Yeah, it’s pretty convenient. “God, I’m going to do [something bad]. Give me a sign if this isn’t your will. 3…2…1… great.” [does something bad] “Hope that was what you wanted, God! We’re cool, right?”
Except the these fruitcakes believe, or claim to believe, that they do talk to god and vice versa. If you grant Palin the sincerity of her beliefs (and ok, that’s a stretch), she would have no doubt at all that god could in fact communicate to her that she was wrong.
Of course, she could also interpret it as the devil in the guise of god, telling her something to mislead her on god’s actual intentions. 
You’re conflating two separate points, and I’m not going to play along. Whether or not she is sincere in her prayers, whether or not she is open to divine influence, whether or not she would say “Screw you!” if Jesus Christ himself came down and told her that Iraq was a bad idea, I have no idea. And neither do you.
But that wasn’t my point, which simply was that her ACTUAL WORDS did not indicate or imply what so many Democratic pundits say that they did. She prayed for our troops and prayed that we’re following God’s plan. Sorry, that’s what she actually said, whether she meant it or not. And her actual words are NOT akin to “God told me we should invade Iraq” or whatever other nonsensical spin someone wants to apply. Again, you want to tear her up for what she has actually done, or the insincerity you seem to perceive–have a ball.
You were the one claiming to know what she meant when she prayed. I quoted you back to you about the openness to changing if God communicated otherwise. I asked you if you sincerely believed she was open to changing her policy in Iraq. I notice you didn’t answer me because you’re “not going to play along.” Convenient, because I think you know I’m right. I admit to not knowing what she meant-- it’s you offering interpretations and then claiming that they are definitive statements, not me. When challenged about the accuracy of your statements, you don’t want to talk about it anymore. Feel free not to play along, since it’s your game.
And you say I’m the one conflating points? I never said anything along the lines of what you’re rebutting here. I am only discussing your interpretations of what her prayer meant, and calling them bullshit, because that’s what they are. There’s no openness to changing your ways if God (somehow, in ways that you have failed to articulate) points out that you’re wrong. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and not reality-based. That is the only point I’m discussing with you.
Oh please, she’s just a whacko of the conservative variety. Let’s not tar religious whackos with with that broad brush.
You are completely missing my point. Her words mean what they mean, whether or not she is sincere in them. I am not playing along with proving to you that she was sincere in her statements when I have no idea and that had nothing to do with my point. Her words indicate she is open to being wrong–that’s the nature of her prayer. Those were the words she used. Does she mean them? :shrug: I don’t know.
And I will point out again that I am not arguing that she is, in reality, open to change. I am pointing out that her words suggest that she is. See the difference? If I didn’t make that clear, sorry. Hope fully this is clear enough for you now.
My ONLY point is that her words as expressed–and regardless of who might have expressed them–are a plea for God’s guidance. Such a plea makes sense only if the person is open to such direction, which is NOT the same as saying that this person actually is sincere in her request. So, if someone says that her words indicate she is not looking to change her mind, I will counter by pointing out that’s not what she said. If someone says she thinks God told us to invade Iraq, I will point out that’s not what she said. If you want to debate whether or not her actions or sincerity are consistent with those words, I am not take the opposing view.
So - getting herself protected against witchcraft is more a conservative thing than a religious thing?
Palin, along with millions of our fellow Americans, has policies, beliefs and political goals with which we either agree or disagree. That makes them potentially wrong, it doesn’t make them “wacko, nutjobs, bonkers, evil…etc, etc.”.
I very much disagree with the policies that obama is attempting to put into effect. But he was voted in by people like some of my young coworkers. All nice, intelligent, hardworking young people, (there were even 1 or 2 oldsters like me who voted for him, I still like them just fine too! :D). I don’t think that their choices makes them evil or wacko, though I disagree strongly with their choices.
There are things that I disagree with Palin about, but I do support a great deal of what she does. When she screws up, I’m mad, sometimes I want to grab her and shake some sense into her. She has made mistakes. So, who doesn’t in this world? And more importantly, who doesn’t in the political arena? That still doesn’t make her “wacko”. It makes her wrong in the eyes of her detractors, and sometimes it even makes her wrong in the eyes of her supporters. Again, still doesn’t mean a person is a nutjob.
There are a LOT of things that most Americans disagree with most politicians about. And every politician, withOUT exception, has at least one or two skeletons in his or her closet. NONE of them are saints, NONE of them go without making stupid errors. How bad that skeleton seems to is almost completely dependent upon a person’s OWN political views and goals for his or her country. And of course, depends heavily upon how our media paints it. Which is a lot of the problem, and a lot of the impetus for this “wacko, religious nutjob” garbage that never ends.
Isn’t the definition of insincerity that your words do not mean what they mean?
Or she’s mouthing platitudes and invoking God because that’s what expected of her, or that’s what she does reflexively. I think attributing any real meaning to them is a mistake, because honestly, I think God is just another talking point for her and a lot of people like her.
I don’t think they are. See above.
That’s exactly what I am debating. I don’t think her words mean what you say they do because I don’t think she is actually pleading for God’s guidance. I think she already has made up her mind and while she may hope that God is on her side, she’s already assumed he is, or she never really cared much in the first place. If that’s not something you care to debate, then I guess our exchange is at an end.
Its just a prudent thing to do if you are going to be around so many conservatives.
What WOULD make a politician wacko, nutjob, or bonkers, if not a belief in something patently contradicted by all evidence available?
Daniel
Pants made of sausage.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that having religious convictions meant a person was wacko. And I don’t mean that in a snarky way. I am a christian (though not a member of a specific church) does that mean I am now a wacko?
Heeee! Sorry, I just had to comment, this just cracked me up! I have a friend (an atheist one btw), whose SO is completely cracked up by the word “pants”. “Pants of sausage” is even funnier.
To clarify, her words convey what they convey. If I tell you, “I fully support XYZ,” my words convey my support for XYZ. That’s what the words mean. If I secretly sabotage the success of XYZ, that doesn’t change the meaning of my words.
I wouldn’t know.
Guess so.
No.
If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that scientific evidence supports this belief, that’s a belief on par with believing that leprechauns clean your house at night, IMO.
I asked you a question. jsgoddess’s brilliant answer ( ) notwithstanding, I’m curious to know what your answer is. Is there any level of nutjobbery in a politician’s political or religious beliefs that allows us to call them a wacko? If so, is there a bright line, or do you concede that everyone needs to set that line for themselves?
If there’s a bright line, where is it? If not, what’s so nonwackaloon about Palin’s beliefs that it’s unacceptable to call her a wackaloon?
I think she’s a total wackaloon, from everything I’ve heard about her: she seems fundamentally out of touch with reality. She reminds me of the crazy and slightly sinister mom of the girl I dated in high school.
You apparently disagree and take offense at the characterization. I think it’d be helpful if you’d explain why, specifically by answering some of the questions above.
It makes perfect sense once you stop assuming the entirely incorrect precondition that praying exclusively involves making a request for action from God.
Palin in 2032!
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? 
).
In answer to your second from the bottom. I’ll have to quote you “from everything you’ve heard about her”. The media just looooooves to spin stuff and make some of it up outright ( I saw this happen first hand with the Katrina Hurricane). I haven’t heard her say anything all that wacko. (though I do love wackalooon, that’s funny!). I did read some of the debate between two posters above about what’s meant by 'God’s will". Being a recovering baptist myself, I have a wee bit of knowledge in this area. It doesn’t mean what the dissenting poster thought it did.
Now, if Sarah has said something wacky about that, I have admittedly missed it, but in her day to day state dealings and such, (state addresses, blah de blah), she rarely brings up religious things. She has a strong faith and isn’t shy about referring to it, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with whether she’s fit to govern. After all, obama states that he’s a christian as well. 52% of Americans don’t think he’s wacko (even though his minister is).
Now, if you’re talking about her stance on abortion for instance, again, the wackadooness of anti-abortion folks is a matter of opinion. Pro-life people come from all walks of religion/no religion so while one can be both religious and anti-abortion, Being one of those things does not equal being the other. Soooo, shoving aborted fetus pics in people’s faces? A little wackadoo. Bombing abortion clinics? WAAaaay wacky. Strong moral stance on the subject, along with attempts to reduce the number of abortions? Not wackadoo. (again, I prepare to be stood corrected, if she has stated a wackadoo stance on this). I won’t go too far into this, as this is a Palin pit and not an abortion one (is abortion allowed in the pit as as topic?) but abortion, what it’s become is just so wrong I don’t blame people for being passionate about trying to stop it (and I don’t mean make it a crime and send women back to the back alley butchers either!), I mean try and reach women BEFORE they’re faced with an unwanted pregnancy and try to work with them to reach a non-killing answer to their problem.
Second to the top question. Yes, I believe that there is a level a politician can reach in his political or religious life which would make me think them wacko. The bright line? Good question, as an example…Good ole Reverend Jesse Jackson. VERY close to the wacko line.
First question (well comment really) last. As to the “earth is 6000 years old etc etc etc”. You got me there, a TON of people in the religious community don’t seem to be able to grasp that science and the existence of God can co-exist (and yes, I do believe aspects of ID, since I was about 8, more than 40 years ago, I just didn’t know what it was called then, why do you ask? :D). They don’t want to admit that the Bible is fallible because it was “written by God”. Well, I’m not a theological expert, but ummmm… No. It wasn’t. It says right IN the Bible (in fancified King James lingo), that God “caused” certain people to take down his word. Well hell! We all know what happens when you get information from a witness, and we’ve all played the Telegraph game, of COURSE stuff got changed. The Bible also says (again, fancify this up King James, or Bible lingo of your choice), don’t go around shoving my word down people’s throats, people hate that and yea it will piss them off and make them NOT hear what you sayeth, but WAAAAY too many idiots go around “witnessing” in that bizarro singsong-ey “jaaaaysus” nonsense which really IS wackaloon. And don’t get me started on what’s in the doctrine of the baptist church but which is completely misconstrued by some of the bozos worshipping there!! (sorry, I’d better stop on that subject, or I’ll go off on reasons I am no longer a baptist, too much off-topic :D).
Anyway, back to the 6000 years thing, there are theologians who, unlike me, are experts in their field, GET this and explains geological events etc regarding parts of the Bible. To oversimplify, they outline it something like this: “ya gotta understand, Job, Luke, Mark and the gang were pretty primitive, they wrote down what made sense to them at the time in which they lived”.
If I didn’t answer all of what you were looking for, feel free to bug me again, I won’t get offended. (pinky swear…or is that pinky magic unicorn swear?).
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.
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.
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).