If this were true, why has she not come out in favor of ending the war in Iraq? It seems to me that for a believer who was genuinely asking for guidance being soundly defeated in the election and having the fellow party members in Congress who supported the same position take a sound beating in the election would be a really big, green neon sign that maybe you are on the wrong track. Yet, somehow it instead convinced them that they were not doing their current path enough. So, it seems obvious to me that it was never her intention to change her mind, which lends additional credence to Dio’s take that she was praying for God to change his mind to fit her decisions.
I don’t think that those are the kinds of signs she’s looking for. Don’t know for sure, it’s just a hunch.
Expressing religiosity is not the problem. Of course people are guided by their own senses of morality. The problem, as you would have understood if you weren’t trying (and failing) for a Gotcha instead, is in making any particular religious doctrine, or none at all, officially part of government policy. Palin’s creationism, among other things, is not acceptable as part of science teaching in government-sponsored schools, for instance.
Now which of those Obama quotes (assuming they’re even real, not glurge) do you think reflects a similar crossing of the boundaries? And where exactly did you copy/paste them from?
BTW,
No, it does not. You do need to try harder to understand just what the phrase really means, and why it’s important.
You really need to try to understand what is being said to you sometime, instead of simply taking offense. That statement of your shows you still have no more clue about the world than when you first signed up.
'Splain pliz.
I don’t see what the big deal is. He acknowledged that they weren’t really her words in the same post- it’s not like he waited half an hour or something.
The part I doubt most is
Most likely, he “researched” his e-mail inbox.
Sam, you might have noticed that back on the first page of this thread (before it went off the rails) we found that Palin only had two candidates to choose from for the Supreme Court seat, and that by most accounts Christen was the less liberal of the two. So this can’t be used to argue that Palin’s religious views are more progressive than we give her credit for.
If you were going to come back to the thread, it would have been good form to acknowledge that, since that was the whole thrust of your OP.
‘Sarah Palin’ is the new ‘Niagra Falls’.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ;10919328If you were going to come back to the thread, it would have been good form to acknowledge that, since that was the whole thrust of your OP.[/QUOTE]
Someone with so little basic honesty as to be able to make that claim in the first place, or the latest one about Obama either, cannot be expected to admit it.
Slowly she turned …
Well then there is no reason for being upset if she uses the word pray huh?
Let’s hope they replace her brain cells with some that work.
This actually does frighten me about Obama. I don’t think Obama is any less a religious zealot than Sarah Palin. That sort of religion DOES run through America heart and soul, it always has. In this case, the idea of building a Kingdom here on Earth is heretical. On a more mundane level, it’s Utopianism. Obama’s Utopianism is certainly the most frightening thing about him, and I admit it makes me nervous. If he said, “I believe we can have good government.”, and set out to define what that meant to him that would be one thing. Saying that he is confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth is worrying. He’s no less a religious zealot than Palin or Bush, anyone telling themselves otherwise is deluded IMO. I think he has Liberation Theology running through his veins, and it’s worrisome, only because all Utopianism is worrisome.
Anyone who feels like they were mislead by Sam Stone’s post nothing other than a ‘FUCKING MORON’, if you can’t handle being mislead for 100 words before the reveal then you are too stupid to think about things critically, and thus really do have something to fear in being mislead as the only way you can trust what people say is whether or not you trust the individual speaking, and not because you actually contemplate and attempt to verify what they are saying. He revealed what he was doing IN THE SAME DAMN POST.
What a bunch of hysterical twits around these parts.
Here’s the thing, Sam. Acting on the basis of your religion is one thing (and not all acts are equal). Making other people act on the basis of your religion is another – and that’s basically what legislation is about, changing what people do.
I’m hoping he’s just pandering to the religious folks and is an atheist hypocrite. I would prefer that to a religious zealot.
Thank you.
In his Call to Renewal keynote, Barack Obama said that public policy can be guided by private religious morality, but that it must be discussed, debated, and ultimately justified by secular purposes. That’s all I ask.
Sam’s efforts at equivalence merely demonstrate that he doesn’t understand the basis of the complaints about Palin.
I agree with you, but Utopianism can be justified by secular purposes.
Nor does he show evidence of understanding the nature of, and reasons for, separation of church and state as the US Constitution requires.
By “that’s all I ask,” I mean that’s all I ask with regard to the separation of church and state.