Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can’t hold political office. Is that the message that we’re supposed to get?
The enforcers of Militant Secular Orthodoxy are pushing the God button again. I don’t usually get involved in politics but this is really more of a theological matter that the anti-theists are trying to press into their political agenda, so I might as well chime in. The accusation, if such a thing could actually be taken to be an accusation, is that Sarah Palins got religion. Not just that, because when Barack Obama gets religion it seems to be acceptable, but Palin’s religion is historically orthodox and she actually believes what it teaches. As long as someone is a member of a religion to which they give no actual credence, that kind of thing is acceptable to the theologically challenged and agnostically confused. They then call it “spirituality” because that doesn’t imply a meaningful claim about the real world. But she actually believes things; spooky God things.
So do I, and to the shock and embarrassment of the hardcore secularists, so do most people. We don’t push it at people or make a long public display of such things. We don’t stand on the street corners with bullhorns shouting out the imminent end of all things, we don’t even have the little Jesus fish on the bumpers of our cars, but we are out there among you. Is that so disturbing? That we don’t wear armbands or Christian headgear to identify the faithful? That we could be, and by sheer numbers probably are, right next to you, freely moving about, at all levels of society; every race, gender neutral, age non-specific, demographically unchartable. (We do teach that people should love their neighbors as themselves. I’m sure that’s scary.)
Here is one of the things that Sarah Palin said recently…
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”1
The aggressive anti-theological crowd have taken this as saying exactly the opposite of what it does say. It suits their purpose to do so. What she is obviously saying, and what any Christian would take her as saying, is that we should pray that what God’s plan is should also be our plan, and that it should come to pass as God sees best. This is not rocket science folks. “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.” It’s not original. It’s not even a particularly innovative application of the principle. It’s just the Lord’s Prayer for goodness sake. What do they expect her to pray for? For God’s will to not be done? As a general rule, we Christians don’t pray that kind of thing.
As for the “task from God” thing, it is supposed to be a task from God, clearly and unabashedly. She wasn’t giving a sermon here so it wasn’t necessary for her to explain every theological nuance in detail, especially to an audience that understood her tenor, but to those young men and women going oversees, to deliver a people from abuse and oppression is a task from God. She was not saying anything creepy, like that she had some kind of personal message from Gabriel that God said to start a war, or that she knew in a personal way that the war was God’s will, but only that God’s will would be done, that we should try to make sure that God’s will is being done, and that the military personnel involved are doing what they think is right under the circumstances. If we are in a war, we want it to be a just war.
We want to know, and so we pray, that our leaders are sending out our young men and women on a task that is from God, and not on one that He would not like. Who doesn’t? If they are wrong, then we would want it to be stopped and reparations to be paid, but as with most things in life, it’s hard to tell. You have competing goods: the good of helping the oppressed far away, and the good of keeping our own safe at home. Both are good. Which one should we do? God help us.
Notably, she did not give either this administration nor the war, God’s endorsement. She might think it so, but it was not said.
From some blog:
“Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska’s governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.”2
So what? She thinks it is God’s will? Good. I don’t want any politician doing things that they think are not God’s will. God’s will is that everybody do what is best for their neighbor, and by extension, to the community and the world. I don’t want to elect anybody that thinks that God’s will is either irrelevant or something dangerous. I want everybody, all the time, trying to do what they think the will of God is. We will disagree about what we think it is, but that’s why we have a political process in which no one person gets too much power. These are Christian ideals, the separation of powers, limited human authority, and popular sovereignty through representational government, due to the fallenness of man. Everybody should want to do God’s will, but hey, we can be wrong.
Whatever most of the people think is right at the time is the rule we will follow, but it should be because they think it is good, not just because it is what they want. People getting what they want without thorough reflection on the greater good is the primary source of suffering in the world today. The general will of God is always love for one’s neighbor. Under specific conditions though, we might need to protect the weak or the innocent from harm, and that might require reasonable force limited by necessity. There is only a contradiction here for people that don’t think that the latter is a form of the former. How to work that out in a political system with competing worldviews and competing interests, is politics.
Christopher Neiswonger
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html 1, 2
Not a fundamentalist, will she let her children read Harry Potter? That’s the million dollar question. Christians are wonderful wacko’s are wacko’s, can her kids watch a Harry Potter video, if not why? Some one will ask her, so she better think about the answer?
Comment by dummidumbwit — September 4, 2008 @ 9:16 pm |
I really doubt that that is the million dollar question.
Maybe we should try to major on the majors a bit?
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 4, 2008 @ 9:19 pm |
It would express, the same concept as her positions on Life, just a softer angle, most Pentecostals are told it is from the Devil (Harry Potter) and it’s so simple, less confrontational? Easy for the Joe sixpack to understand.But yes the Abortion positions and the Creationist public school option are there with a host of others.
Comment by dummidumbwit — September 4, 2008 @ 9:38 pm |
I guess I’m Joe sixpack, because I don’t know what you are saying.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 4, 2008 @ 9:45 pm |
“Benjamin Franklin stood one day and said, …“I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” And then he called that Constitutional Convention to open each day with prayer, which it did.” – Ronald Reagan*
Neither Franklin nor Reagan are my theological beacons; however, we do live in a nation that has historically and collectively believed that we are subject to God’s will and that we ought to pray in order to understand that WE do not ultimately rule our destiny. This is why, as a society, we have historically valued and promoted the clearest tenets of the Bible.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/072888b.htm
Comment by RevK — September 4, 2008 @ 11:44 pm |
Hey… Reagan was a scots-irish Presbyterian. I’d think you would like that.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 12:05 am |
Sarah Palin sat through a sermon where the preacher asserted that God caused the Jews to suffer terrorist attacks because they rejected the Christ, it’s on record and will come out. Ronald Reagan was a mainstream Christian like most of us and would have gotten up and walked out. Palin is from the Assembly of God Church who are outside of the mainstream of what existed in 1776 till now, thats why I think she will be found out to have views that will prove damaging to the McCain campaign, and I recommend asking if she will let her children read Harry Potter, or a harder examination of what she believes, it is important to know.
Comment by dummidumbwit — September 5, 2008 @ 12:27 am |
Oh come on. It was a visiting representative of an organization of which she has given no public support whatsoever. (Jews for Jesus)And He was Jewish. So your next crack about anti-semitism should remain crackless. And I don’t think there is any evangelical group that is more passionately pro-Israel than Pentecostals.
And I’ve sat through much stupider things than that in mainstrean church services, and so did Ronald Reagan. That’s what we do when people say stupid things in churches. Sit quietly and wait for our coffee and donut.
Speculation about what God does or does not do is common enough in all churches. Really you should be complimenting her for having poise under difficult circumstances when people are saying silly things. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody threw a fit everytime the Clergy went a little nutty? We’d never get though a service. I need my coffee and donut too much for that.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 12:41 am |
If Palin were an atheist the Left would rip into her. If Palin were a Jew, the Left would rip into her. If Palin were Mother Teresa the Left would rip into her.
The Left hates, can’t stand, abhores any Republican…especially from a “minority” group or group normally not identified with conservatism.
Blacks, women, Jews, teachers, union members, all are held in particular contempt by the Left…for they are traitors.
The Left in America, which is now the Democratic Party leadership is an unabashed socialist, elitist, racist, hateful, amoral bunch of Marxists who hate this country and what it stands for and want to turn it into something else. Something else more tolerable to our enemies.
I wish this country had a million more Sarah Palins.
Thanks.
– Steve Martin
Comment by Steve Martin — September 5, 2008 @ 2:09 pm |
[...] Apologetics.com Neiswonger Law and Theology « Human Life and Human Rights? Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can’t hold political office September 5, 2008 Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can’t hold political office. Is that the message that we’re su… [...]
Pingback by Sarah Palin is a Christian so she can’t hold political office « Apologetics.com Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 5:07 pm |
Great blog Chris! Sarah seems to be a very impressive woman.
Just when I thought I would have a difficult time even voting this year, it seems we have a bit of sunshine!
Love Ya!
Comment by Pastor Bob — September 5, 2008 @ 6:44 pm |
Yeah, she is really a breath of fresh air. I mean Obama is interesting and passionate, and McCain is a very respectable guy with depth of experience, but who is there for ME to vote for? I want to vote for someone that I think would think about things and do the things that I might think and do under the circumstances. That’s why we elect people. I see all of the obvious weaknesses she has, but still, there is no one else that I have actually liked involved in the political process for a long time. I mean, guys like you don’t run Bob. Too busy doing the more important things I suppose.
Christopher
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 6:45 pm |
Why is Harry Potter important? I never read it, but I LOVE the movies. The children’s pastor of the church I attend will not let his kids watch or read it because the wizards (witches and warlocks) are good guys. His defense is VERY biblical. . . “Have nothing to do with witchcraft” etc. The Bible declares witchcraft to be an abomination. Now, I can dissect that, and say why I disagree with him on that stance, but he is taking very literally something that his religion has written down in it’s annals, how is that freakish? He appears much more mainstream than many “mainstream” people out there to begin with. . .
Comment by Master Nyte — September 5, 2008 @ 8:00 pm |
I simply refuse to engage Harry Potter books as being a legitimate issue in relation to this post.
That being said, out of relation to the post, I know people that read their children the books that are obviously very sincere Christians, and people that don’t read their children the books that are very sincere Christians. I guess I will inevitably need to deal with this kind of issue when my children reach the age when this kind of material might become age appropriate.
I’m sure that there are some children that because of their sensitivity to themes found in the materials might not be suited to this kind of thing at all, and then others for whom it could be nothing more than a harmless excursion into popular fiction. Certainly, if a parent does not think it appropriate reading or viewing, they cannot be found at fault because that is their God given role as the provider and protector of the child’s fragile well being. I seriously doubt that God would find any fault in a parent failing to promote “Harry Potter”, or even “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (C.S. Lewis) in their family entertainment. If nothing else, there is certainly no need for it.
So things like this are minor and disputable matters that can carry us away from very important and central issues, like whether killing unborn children is acceptable in a society that should long ago have outgrown such obvious violations of human rights, that is one’s daughter becomes pregnant (Palin), it is not a punishment upon the child that she gives birth to your grandchild (Obama’s stated position). There are really important things to think about here and we would best focus upon things that are obvious and immediate rather than things obfuscatory and peripheral.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 8:18 pm |
Sarah Palin, the posterchild of the religious right, is the mother of a severely disabled child with Downs Syndrome. I know, the media and Sarah herself refers to Trig as a child with “special needs,” as if this somehow describes a child who is allergic to milk and must drink non-diary formula instead. But the type of disability Trig has is serious and he will require much care and attention from his mother. The question becomes what sort of woman is Sarah Palin, who needs to feed what is obviously a wildly ambitious nature to pursue the vice presidency while she has a disabled infant at home requiring the care of his mother? If McCain and Palin are elected, Palin will see her salary bump up and she will be able to afford nanny-care from people who specialize in rearing disabled children but doesn’t this call into doubt the decision to keep Trig in the first place? Many women have given up careers in order to care for such infants. Not Sarah Palin. It’s more than a little odd.
Comment by Christopher — September 5, 2008 @ 10:37 pm |
As a card carrying member of the religious right, which really just means having any identifiable religion whatsoever to the irreligious left, I must admit, I have not seen the new poster. I hope it’s a good one.
I think your concern about the well being of the children is a valid concern. I don’t really know how they are going to work that one out. I know that most families do work it out from sheer necessity. I’m sure they will also. There are though very real concerns for the larger community and the world as a whole that could either justify, or at least mitigate, some kinds of creativity in taking care of the children in order to present them with a better world.
It’s serious business raising children, but we do need to be concerned with what kind of a world they grow up in, and what kind of a world we leave them. If Sarah Palin is given this opportunity she will have the duty to be both a mother and a leader, just as many have had to be both a father and a leader.
And the White House does not have a policy against children in the Oval Office. It’s not like she will be under some requirement to leave the kids at the sitter.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 10:55 pm |
hehe
That’s kind of you to say – but we would REALLY be in trouble if I were in politics! I am too thin skinned! But – what about guys like you?
Comment by Pastor Bob — September 5, 2008 @ 11:48 pm |
Me? I’m plenty thick in the skin category, but not suited to that kind of thing. Politicians are a strange breed indeed. Sides, you can’t run for office with a name like “Neiswonger”! By the time people figure out it’s a name the election would be over.
N
Comment by Neiswonger — September 5, 2008 @ 11:49 pm |
Obama is a Christian and more than qualified to be President.
Palin’s problem aren’t only her fundamentalist brand of Cristianity, but her lack of real experience with anything other than Alaska, her penchant for abusing Executive power, and her refusal to answer real and pertinent questions because of some faux evil media.
She also, for a Vice President, has a much higher chance (historically about 20%) of taking the higher office. When she talks about “God’s plan for Iraq”, the problem is that if she takes over it is *her plan*. And it was never God’s plan to invade Iraq, it was the Neocons.
Comment by RoPiNi — September 6, 2008 @ 5:20 pm |
What in particular makes Obama so qualified?
Is it his #1 liberal voting record in the Senate (when he bothered to show up)?
Is it his association (for many years) with a church that hates what America stands for?
Is it his associations with criminals and unrepentant domestic terrorists?
Is the fact that he would already have surrendered to our Islamist enemy?
Is it the fact that in his books he clearly shows animosity towards white men and the white grandparents who raised him?
Change is not always good you know.
Obama is a young man…with old, tired, failed socialist ideas.
That’s not the kind of change I want.
Comment by theoldadam — September 6, 2008 @ 8:36 pm |
Christopher, I just read the comments and now I understand why you rarely post politically themed blogs. I thought you might find it interesting that the whole “Palin” subject was brought up at a club which I attend whose members are of all ages, come from every walk of life and represent, what I believe to be, a fair cross section of society. The one thing we all agreed on (regardless of political affiliation) was that she was being unfairly attacked by liberal politicians and that the media is going far out of its way to portray her in a negative light. I think the message which the extreme liberals and their buddies in the media are trying to place in the public consciousness may just backfire do to the forcefulness with which it is being thrust at us. Even the “Joe Six-Packs” in our little group seemed to see through these tactics.
Chris, I think what “dummidumbwit” was trying to communicate was the very real possibility of Palin being perceived by (or more likely, portrayed to) the public to be an overly religious “wacko” by reducing all of the real issues down and encapsulating them into the more humorous and made up “Harry Potter” issue which he was saying would be an example more easily grasped by the average “Joe Six-pack” than the real issues such as abortion and creationism in public schools. The language wasn’t very clear but I don’t think he was implying that anyone who couldn’t follow what he was saying is simple-minded.
Also Mr. Martin, I don’t think it’s fair to say the entire left hates. I know plenty of people who fit into that classification who are just as reasonable as the majority of people on this blog seem to be. I can’t speak for you but I think you may be referring to the more extreme liberals. Whether they do hate or not I can’t say but I can say it sounds like you might be engaged in a bit of hatefulness yourself. I know it’s hard but please try not to hate the hate mongers. If you really think about it I’m sure you are far too intelligent and mature to be drawn into such a futile pastime.
“theoldadam”, I agree with many of your points against voting for Obama, but I do want to say that although change might not always be good neither is stagnation. Right now, it seems the public feels a change is necessary. What I am more concerned with is that when change happens it is the right change. The feeling I get from the Obama campaign is that they sense the winds of change blowing through our country and so they have chosen to use the word change as a sort of banner or standard which they hold out in front of their campaign, but that they really have no real intention of making the changes which are being called for by the people.
Also, I don’t know who you are talking about when you refer to our “Islamist Enemy”. That terminology sounds either hateful or ignorant. Are you referring to Militant Extremist sects? We may or may not have pure intentions in our occupation of Iraq. Either way, an occupying force from any country whether European or American, secular or religious, in an overwhelmingly Islamic country has never been accepted by the Islamic world. If you remember, this didn’t happen in the Gulf War because we went in, did our thing and then left ASAP. What we essentially did in going to Iraq and “making house” was declare Iraq to be the “theatre” for the inevitable struggle by Militant Extremist Islamic sects from the whole of the Islamic world against the United States occupation of an Islamic country. These groups aren’t even from Iraq, hence the term “insurgents”. You wouldn’t build a football stadium and then become suprised when football teams turn out to play. Iraqis have been left with not only the damage done during the occupation but have been caught in the crossfire between our troops and these insurgents. We brought these Militant Extremists and their recruiters to Iraq by baiting them. The insurgency aside, our leaders say they want to establish a democracy in Iraq but true democracy is an impossibility at this time and even its own people know this. Iraq is made up of three distinctly different types of Islamic believers who are, often times, violently opposed to eachother, two of which are the minority. If democratic elections take place then of course the majority will take control of the government on every level and there is guaranteed to be discrimination against the religious minorities. Resistance and bloodshed will follow. It will be a situation similar to that in Ireland, where the Protestants and the Catholics fought violently back and forth for decades. It wasn’t really about religious differences but more about discrimination. These are the reasons why we are starting to see Iraqis finding these Militant Extremist groups more attractive. The one thing they can all agree on is the United States has screwed them over and these groups are making promises of a better future. To the average Iraqi these organizations are more like freedom fighters than terrorists. Whether we want to admit it or not we are responsible for that. Either our leaders knew all this was likely going to happen, which is disturbing, or they were ignorant of these dynamics when they made the decision to invade, possibly even more disturbing (they invaded Iraq on false premises, I might add, as Al Quaeda and the Taliban had a tenuous, if any, affiliation with Iraq). All this inconsideration and/or lack of education before major decision making by our leaders regarding the fate of another people and our ignorant, blind approval of their decision would seem to make us more of the aggresors in this situation. Maybe Islam isn’t our enemy. Maybe our own ignorance is.
Thanks for hearing me out.
By the way, I am patriotic and I love this country and its freedoms but I do not blindly accept everything we do as a nation as good or right under the pretense of patriotism. Patriotism is just nationalism for your own country and nationalism tends to be insular and exceedingly dangerous to the well-being of mankind as a whole. Also, I love and respect God more than anything, but because of this I will never use God as an exuse to promote my own will. I am a Christian, not a selfist. I don’t pick and choose from the teachings in the Bible to suit my own interests. Instead, I try to include a sense of compassion in everything I do and say. I think we could afford to try this strategy with the rest of the world.
Comment by Ian Pettit — September 9, 2008 @ 3:07 pm |
Chris,
Of course we as believers would like our political leaders to seek God’s guidance and count on his direction as they make their decisions. And broadly speaking, invoking his name in public is something that is an American tradition and quit innoncent. However, the difference with Ms. Palin is her association of the Almighty with specific and contoversial policy proposals. To public associate a Christian worldview with the war in Iraq and the building of a gas pipeline as a public official not only irresponsible, but it diminishes the power of Christ’s transformative work.
Comment by Erik — September 16, 2008 @ 11:11 pm |
I don’t know… If I was going to war with Iraq I would want it to be God’s will. If I was going to lunch I would want it to be God’s will. Wanting what we do to be God’s will seems like pretty middle-of-the-road Christian thinking.
Wanting something to be God’s will is about the same as wanting it to be the right thing to do, but for people that really think there is a right thing to do. Now if she were saying that she wants us to build a pipeline because God told her to and anybody that disagrees is a bad person then I guess we could dismiss her as a kook, but if what she thinks is that she believes that it is in the best interest of the people that elected her and so she thinks it is God’s will because it is for the common good, and so because she believes it she wants people to pray that that is what comes to pass, that seems like fair game.
It’s like football. Both teams pray. Only one team wins. Ultimately God does have a position on pipelines, because He has a position on everything. Maybe He likes it; maybe He doesn’t. I don’t know. Don’t care much either. But, If I were in the position to have the option of building a pipeline, I can tell you seriously, that I would pray about it, and I would pray that what I choose to do would be in God’s will. “Not my will but thy will be done.”
If you think this is unusual I’ll be glad to hear how? That’s something the naysayers haven’t come up with yet.
And if someone thinks that we should pray that our decisions agree with the will of God until, but only until, those decisions have ramifications that are political or public or controversial, I would think that it is exactly the opposite. Those are the kinds of decisions that require a great deal of prayer.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 16, 2008 @ 11:33 pm |
Having watched her for awhile, I changed my mind, It did seem like it might be an easy attack (her opinion on Harry Potter and the Wasilla Public Library), her comments on the Iraq (and Terrorism) war and God were thought out enough to excite the base, w/o getting painted as a Zealot (by all but the most biased, I mean it’s been gone over and changes nothing), so I’m now on the forget about Palin and attack John McCain like a good democrat. The luster is fading fast enough to get back to the real business of beating up on John McCain (bless his misguided Reaganite Heart)?
Comment by dummidumbwit — September 17, 2008 @ 4:27 pm |
It ain’t over till it’s over ddb.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 17, 2008 @ 4:30 pm |
So it was god’s will to go into Iraq huh; god’s will to kill thousands of innocent people, some god.
Found this post through google was like opening a door to find tribal people sacrificing some one in some ritual, better close it fast and pretend that this blog doesn’t actually have people that agree with this crap.
And to the comment above by RevK, this country was also founded by the worlds most notable secularist, and in Theodore Roosevelt’s case even a SOCAILIST! DEAR GOD NO!
Comment by Religion Kills — November 3, 2008 @ 5:23 am |
It’s not that Palin can’t hold office b/c she’s a Christian. That’s a pretty ridiculous accusation. Palin’s understanding of Christianity, however, makes her VERY dangerous.
Her understanding of Christianity would make her liable to push for war instead of peace, to kill Muslims in favour of Christians and Jews, and to invade nations under the auspice of promoting peace.
Her Christianity is a faux pas that mustn’t be promoted, nor must it be justified.
In short, her understanding of Christianity is dangerous. It’s akin to the understanding that Bush holds. That Falwell held. That Hagee holds. That McCain wants us to believe he holds. That Billy Graham holds.
It’s the sickly version of Christianity.
http://islamoblog.blogspot.com
Comment by Islamoblogger — November 3, 2008 @ 5:41 am |
Religion kills,
Thanks for including a brief prayer at the end of your encouraging note (26). See? Was that so hard?
Comment by Neiswonger — November 3, 2008 @ 5:29 pm |
Islamoblogger, (27)
This is exactly the kind of thin understanding of Christian thought that adds confusion to the discussion. George Bush is a Methodist, one of the most liberal christian denominations. Falwell was a Southern Baptist for goodness sake. Hagee is a Dispensationalist. McCain is an Episcopalian that attends a Baptist Church. Sarah Palin is with the Assemblies of God but attends a non-denominational Evangelical church.
These are all very different leading me to believe that you, like many, have simply not put in the time or effort to understand these things beyond the most superficial level. It is telling that you have attacked members of just about every kind of Christian group here which shows that your stated intent of attacking Sarah Palin’s understanding of Christianity is merely a ruse for attacking any who claim a Christian faith of whatever kind.
Comment by Neiswonger — November 3, 2008 @ 5:40 pm |
Being poorly handled to an extent by the McCain campaign, she has still done the job for the base, her religious views never really caused any problem for her, she basically just cited Reagan ism. If they win that should help her in a 2012 or 2016 environment secure the nomination from the base, but it will hurt her in the general election. The only way I think she could win on a Reagan like platform, is if Obama wins and messes up badly, but then she’ll be running against Hillary Clinton? She is good, but is she too far right to be electable in the general w/o a threat like Iran and the USSR in the 80’s?
Comment by dummidumbwit — November 3, 2008 @ 7:11 pm |
It is important to know the religious affiliations of our elected officials because it is an absolute fact that politicians govern according to the education and morals they have been given. That’s a good thing – it allows for dissent in the political arena, which helps to clarify the issues we all care about. Religious opinions are NOT a problem generally unless they seek to establish public policy that will writes religion into law.
A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding this.
Let’s say Sarah Palin thinks homosexuals are sinful (because that is how Christianity has traditionally viewed homosexuality). Hell, let’s say she’s playing it smart and is simply dancing around homosexuality like all Christian politicians who don’t want to upset their gay-sympathizing constituents. Is her view a problem? No, not really. American politics is full of Christians and Jews (other faiths left out for a simple lack of representation in Congress) who have some backward views granted by their religion. Again, most politicians are smart enough to avoid making their platform a religious one. None of this faith is problematic.
The problem arises when Palin votes to limit sex-education funding or immigration or foreign aid based on her religious views. I think a lot of religious apologists think this is unlikely, but you’d be surprised at how miniscule some of these hypothetical policy changes could be. The Constitutionality (is that a word?) of these actions are debatable, but at least one of those decisions would force non-Christians to capitulate to Christian theology.
I think these are the types of things the less-zealous Palin-haters fear, not that she or any other religious politician would start beheading heretics.
Comment by D-san — June 17, 2009 @ 9:13 am |