The Farce Continues: The US Elections and Religion
Here are some excerpts from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 21.10.08. Full text here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-christianity-palin
“God bother in Wasilla. The resurgence of religion now marks the widest divide between US and European politics.”
“John McCain has tried to negatively associate Barack Obama with Jeremiah Wright, his fire-eating radical pastor (or former pastor), but much less attention has been paid to Sarah Palin’s membership of the Assembly Church of God in Wasilla and to her own pastor, Ed Kalnins”
…
“According to Kalnins, the Jewish people must be gathered into the Land of Israel as a preliminary to Armageddon. When that vast conflict comes the Jews will be converted, or possibly annihilated, and it will be followed by the Rapture.
Already Kalnins sees “the storm clouds are gathering” through conflict in the Middle East: “Scripture specifically mentions oil instability as a sign of the Rapture. We’re seeing more and more oil wars. The contractions of the fulfilment of prophecies are getting tighter and tighter.” And he hopes to witness the Rapture soon. “I’m just looking at the turmoil of the world, Iraq, other places - everywhere people are fighting against Christ,” he says. Since Palin is one of his flock, she presumably believes this too. She certainly believes that Jesus told us to invade Iraq: she said so from the pulpit.“
…
“Not long ago John McCain was obliged to disown John Hagee, a Texan preacher with a huge following who is not only militantly hostile to Catholicism and Islam but believes that “Hitler was a hunter” who had been sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel. “
Sarah Palin as President?
Sarah Palin as Vice-President to a belligerent Commander-in Chief?
God help us.
Richard Dawkins may have a case, after all.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani!
If I had a quote that made my opponents look bad, I would carefully check it before associating myself with it.
Palin *never* said Jesus told us to invade Iraq: she said she *hoped* it was God’s will. As anyone who believed in God and supported the war would sincerely do; it is a pious, decent, and sensible thing to say.
A pox upon this age of stupid.
All I can do is cleave to that Schopenhauer quote you made back in March:
Mein unerschütterliche Glaube an die Dummheit des Tieres Mensch hat mich nie enttäuscht und ist mir im Lauf des Lebens oft zustatten gekommen.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Any thoughts on the War in Congo, Dr Clam?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
The author of the article is a very respected journalist and writer, The Guardian is a very respected journal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/about/people/gwbio.htm
What more can one do? Where did you get your information from? How can one ever give a negative proof, in this instance that Sarah Palin “never” said it?
November 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Here is a link that provides footage of the actual quote. My original source was the National Review, a source that is doubtless as suspect in your eyes as the Guardian is in mine. The Guardian has a reputation as a paper that stands for a worldview diametrically opposed to the individualist, ‘God and guns’ worldview of Palin so I would not expect it to provide objective reporting.
Of course one can never give a negative proof. You can never give a negative proof that global warming is not caused by leprechauns, or that Obama never said,”first thing we do when we get in, let’s sterilise all the Jews.” You can only make a judgement based on your assessment of the quality of the source, their subjective biases, and the overall impressions you have formed of the issue. You seem very ready to believe the absolute worst of one side in the current contest over yonder, and I believe this is leading you to lend credence to reports that are utterly unrealistic.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Your link is to the National Review, apparently the foremost conservative/Republican paper in the US. If you doubt the objectivity of The Guardian, one can also doubt that of the News Review. How can we be sure that Governor Palin (a very intelligent, forceful and nice woman, by the way) has not stood on the pulpit at other times using the words in the Guardian article? - And does it really matter? It seems clear to me that she believes that the Iraq war was justified and that God is on the side of the US. - Not to forget that she has used fairly aggressive language towards Russia and Iran in the campaign, which I find somewhat disturbing.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I doubt the objectivity of the Guardian; you doubt the objectivity of the National Review. This is as it should be! I was trying to find a primary source for you that could remove all dissent, but I admit I have not actually watched the Youtube link myself.
‘Does it really matter?’
Yes, I think there certainly is a difference between believing that the Iraq war was justified and that God is on the side of the US and saying ‘Jesus told us to invade Iraq’.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:08 am
This is an interesting snippet on Why free media has bias, which explains why the different free media are biased. One has to be sure that one is not just looking for affirmation of ones own views when one is trying to be objective.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Yes, I agree.
Fortunately Obama won. Sarah Palin is a figure of the past. America now really has the chance to remake the world. Let’s hope Obama will be able to do so, overcoming the powers that may wish to stick to the old and ancient.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
You agree? So you accept that the Guardian probably transliterated what Sarah Palin said to appeal to the prejudices of atheists and the religiously uncommitted. The National Review probably glosses over the extent that Sarah Palin mixes politics and religion. You should be ashamed of yourselves for believing articles that tend to affirm your own beliefs. For my part, I believe the US of 2020 whether Obama or Sarah were president now would be pretty much the same either way.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Yes, I agree that one should attempt to base one’s opinion on as wide a range of sources as possible. I do not accept (and did not imply) that “he Guardian probably transliterated what Sarah Palin said…”. What I said was “How can we be sure that Governor Palin (a very intelligent, forceful and nice woman, by the way) has not stood on the pulpit at other times using the words in the Guardian article?”. That this may well be possible is shown by the sources below:
Have a look at this:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,577440,00.html
and the extract here:
“Sarah Palin’s Pentacostalist past explains a lot about what she says in public, but the McCain campaign wants to play it down. Can a gas pipeline really be a manifestation of God’s will?
More than once, vice presidential candidate and current governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has shown a habit of investing secular matters with religious meaning. A $30 billion gas pipeline in Alaska was “God’s will,” the war in Iraq was a “task that is from God.” She’s argued for creationism to be taught in schools, alongside evolutionary biology, and she’d rather do away with sexual education completely.â€
And this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k
Or at this:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/09/05/sarah-palin-her-religion.aspx
Extract here:
“David Gushee, a Christian ethicist at Mercer University in Atlanta, says he is troubled that a public official might presume that government action could be God’s intent.
“I would never think it is appropriate to describe the actions of the United States military or the strategies of our commanders as a plan from God,” Gushee (left) told the Wall Street Journal.â€
It seems that you transliterated my words not quite correctly, but don’t be ashamed, these things happen.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Ok. So you have access to a wide selection of media outlets that pander to the prejudices on the left. I shall await Dr. Clam to give me an equally wide selection of article that panders to the prejudices on the right. I took your agreeing with my link as an agreement in the likelihood that most articles on political matters (including the ones you choose to quote) try to give views and arguments that make themselves popular to their readership base. If this happens to be a growing tide of support for Obama, this does not mean that they are unbiased.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:26 am
No, indeed, you would be surprised about the selection of news items I have bookmarked, a wide spectrum from the very right to the left. The Spiegel, for example, which I quote from time to time, certainly cannot be classified as being on the left, nor on the right.