Are we in trouble
------------------------------------------

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," declared John McCain back in September 2007. With his vice-presidential pick of Governor Sarah Palin, he has found a winsome soul mate who is even more of a Christian nationalist, eager to use government to impose her religious views on the rest of us.

Palin's stance on abortion illustrates her approach. As she proudly declares, she sees the Bible as literally true, which leads her to believe that aborting a fetus is murder. That position contradicts our long history of common and statutory law. She then goes on to conclude that government should severely punish anyone who has an abortion or performs one, even in the case of rape or incest. She also opposes stem cell research.

McCain hears God less extremely, but the Republican platform echoes Palin, and if she ever became president, she would feel completely justified in making her religious belief a litmus test for appointees to the Supreme Court.

Her attitude toward gays and lesbians is similar, though observers in both the gay press and corporate media have misrepresented the firmness of her convictions. The confusion stems from a legal suit that some same-sex couples filed in 1999, arguing that Alaska had no right to deny domestic partners of state employees the same health and pension benefits that the state gave to married spouses. The case made its way to Alaska's Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that the state could not discriminate against the domestic partners.

In the political firestorm that followed, the Alaska legislature passed a bill forbidding state officials to pay the benefits. Alaska's attorney general then declared the bill unconstitutional, and the newly inaugurated Governor Palin felt legally obliged to veto it. But, she loudly proclaimed her opposition to spousal benefits for domestic partners and signed a separate bill calling for a state referendum, which she said would lay the groundwork for overturning the state Supreme Court ruling.

She also declared her long-time opposition to same-sex marriage, a position she had displayed as early as 1998 when she enthusiastically backed a constitutional amendment to ban the practice in Alaska.

"I believe that honoring the family structure is that important," she told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. She was "not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay." But, she explained, her opposition grew out of her strong religious views.

Palin's religious convictions, and her willingness to use the power of government to force them on others, has won strong backing from far-right groups, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and the Council for National Policy, the normally secretive network of right-wing preachers, political operatives, and fat cats who have been a major force in the Republican Party ever since they backed Ronald Reagan for president.

These overlapping groups view homosexual acts as "an abomination" and have led the fight against what Dr. Dobson calls "the radical Homosexual agenda." Focus on the Family will soon bring to Anchorage a conference on "curing homosexuality" through the power of prayer, an event that Palin's hometown church in Wasilla is actively promoting.

In the same vein, Palin has opposed extending hate crime laws to protect gays and lesbians, called for teaching creationism in public schools, and - as mayor of Wasilla - looked into banning books from the public library because they contained inappropriate language.

She described the building of a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska as "God's will," which she would work to carry out as governor.

She supports the presence of US troops in Iraq as a "task that is from God."

And she has told colleagues that Christ will return within her lifetime, which raises questions about what sort of Armageddon she has in mind.

However absurd one finds all this, Palin's religious convictions should normally remain her own private concern. But her eagerness to use public office to enforce and implement what she believes makes her beliefs a matter of enormous public importance.

If you don't believe me, just listen to the enormous support Palin is receiving from Dr. Dobson, "End Time" author Tim La Haye, and others on the Christian right. Dobson once swore he would never vote for John McCain. He now calls McCain's choice of Palin "outstanding" and is promising his enthusiastic support.

Sarah Palin is their gal, and if she is elected vice president, these warriors of God could find themselves only a heartbeat away from their long-held goal of turning America into an ultra-rightwing Christian nation.

Mike,

This mirrors the sentiment in my earlier posting about separation of church and state. The ultra right wing and neo conservatism are no different in their ideology than Osama Bin Laden and his crowd, they just use a different religion as the justification to bring their control about.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1766638341

John R...

John R. you are so right.

This is not some missive about differences in political thought but a real life potential that could threaten the separtion between church and state established by our founding fathers. And if you think there is nothing to worry about because you are a Christian then you know nothing of the history of the Christian church and its evolution. Can you say..."burned at the stake?"

John R...

These overlapping groups view homosexual acts as "an abomination" and have led the fight against what Dr. Dobson calls "the radical Homosexual agenda." Focus on the Family will soon bring to Anchorage a conference on "curing homosexuality" through the power of prayer, an event that Palin's hometown church in Wasilla is actively promoting.

Also known as:
"Pray Away The Gay".

homosexuality has been around how long?

At least since the Spartans.

“The ultra right wing and neo conservatism are no different in their ideology than Osama Bin Laden and his crowd, they just use a different religion as the justification to bring their control about.”

I’m not a right winger nor do I consider my self a conservative but your comparison is absurd...frankly I’m surprised you even made it and also surprised that no one on this forum challenged it.

"burned at the stake" really...are you into hunting witches too?

I think the comparison is accurate. The problem is you are so caught up in a "What I believe is truth - what you believe is heresy" mindset, that you can't see the similarities between two groups, both of whom would tell us how to think.

“I think the comparison is accurate. The problem is you are so caught up in a "What I believe is truth - what you believe is heresy" mindset, that you can't see the similarities between two groups, both of whom would tell us how to think.”

Doc, I never claimed that what I believe is truth and everything else is hearsay .

And I don’t think Johns comparison was about how to think...he said “The ultra right wing and neo conservatism are no different in their ideology than Osama Bin Laden and his crowd” then he added “they just use a different religion as the justification to bring their control about”

Do you honestly believe that comparison is accurate?

Bin Laden’s religious ideology claims that “Al Qaeda’s actions are defensive and religiously sanctioned and that the suicide bomber bears witness to his belief in God by virtue of his act of martyrdom, and by virtue of his willingness to destroy others transforms himself into an instrument of God's will”.

Bin Laden’s religious ideology also claims that “the Jews are masters of usury and leaders in treachery”.

Also according to bin Laden's religious ideology it is perfectly acceptable to deliberately kill women, children and other non combatants in a jihad.

And you think that comparing Bin Laden’s religious ideology to the ultra right wing and neo conservative fringe is accurate?

If John hadn’t thrown religion into the mix then his statement might have lent itself to different interpretations, but it seems to me as though John is hung up on Palin’s personal religious views as evidenced by some of his other comments and statements.

If my problem is that I am caught up in a "What I believe is truth - what you believe is heresy" mindset”. Explain what mind set you are caught up in?

So in keeping with absurd comparisons, I would like to say that many of John’s ideologies and yours appear to be no different than those of Chicken Little. And Barack Obama’s ideology is no different than Jeffrey Dahmer’s, or (fill in the blank).

havana,

I admire the way you view things from more than a knee jerk reaction and quite often you bring a perspective to an issue that I never thought of.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear what my point was so I'll make a second attempt. Religious fanatics of any main stream institution such Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. who somehow attempt to gain political power are too be feared. In my opinion, a theocracy is a dangerous form of government because it denies fundamental freedoms that have been acknowledge as unalienable.

Most western religions typically focus their tenets on doctrines that want to control the behavior of others. Whether they are Islamic or Christian, they want to impose their values on others whether they like it or not. They dispise individualism and democracy. Their laws are supposedly divinely sanction by a higher power than man and therefore are not subject flexiblity or contrary interpretation.

Governor Palin's talk to the Assembly of God members was frightening to me as a free thinking man. The arrogance of people who promote themselves as disciples of Christ or martyrs of the Prophet of Islam comes from the same cloth.

99% of Christians and Muslims are satisfied with their faith as being a personal expression of an explanation of things that can't be understood and they have no agenda of trying to force it upon others. Palin, like Bin Laden, want their understanding of theology to be the law of the land whether you like it or agree with it or not. Therein lies my position. Both want to control you and I and then force us to accept their dogma as gospel (excuse the pun).

The analogy to the middle ages and crusades was to demonstrate that even though people might worship the same god and revere the same religious books that they still kill each other because of their differences in interpretating those sacred books.

To me freedom of religion should stop at your doostep and that of the structures built by the denominations.

John R...

John,

Your second attempt does answer a few of my questions and I would like to add that fanatics in general who somehow attempt to gain political power based on their fanaticism are to be feared and dangerous.

I think that theocracy would be a dangerous form of government, but I don’t see it happening here anytime soon.

“Governor Palin's talk to the Assembly of God members was frightening to me as a free thinking man. The arrogance of people who promote themselves as disciples of Christ or martyrs of the Prophet of Islam comes from the same cloth.”

When I first watched that video I too thought it was kind of creepy, but after reading the written transcript, putting into context, considering the intended audience and hearing her explanation to Charles Gibson...although a bit flimsy her explanation did seem plausible.

So I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt..by the way she was not speaking to the congregation as a whole just some sort of graduating class for what’s that’s worth.

I also don’t believe that she was portraying herself as anything but a person who believes strongly in her faith and who incidently happens to be the Governor.

“Palin, like Bin Laden, want their understanding of theology to be the law of the land...Both want to control you and I and then force us to accept their dogma as gospel” (it was a nice pun)

Here is where we can agree to disagree...there is no evidence that lends credence to that conclusion...for Bin Laden yes, but for Palin, I don’t think so...maybe you can provide a link or two that support your conclusion.

“The analogy to the middle ages and crusades was to demonstrate that even though people might worship the same god and revere the same religious books that they still kill each other because of their differences in interpretating those sacred books.”

Well I thought the “burned at the stake” comment was a bit over the top. However, I don’t see people killing each other because of what you describe ending anytime soon.

I also don’t see the type of threat you’re describing happening in this country...it would take centuries for our legislative bodies to come up with a workable formula as to who to burn, what material the stake should be made of and what type of ignition system would provide the smallest carbon footprint.

Well Havana,

I must confess that at times it has been alleged that I am "over the top." Notwithstanding that, I must confess that I would feel very comfortable with you being Secretary of TED because of your uncanny ability to know when to use humor and when not to.

It might help you know that I am not overly excited about a VP candidate that felt it necessary to get hair plugs or a presidential candidate who doesn't have the balls to say, "and furthermore, so what if I were Muslim."

I accept that we will disagree on the Bin Laden's clan and Christian fundamentalist. To me they are different only in tactics but not in strategy nor purpose. You have asked for direct evidence but I have none. Sometimes you just get this feeling that if it looks like a duck....

Au pays des aveugles les borghes sont rois “in the country of the blind the one-eyed men are kings.”

John R...

John,

Being over the top is nothing new for me either and
in my simplistic outlook on life I figure that from a long distance it might look like a duck and quack like a duck but it could be a goose.