn’t always say yes. This is no explanation at all. How can you tell the difference between God answering a prayer in the negative and God not answering at all? When God hustlers like Billy Graham say stuff like this, it’s part of the con. It’s a glib evasion of the question which doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny or contemplation. It’s like when psychics say their powers don’t work around non-believers. I can’t believe anyone falls for it. How can an omniscient God ever even answer yes? God’s will is always predetermined and unchangeable, so asking God for anything is pointless and futile. Asking God to retroactively change his will to conform to choices you’ve already made (as Palin did) goes beyond merely being illogical and into oblivious egotism. > [@](#): > > When we invoke God’s will within a prayer, we’re saying we understand this, and (we hope)we’ll submit to it, even though, being human and imperfect, we’re hoping we get what we want. What does it mean when you ask for something you’ve already done to be his will? Are you asking him to change what you already did to fit his will, or to change his will to fit what you already did? If you’re not asking for either of those things then what are you asking? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/109 "2009-03-08T22:28:42Z")
[QUOTE= Diogenes] What does it mean when you ask for something you’ve already done to be his will? Are you asking him to change what you already did to fit his will, or to change his will to fit what you already did? If you’re not asking for either of those things then what are you asking? [/QUOTE] Again, your fundamental assumption is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/110 "2009-03-08T22:54:47Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > Again, your fundamental assumption is flawed. No it isn’t. This is a case where the word “pray” is followed by the word “for.” That specifies petitionary prayer. The grammar allows for no other meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/111 "2009-03-08T22:56:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What does it mean when you ask for something you’ve already done to be his will? Are you asking him to change what you already did to fit his will, or to change his will to fit what you already did? If you’re not asking for either of those things then what are you asking? Diogenes, I’ve answered this at least twice. Did you miss it? Or find it lacking? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/112 "2009-03-08T23:47:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Diogenes, I’ve answered this at least twice. Did you miss it? Or find it lacking? It appeared to me as if you were basically saying the the prayer asks God to retroactively change actions to fit his will. I accept that that’s an answer of sorts. It seems out of sync with free will, but it’s an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/113 "2009-03-08T23:54:44Z")
Sometimes when I leave home, I suddenly think about the gas fireplace, and I hope I turned it off before I left. This hope of mine isn’t a desire to build a time-traveling device in the event of my having left it on so that I may go back in time and turn it off. It’s a freakin’ hope. I interpret Palin’s prayer as similar to my gas fireplace hope. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/114 "2009-03-08T23:55:45Z")
That commie bitch has taken over Alaska and none of you seems to give a fuck! Yeah Comrade Palin! I see what you did there! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/115 "2009-03-09T00:16:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Sometimes when I leave home, I suddenly think about the gas fireplace, and I hope I turned it off before I left. This hope of mine isn’t a desire to build a time-traveling device in the event of my having left it on so that I may go back in time and turn it off. It’s a freakin’ hope. > > I interpret Palin’s prayer as similar to my gas fireplace hope. “Pray” and “hope” do not mean the same thing. How can you “pray for” something without asking for it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/116 "2009-03-09T00:27:20Z")
**Dio** , yes, you’re being silly. A believer certainly can pray that he has understood what is the right thing to do, as the deity would want him to. He certainly can pray for some feeling of assurance to be given him that he has done so or for some guidance if he has not. That is \*not \*asking the deity to make any changes his/her/itself. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/117 "2009-03-09T00:40:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Pray” and “hope” do not mean the same thing. How can you “pray for” something without asking for it? And yet people do. At some point, given that everyone who prays is telling you you’re wrong on this, you need to start listening. May as well do it sooner than later. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/118 "2009-03-09T00:48:47Z")
I’m not wrong. I’m quite obviously, inescapably right. Words mean what they mean. Palin was praying for something she’d already done to be God’s will. There’s no way to massage that into non-egotistical coherency. The best explanation is that she was using “pray” as a synonymn for “hope” and didn’t think about how stupid it sounded. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/119 "2009-03-09T00:51:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not wrong. I’m quite obviously, inescapably right. That’s your catch phrase, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Words mean what they mean. No: they mean what the speaker intends for them to mean, coupled with what the audience interprets them to mean. In this case, she probably intended them to be interpreted in exactly the way that every person besides you interprets them. > [@](#): > > The best explanation is that she was using “pray” as a synonymn for “hope” and didn’t think about how stupid it sounded. I am sure she didn’t think about how stupid it would sound to you. It doesn’t sound stupid to most other people. Given how much stupid shit she said, this is a ridiculous thing to be picking on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621/120 "2009-03-09T01:01:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > everyone who prays is telling you you’re wrong on this And even some of us who don’t, but still know how it works. > [@Dio](#): > > Palin was praying for something she’d already done to be God’s will. No. She was praying that what she had done was in accordance with God’s will. It’s implicit there that God’s will is not easy for us mere humans to discern, even among those who have faith that it (or God) even exists. Any discrepancy between what she had done and what God wanted, she knew, was \*her \*failure, not God’s. Correcting the discrepancy would be \*her \*responsibility, not God’s. Make sense now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-religious-conservative-wacko/488621.md?page=7)