Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Religious Bigotry and Sarah Palin
Posted by: Michael Medved at 4:29 AM

The attacks on Governor Palin increasingly focus on her religious faith and display the profound and hateful intolerance of the attackers. Tonight I received an e-mail from an old friend who expressed alarm at my enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket:

“I heard that Gov. Palin's church speaks in tongues and believes in 'rapture' and believes God tells us to build a pipeline,” he wrote. “And her church tries to 'cure' gay people.  Is that true? She did say the war in Iraq is a mission from God or some such nonsense. What was Abu Ghraib, Haditha? She's scary...


"Palin is Elmer Gantry, is Amy Semple McHockeymom, says Keith Olbermann. We are a religious country, but we don't like religious extremism. Having faith is a nice thing to know about someone in office, but if you believe God is directing troop movements in Falluja, Americans will surely ask: 'What the @#$^??' Converting gays to heterosexuals? Being gay may be caused by some things, but not praying enough isn't one of them. It makes people who hate gays feel better about hating them. And she may be a heartbeat away? Are you insane?"

Of course, a careful examination of any church or any denomination would find plenty of potentially embarrassing or offensive details. Assaults on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism followed the same game plan as the nasty cracks about Palin: take a religion that enriches the lives of millions of good and decent people and focus on its distinctive or unusual aspects to try to discredit the candidate (and, incidentally, the entire faith community).

Every religioun looks odd from the outside – very much including my own. I know that it seems weird to non-Jews (and to non-observant Jews) that my observance involves shunning some delicious foods, praying with a contraption of leather straps and wooden boxes every morning, and not riding in a car on Friday night or Saturday. Those unfamiliar with Catholicism might find themselves perplexed by doctrines ranging from transubstantiation, to the virgin birth, to papal infallibility.

And then there’s the Afro-Centric theology and raging anti-American sermonizing of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity United Church of Christ. Will the new scrutiny of the theology and preaching in Sarah Palin’s home churches in Wasilla bring us back for another round of debate about Obama’s relationship with the crackpot mentor he followed for twenty years?

It’s much better to leave discussion of any candidate’s faith alone and to accept two basic propositions about such debate:

1)      Every religion seems weird to those who haven’t been raised in that tradition, and

2)      The only way to judge a church or synagogue or mosque is to evaluate that community’s acts of kindness and compassion, and the extent to which that congregation encourages decent behavior and discourages self-destructive violence.

By this standard, Sarah Palin’s congregations (she grew up in the Wasilla Assembly of God but moved six years ago to the Wasilla Bible Church) look lovely: warm and welcoming, charitable and patriotic. So, by the way, do Mormon communities everywhere, or my Jewish community near Seattle (or Joe Lieberman’s in Connecticut), or even Obama and Wright’s Trinity United (okay, the patriotism is lacking with that one, but otherwise the church is supposed to be supportive of its members and constructive in the community).

And as far as the idea of “healing” homosexuals through prayer or spirituality, no one is forced to attend such programs. But if someone hopes that this approach can improve his or her life, and if tens of thousands report positive results, who are outsiders to say that they’re wrong? I’m personally skeptical of that “reparative” approach to sexual orientation but shouldn’t the notion of tolerance extend to those who hope the power of faith might help them achieve a more traditional family life?

The attacks on Governor Palin as a “religious extremist” demonstrate once again that militant secularists display less openness and acceptance of other points of view than do people of faith. In her Convention speech, Governor Palin never gave any sort of religious pitch, or even addressed the issues of abortion or marriage.

In other words, the angry response to her stems not from what she says or what she does, but who she is. There’s a word for that sort of response. It’s called “bigotry.” 



View in ascending order View in descending order
PhilipCFromNYC writes: Monday, October, 06, 2008 8:26 AM
Palin believes being gay is a choice...
Palin has made it quite clear that she considers homosexuality to be a conscious moral choice. Any gay person can tell you that there is no choice involved in being gay. Nobody wakes up one morning and, on a whim, decides that he or she is going to fall in love with, and become sexually attracted to, a person of the same sex.

It is not "religious bigotry" to point out that Palin's church supports so-called "reparative therapy" -- a treatment modality that has been roundly condemned by professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. All that "reparative therapy" does is to hide the issue. Groups such as Exodus International refuse to release data pertaining to their "cure" rates, which speaks volumes in and of itself.

The poster boy of the "ex-gay" movement, John Paulk, was dethroned after being photographed at a gay pickup bar on DuPont Circle, where he tried to solicit sex from another patron. He was relieved of his position with the "Family Research Council" and has been disgraced. First, he stated that he merely needed to use the bathroom (the gay bar was surrounded by restaurants and other stores where he could have relieved himself). Then he claimed that he was merely "curious" about what had happened to the gay scene. This was too much for the FRC to stomach.

For Palin to be associated with such a movement makes it manifest that she is unfit to hold the position of VP.

PHILIP
CarbonsSon writes: Wednesday, September, 24, 2008 11:16 PM
Mack is right: Medved is a bigot
By his own words, Medved is a bigot. He has judged atheists not by they do or say, but by who they are. Exactly Medved's definition of a bigot.

You're a bigot and a hypocrite, Michael.
Yttrium writes: Wednesday, September, 17, 2008 7:21 PM
what a loss
cimarrone's deleted post was so funny! Too bad they took it down. I did not think it was that offensive.

It said, roughly, "They don't teach too much grammar on the rez, but at least it [ticks] you off, lol lol lol lol"
Careful with that axe, Eugene writes: Wednesday, September, 17, 2008 1:34 PM
Akennas
As usual, you are a balf faced liar, and you know it. What part of shot and burned out by armed mobs, then marked for extermination by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838; Joseph and Hyrum Smith murdered in 1844 and then the Mormons driven out in the dead of winter in 1846 with the tacit approval of Illinois Governor Thomas Ford; and the dispatch of the U.S. Army to essentially effect the "final solution" on the Mormons (egged on by Missouri again) in 1856-1857 do you not understand? No you fully understand, and only a cretin like yourself could turn acts of self-defense into going to war with other Americans. Reminds me of all the lies about Jews the Nazis ginned up to justify their actions, from yellow stars to Kristallnacht to Auschwitz.

Me- Well, let's look at that, shall we?

1838- The Mormons were using Danite terror squads to intimidate "gentile" voters before the people moved against them.

Same thing in Illinois, where Joseph Smith (dum-dum-dum-dum-dum) styled himself a Lt. General and had an armed force called the Navou Legion. Hey, try starting up your own private little army, see how the authorities today react to it.

Finally, in 1857, the only people killed were thepoor schlubs in the Francher Party.

I also noticed you skipped the issue of the Mormon Temple Oath until 1930.
MaineConservative writes: Tuesday, September, 16, 2008 9:16 AM
cim moron
Speaking of grade school, isn't that where they teach sentence punctuation?
james beam writes: Tuesday, September, 16, 2008 8:43 AM
mitts loss
was not becuase of bigotry .he lost because he was a political chameleon,he became whatever to whichever group he was pandering to, very moderate republican governor in boston ,to right wing presidential canidate , his phoneyness and ingratiating manner defeated him,it was obvious that he had no strong convictions and would say anything to be elected . NO ONE TRUSTS OR LIKES A SUCK UP ,something he should have learned in grade school.
CLF writes: Tuesday, September, 16, 2008 7:49 AM
A Different God?
Regarding the anti-religious bigotry Mitt Romney faced, there is a brand new book out called "A Different God? Mitt Romney, the Religious Right and the Mormon Question." It is an interesting and informative read.
Yttrium writes: Tuesday, September, 16, 2008 12:49 AM
KingsKravMaga
Well mack is a very busy man.
kingsXrulz writes: Monday, September, 15, 2008 6:27 PM
mack
"Medved doesn't think atheists should be president. He's basing that not on what a particular atheist candidate might have said or done, but on WHO THEY ARE."
-- The exact same thing you're doing with Sarah Palin. So what's your argument? that it's okay for you to do it because you're not being hypocritical about it? You're still doing the SAME THING that you accuse him of doing.

"Read it and weep, you stupid tard."
-- Sit and spin, ya 2-balled b!tch.

"An atheist would be "bad for the country," says Michael Medved. He's not just describing the general population's view of atheists. He's providing *HIS* view, that they would be bad for the country and thus *shouldn't* be president."
-- Wait a second. An American citizen is expressing his personal opinion? out loud? How . . . DARE he?!

"The title also reinforces that idea: "Americans **ARE RIGHT** to resist an atheist." Not just "Americans resist" (description) but they are RIGHT to do so (proscription)."
-- Just like they should resist a Marxist. Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those running this year. . . .

"Spin and twist all you like."
-- Right back at'cha; just change it to "suck and swallow".

"He's a bigot who judges atheists by what they ARE, not by what they DO or SAY."
-- Really? Are you SURE that he isn't judging atheists by what they have said and done? How do you know?

"And he has judged ALL of them in one fell swoop instead of examining the ACTIONS of hypothetical INDIVIDUAL atheists."
-- What's hypothetical about it?

"By *Michael's* own definition of bigot, Michael is a bigot."
-- In the words of our current VP, "So?"
kingsXrulz writes: Monday, September, 15, 2008 6:21 PM
mack
"Medved doesn't think atheists are qualified to be president because of who they are: atheists. Medved is a bigot."
-- Sorry, bunkie, thinking that they are not qualified does not make him a bigot . . . more like a realist.

"Speaking in tongues? Thinks snakes can talk?"
-- She does not do either one of those things.

"Sorry, folks. Her elevator doesn't get to the top floor."
-- That's alright. Yours doesn't make it out of the basement.

"It's okay to explore a candidate's religion."
-- Sure. I mean if you have nothing better to do.

"If a candidate thinks a spaceship hiding behind a comet is coming to take him away, I want to know it."
-- Ah, so you've met Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich.

"Likewise, if a candidate thinks some dead dude is coming to take her up to some heaven real real soon, I want to know it."
-- Why? She doesn't want to pry into YOUR religious beliefs.

"He said on his show yesterday, and I quote: "No one should be submitted to a theological test."
-- If you agree with that, why are you submitting her to one?

"Does that apply to atheists, too, Mikey?"
-- What test would that be? to determine if they're telling the truth when they claim to be atheists? to determine what their theology IS, which by definition is NOTHING?

"Medved doesn't think atheists should be president. That's religious bigotry."
-- Since when is atheism a religion?

"AoG is mainstream??"
-- She doesn't belong to that church.

"People who speak in tongues like possessed morons are NOT mainstream. They're weirdo cult members. Who should not be anywhere near the White House"
-- Since that does not describe her, I guess we're okay then; right?
Yttrium writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 7:17 PM
mack
You're right! I shouldn't have tried to SPIN the meaning of the words using the actual context! It's in my evil conservative handbook to do that. And look, you caught me.

Sam T. writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Mack, you show your IGNORANCE...
Quote:

mack writes:
Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:02 PM

"Sam T: No, Assemblies of God are whacko
AoG is mainstream??Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaa!!!!!"

End quote…

Here are the facts about the Assemblies of God membership & Churches here in the United States & worldwide…

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God


Classification: Protestant
Orientation: Pentecostal, Evangelical
Polity: Presbyterian
Origin: 1914
Separations: Oneness Pentecostals (separated 1916)
Statistics:
Congregations: 283,413
Members: 57 million world wide
Number of U.S. Churches: 12,311 (2006)

End quote…

Mack, Mack, Mack…

Sound pretty much like a large mainstream AMERICAN & WORLDWIDE Evangelical-Gospel & Bible believing CHRISTIAN faith denomination to me…

As I said Mack, you show your IGNORANCE by speaking total non-sense of what you know NOT ! ! !
Sam T. writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 3:00 PM
Mack, you show your IGNORANCE...
Quote:

mack writes:
Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:02 PM

"Sam T: No, Assemblies of God are whacko
AoG is mainstream??Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaa!!!!!"

End quote…

Here are the facts about the Assemblies of God membership & Churches here in the United States & worldwide…

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God


Classification: Protestant
Orientation: Pentecostal, Evangelical
Polity: Presbyterian
Origin: 1914
Separations: Oneness Pentecostals (separated 1916)
Statistics:
Congregations: 283,413
Members: 57 million world wide
Number of U.S. Churches: 12,311 (2006)

End quote…

Mack, Mack, Mack…

Sound pretty much a large mainstream AMERICAN & WORLDWIDE Evangelical-Gospel & Bible believing CHRISTIAN faith denomination to me…

As I said Mack, you show your IGNORANCE by speaking total non-sense of what you no NOT ! ! !
mack writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 2:31 PM
Medved the hypocrite
Spin and twist all you like. Medved thinks an atheist would be "bad for the country." Put fingers in your ear all you like. His words are there. It's right for everyone to resist and shun atheists. Medved's words.

He's a bigot who judges atheists by what they ARE, not by what they DO or SAY. And he has judged ALL of them in one fell swoop instead of examining the ACTIONS of hypothetical INDIVIDUAL atheists.

By *Michael's* own definition of bigot, Michael is a bigot.
Yttrium writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 1:59 PM
mack
Oh stop it! It is not bigotry on Michael Medved's part to point out that an atheist would be either be forced to use language he openly eschews, or on those many occasions of state where God is acknowledged would have to be altered for his comfort. That predicament is all he means by "bad" for the country. Now of atheism itself, he says:

"The truth is that atheism remains a vibrant intellectual tradition"

"a healthy competitor in the marketplace of ideas – still capable of challenging those faiths"

"adding a bracing element to our national conversation."

"A president with a mandate doesn’t have to be a regular church-goer, or even a convinced believer"

Now take the words of Medved's article, and compare them to the attitude and words of the email Michael is sharing in the above blog. There is no comparison! None! Or how about this Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin, which really sounded more like an interrogation--WHEN did you pray, WHAT did you pray, HOW did you pray?! Did you send your son on a HOLY WAR? etc.

Now those are examples of real hostility and disdain, not Michael Medved's column about atheists.

mack writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 12:17 PM
Nice try. His words speak for themselves
I already provided his exact words.

An atheist would be "bad for the country," says Michael Medved. He's not just describing the general population's view of atheists. He's providing *HIS* view, that they would be bad for the country and thus *shouldn't* be president.

The title also reinforces that idea: "Americans **ARE RIGHT** to resist an atheist." Not just "Americans resist" (description) but they are RIGHT to do so (proscription).

That's religious bigotry. Thanks for playing.
Yttrium writes: Friday, September, 12, 2008 12:54 AM
mack
In his exact words:

"The notion of dropping or altering all references to God and faith on public occasions to avoid discomfort for a single individual amounts to a formula for a disastrously unpopular presidency." This has nothing to do with bigotry against atheists. Nothing.

He is pointing out that either the atheist will have to participate in songs and traditions during state (and other) occasions he stridently disavows, or, these will have to be removed for his personal convenience. This is a simple fact. It has nothing to do with some animosity to atheists.
mack writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 11:12 PM
Ytrrim: ready to have a red face?
Yes, Yttrium, I have a question: How did you get to be so stupid?

Michael Medved on April 9, 2008: "It continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. . . . a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would . . . be bad for the country."

It is profoundly obvious to anyone with a brain that Medved is saying that atheists SHOULDN'T be president. Get that "bad for the country" bit, jackas$?

Read it and weep, you stupid tard.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/04/09/ame ricans_are_right_to_resist_an_atheist_as_president?page=ful l&comments=true
Yttrium writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 11:02 PM
Carbon
"No, Medved said atheists *shouldn't* win. Because they're not qualified. Because of who they are: atheists."

No, he said atheists "WOULDN'T" win. Any questions?

Listen, Medved is a walking encyclopedia when it comes to past elections and presidents. On this very blog, he even pointed out that brown-eyed candidates don't win. You are so way off on what he's said.


kermit writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 10:23 PM
Last try Mack. . .
. . . . you clearly suffer from an inability to see . . . oh yeah. You're a lib. Got it. Medved was not my issue; YOU and YOUR comments about the unbelievability of religion IS my issue. I am addressing YOUR stupid, bigoted comments. You are the bigot when making fun of religions because they believe things that are unfathomable to you! What you FAIL to see, Mack, my deaf friend, is that atheism is EQUALLY unbelievable and takes a "leap of faith." Now, I am done wasting my time on you. Clearly you are not a clear thinker. You can choose to believe what you want about God or atheism. It matters not to me. But to say that one is believable and one is not, does NOT show clear thinking. Your comments about wanting to know about Sarah and does she believe snakes talk, etc shows your bigoted stupidity. IF you want to know if a candidate believes in talking snakes, would you not also want to know if a candidate believed that life was created with a big Boom and spontaneous life?? If YOU think those beliefs have bearing on a person's ability to govern, would you not want to know both? IF you think one is nutty, then you ALSO have to believe the OTHER is nutty - because they BOTH require a leap of faith!!! Now take your parting shot Mack - but know that I will not be reading it. You clearly are not a logical thinker.
mack writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:04 PM
One more thing, Kermit
Medved isn't the only conservative hypocrite when it comes to Rock Star Sarah.

Watch and weep:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=18408 6&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Dick Morris is a hypocrite.
Bill O'Reilly is a hypocrite.
mack writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:02 PM
Kermit -- Medved's a bigot
Looks like some genetic problem is preventing you from understanding the point.

Medved is a hypocrite. He wrote, "the angry response to her stems not from what she says or what she does, but who she is. There’s a word for that sort of response. It’s called “bigotry.”

But Medved doesn't think atheists should be president. He's basing that not on what a particular atheist candidate might have said or done, but on WHO THEY ARE.

Medved's a bigot.
G writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 6:40 AM
Some Good Points
I like this part of the article:

'The attacks on Governor Palin as a “religious extremist” demonstrate once again that militant secularists display less openness and acceptance of other points of view than do people of faith. In her Convention speech, Governor Palin never gave any sort of religious pitch, or even addressed the issues of abortion or marriage.'

That's very good. The media keeps repeating the mantra that Palin was only selected to appeal to "the base" (read those people -- the evangelicals). The problem with this theory: Palin is talking about energy and government reform, not social issues like abortion.

Speaking of religion and Palin...I noticed this in an LA Times story about Palin's homecoming speech in Alaska: '...in a passage aimed at her welcoming crowd and the hundreds of Christian conservatives who had turned out for her arrival, Palin praised "this great land of Alaska that God has so richly blessed."' It's clear from statements like these that some big city reporters don't get out much, and turn the mere mention of God blessing Alaska into a direct appeal to Christians. So, I guess that makes "in God we trust" part of the agenda of the religious right.
kermit writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:25 AM
One more thing Mack. . . .
. . . . I'll put it in a 'nutshell' for you - since that might be more to your taste: it takes just as much faith to swallow atheism and it's unbelievableness, as it takes to swallow God and its' unbelievableness. So if you're gonna dish about one, you gotta swallow it for both sides my friend.
Shelby writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:12 AM
OOPs...

My PC is not spelling well tonight. :c(

That was supposed to be (like a squirrel saying "O" and not a GENUINE smile)....
kermit writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:11 AM
Here Mack. . . .let me spell it out for
you Idiot. . . . . "mack writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 5:34 PM
Palin has a screw loose
Speaking in tongues? Thinks snakes can talk?

Sorry, folks. Her elevator doesn't get to the top floor.

It's okay to explore a candidate's religion. If a candidate thinks a spaceship hiding behind a comet is coming to take him away, I want to know it. Likewise, if a candidate thinks some dead dude is coming to take her up to some heaven real real soon, I want to know it."

Now, go re-read my post you fool. The point is this: You are a complete fool and idiot to think that you can judge people by their "unbelievable" religious beliefs - when those of atheists are JUST as unbelievable to others!!!!! So don't be such a smug, arrogant a88. Oh - time to go drink your koolaid Mack. . . you're getting a bit edgy. . . . .
Shelby writes: Thursday, September, 11, 2008 1:06 AM
Squirrel Smile
Akennas2 writes:
"The ascendence of Sarah Palin means the end of Mike Huckabee's presidential chances. She is smarter, sharper, younger, a LOT better looking than Ol' Snaggletooth (has that man ever seen a dentist?),....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Akennas2 for sayin' it!!! Every time I see Huck-a-Me-Some-Attention give that creepy smile (like a squirrel saying "O" and not a geninue smile), it MAKES ME WANT TO BARF! Usually I'm quick enough to get the channel changed the minutes he appears on FOXNEWS but every once in a while I get hit with that THING! ICK!!! ICK!!! ICK!!!
Carbon writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 11:45 PM
Yttrium
No, Medved said atheists *shouldn't* win. Because they're not qualified. Because of who they are: atheists.

Tthat's religious bigotry. And hypocrisy.
Yttrium writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:15 PM
Mack Robert
Mack is trying to be a big liberal GunnyG, but I'd say he's not filling the boots...

mack, you and the rest of the left should ABSOLUTELY campaign on the issue that Christians have a "screw loose." That should be very, very effective for you.

Also, Michael Medved has never said an atheist can't run for office. He says an atheist wouldn't win. Makes sense to the rest of us! It is called, "an opinion."

mack writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:02 PM
Sam T: No, Assemblies of God are whacko
AoG is mainstream??

Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaa!!!!!

People who speak in tongues like possessed morons are NOT mainstream. They're weirdo cult members.

Who should not be anywhere near the White House.
mack writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:00 PM
Kermit
I'd respond, but your post was incoherent.

Medved doesn't think atheists should be president. That's religious bigotry. Thus, Medved is a hypocrite. What you were responding to is beyond me. Take your meds, dude. Shhh, it'll be okay.
Sam T. writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Mack you speak of what you know NOT.
Hey Mack,

Palin is of the rather LARGE main stream American & world wide "Assemblies of God" demonination which is of the protestant Evangelical-Bible believing, Gospel professing Christian faith...

Your talking of NON-SENCE about snakes just proves you have NOT a clue about what you speak, and you are as IGNORANT as you sound when it comes to Evangelical-Bible believers and our Christian beliefs & FAITH...

I am a Baptist and my wife is Assemblies of God background, and BOTH are very much MAIN STREAM CHRISTIAN faiths here in the small towns & heartland of this country...

I think you might want to do a little Biblical & Christian religious research before you POP off at the mouth...

Who knows, you might learn a little something...
kermit writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 6:02 PM
Interesting Mack. . . .
. . . . let's judge you on YOUR theory (assuming you're an atheist, with your big defense of them)! I'd really have to wonder about someone who believes there was a BIG BANG and the world was created!!!! And then life occurred out of . . . .NOTHING!!!! Kaboom!!!! And then. . . and then . . . uh, well great grandpa APE turned into a human with the "missing link" still missing!!!!! Good heavens Mack. Call Intelligent Design, God, Creationism, etc, a "theory", but yours is just a theory as well. In fact, what evidence do you have that God does NOT exist???? None. And people who believe in God have all things as evidence that He DOES exist!!!! Get off your nasty little paranoid soapbox and realize that we are talking about politics here, and quit being the POSTER boy for the very topic of this article - RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY!!!!
Joe writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 5:44 PM
Bonasera Obama and the Godfather
Given Joe Biden's admission that Hillary would be a better pick, I wonder what Bonasera Obama will talk to the Godfather...I mean Bill Clinton about tomorrow?

Will Obama ask Bill Clinton to be his friend? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-UJtZwjRI
mack writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 5:36 PM
Medved the hypocrite
He said on his show yesterday, and I quote: "No one should be submitted to a theological test."

Does that apply to atheists, too, Mikey?

Hypocrite.
mack writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 5:34 PM
Palin has a screw loose
Speaking in tongues? Thinks snakes can talk?

Sorry, folks. Her elevator doesn't get to the top floor.

It's okay to explore a candidate's religion. If a candidate thinks a spaceship hiding behind a comet is coming to take him away, I want to know it. Likewise, if a candidate thinks some dead dude is coming to take her up to some heaven real real soon, I want to know it.
MO writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 4:00 PM
One-third believe Bible is from God
According to a Gallup poll in mid-2007, about one-third of 30% of Americans believe that the Bible is "the actual word of God, to be taken literally," and that about 47% believe it is "inspired by word of God." What this tells me is that many Americans still believe in the Bible. So, no, Gov. Palin is not some religious freak or extremist as I heard some suggest because she believes in the literal word of God, from creationism to abstinence. It's her detractors, who ridicule her and others they perceive as "clinging to guns and religion," who are in the minority. She need not apologize or be ashamed of her faith because the (silent?) majority of people in this country still believe there is a God and do respect the Bible, even though we may have different interpretations of a few passages in Scripture. Thankfully, her pastor has never been accused of hating or condemning America - unlike that other presidential candidate's pastor.
Akennas2 writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 3:04 PM
Pale Slimy Thing...
"Since the Mormons went to war with other Americans THREE TIMES (1838 in Missouri, 1846 in Illinois and 1857 in Utah) and that the Mormon Temple Oath included a vow to avenge the Death of Joseph Smith on the United States until the 1930's, I kind of wonder if they really think the constitution is this holy thing."

As usual, you are a balf faced liar, and you know it. What part of shot and burned out by armed mobs, then marked for extermination by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838; Joseph and Hyrum Smith murdered in 1844 and then the Mormons driven out in the dead of winter in 1846 with the tacit approval of Illinois Governor Thomas Ford; and the dispatch of the U.S. Army to essentially effect the "final solution" on the Mormons (egged on by Missouri again) in 1856-1857 do you not understand? No you fully understand, and only a cretin like yourself could turn acts of self-defense into going to war with other Americans. Reminds me of all the lies about Jews the Nazis ginned up to justify their actions, from yellow stars to Kristallnacht to Auschwitz.

JoeE/Eugene/White Salamander = Closet American Nazi
Akennas2 writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 2:43 PM
Pro...
Another dead horse. The ascendence of Sarah Palin means the end of Mike Huckabee's presidential chances. She is smarter, sharper, younger, a LOT better looking than Ol' Snaggletooth (has that man ever seen a dentist?), and has none of the baggage, despite the media frontal assault to try to pin something, ANYTHING on her.
Shelby writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Re: Akennas2, Mitt, Huck & future
Pro wrote:
"Mike Huckabee is nine years younger than Mitt Romney, and he can wait the cycles out for a longer period of time."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, huckaBEEN is a has been--any attempts at high office will be laughed off in the future. And right now he stands up for EBObama against Palin--ANYTHING FOR ATTENTION--huckaBEEN IS PATHETIC!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100010?f=h_popular

Hannity baselessly claimed Obama's "lipstick" comment was about Palin -- Huckabee, Wolfson disagree

HANNITY: And joining us tonight with reaction and analysis is former presidential candidate, Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee. Governor, before we get to the issue of me -- I'll respond to this later -- I want to -- you to get your reaction -- "[Y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; but it's still a pig."

HUCKABEE: It's an old expression, and I'm going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one. I do not think he was referring to Sarah Palin. He didn't reference her -- if you take the two sound bites together, it may sound like it, but I've been a guy at the podium many times, and you say something that's maybe a part of an old joke and then somebody ties it in. So, I'm going to have to cut him slack.
Now, what he said about you, I don't cut him any slack, because everybody knows, Sean, you're an Irish pussycat, and a gentleman, a scholar, and a breeder of fine horses.

HANNITY: All right, fair. Let me --

HUCKABEE: There's no way he should be attacking you, but you should be thrilled. We have a saying that says this in the South: Just be glad when you're getting kicked from the rear 'cause it means you're still out front. So, Sean, take -- take some comfort in that.
Pro writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 12:50 PM
Akennas2, Mitt, Huck & future
Akennas2 writes: Pro, Pale Newt, My2centsplus...
A pox on both of your houses!

Last time I checked, Sarah Palin was the GOP VP candidate, yet none of you can resist fighting the pro/anti-Mitt war. Kicking a very dead dog...'

ME: There is reason to question whether the dog is dead.

Mitt Romney's speech was a coarse blustering clumsy offering of so-called red meat phrases designed, I think, to elicit regret --in the most partisan of delegates-- that the GOP has selected the wrong nominee.

It was clearly discordant with the tone and theme of the rest of the convention as its exclusion from the highlight videos by Team McCain would suggest. Notice:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Convention/DayThree.htm

The article I copy & pasted quotes a Republican strategist as saying Mitt's best chances are for McCain to lose, then Romney can come back and compete in 2012. But, then of course, he will have to now face Palin, as well as Huck.

Mike Huckabee is nine years younger than Mitt Romney, and he can wait the cycles out for a longer period of time.

If McCain/Palin wins I am hoping that Huck will run for the U.S. Senate in 2010. That will keep him involved in national policy 'til at least 2016. He can then look at the political landscape and decide whether to seek reelection, or do someting else.

Mitt doesn't want a cabinet post, and neither does Huck. The cabinet is a political dead end. I still suspect Mitt may run for Orrin Hatch's seat whenever it becomes available.
Doug writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 10:34 AM
RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATION IS GOOD -PT 2
It is very intuitive, logical, and reasonable to explore a candidate's religion and how the candidate's religion might prospectively impact decision-making. In the case of Sarah Palin, her traditional Christian faith passes the acid test, and will not result in some type of Raelian, Scientologist, or Haley-Bop Comet Hoppers weird executive decisions.
Doug writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 10:33 AM
RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATION IS GOOD -PT 1
Our founding fathers didn’t want there to be any official religious test in the legal code. On the other hand, the population was well rooted in its Christian heritage at that time, and it was a reasonable expectation for people to behave (at the ballot box) in ways that were customary at that time period. Let’s not forget that children were reading Bibles as a part of their education and solid Biblical grounding was salted into almost every facet of culture. This resulted in a routine “religious qualifier” for not just politicians, but also for business relationships, friendships, and virtually every type of social engagement and relationship. Some today would even characterize this as a sort of –well... bigotry. However, more accurate terms would be “traditional values” or “a reasonable application of reason” by a reasonable people. This also explains why during the first two centuries of America’s history we witness almost exclusively Presidential candidates espousing mainstream Biblical Christian beliefs.

The wonderful result of what our forefathers established in the United States Constitution was that – as a voter – one may disqualify a candidate for any reason whatsoever. If you don’t like the color of the candidate’s shoes, the fact that he’s left-handed, or maybe that he beats his wife, you don’t have to pull the lever at the ballot box (even though your party prefers complete loyalty). Certainly the Constitution provides voters with the ability to deliberate over candidate selection with the use of a Christian voters’ guide, a Bible, or any variety of “litmus” tools. It also allows citizens the right to publicly pronounce a candidate’s religion as flawed, fraudulent, or corrupt.

Sam T. writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:17 AM
Again another NON-ISSUE...
Redstate,
You are right, lies, lies, & more lies...

Palin has done NOTHING improper or WRONG here.

Again another NON-ISSUE...

quote:

"Palin is accused of firing Walt Monegan for failing to dismiss a trooper who went through a messy divorce with Palin's sister before she was governor."

"In 2005, before Palin ran for office, the Palin family accused trooper Mike Wooten of drinking beer in his patrol car, illegally shooting a moose and firing a Taser at his 11-year-old stepson."

"Palin and her husband, Todd, also claimed Wooten threatened to kill Sarah Palin's father. Wooten, who hasn't returned numerous phone calls left by The Associated Press this week, was suspended over the allegations for five days in 2006 but still has his job."

END QUOTE...

Sounds like to me that Wooten SHOULD have been fired, & if Monegan would NOT do so, then Gov. Palin was doing her duty to remove Monegan and appoint someone else that WOULD do the right thing & their JOB in protecting the public & FIRE Wooten...

Again another NON-ISSUE...

JUST some more lies and SMEAR from the SLEAZY hypocritical LEFTIES & their accomplices in the MAIN STREAM MEDIA to use TABLOID TACTICS to try to de-rail Governor Palin & Senator McCain's campaign here..
Sam T. writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 8:08 AM
Lies/non-issues about Palin,Try AGAIN...
Not meaning to get off topic here, but you brought up the lie & non-issue of Palin's so-called "flirtation" with Alaskan Independence Party...

Here is another NON-ISSUE that the LEFT wants to try and make hay of Pro...

Quote:
There is a story about the Palins being part of some Alaskan secession movement, that was fabricated by disgruntled former political opponents & their supporters, that has been TOTALLY DISCREDITED YESTERDAY BY THE MSM in yesterday's news cycle...

Quote:

"Sarrah Palin has been a registered Republican since the early 80s."

"As, for proof of what some are saying is that some "unnamed source" allegedly “recalls” her attending a conference 14 years ago."

"AIP is an organization in Alaska - Sarah Palin addressed them in a video speech,and DID NOT endorse them."

End quote...

THEY were & ARE still part of her constituents as a mayor & governor.

THIS IS A NON-ISSUE...

THE LEFTIES & SMEAR MERCHANTS NEED TO TRY AGAIN.
Akennas2 writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 4:25 AM
My2centsplus...
I continue to be particularly disappointed in you - you bring tremendous discredit on the rest of us LDS.
Akennas2 writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 4:23 AM
Pro, Pale Newt, My2centsplus...
A pox on both of your houses!

Last time I checked, Sarah Palin was the GOP VP candidate, yet none of you can resist fighting the pro/anti-Mitt war. Kicking a very dead dog...

Besides, Mitt was interviewed on Fox during the GOP convention and gave the strong impression he was through with elective office, and didn't even seem warm to a Cabinet post. I don't blame him - with all the crap thrown around him this year by the antis and the pros, I have a really bad taste in my mouth, too.

Sarah Palin will be a remarkable Vice President, and I suspect she will be a phenomenal President some day as well.
Shelby writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 4:04 AM
Re: What now for Mitt?, pt. 3

Pro writes:
"Romney has far too much going for him to be dismissed. He is smart and talented and has enough resources to run for president forever."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice article from an extremley liberal paper which hates most Repubs.

But Boston.com is correct. Romney is beyond smart and talented and learned from this election. Next time he will be aware of the Huckie lowlife bigots--and he'll be prepared! A smart man like Mitt always learns.
Shelby writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 3:55 AM
This is huckaBEEN....

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.
They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
- T.S. Eliot
Pro writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 3:14 AM
What now for Mitt?, pt. 3
cont...

'Still, Mitt Romney is nothing if not dogged, and he has given no indication that he plans to leave the national stage. He is almost certainly done in Massachusetts, especially since he spent his last year as governor trashing the state on the campaign trail.

Eastern elites, he reminded the world again Wednesday night, are part of what's dragging down the country. That's a jarring position for a Harvard-educated man who has lived in Massachusetts almost all of his adult life, achieving wealth and fame in the process.

Romney's life and his political persona are almost impossible to reconcile, which is part of the reason he makes voters so uneasy. That isn't necessarily a problem time will fix.

Romney has far too much going for him to be dismissed. He is smart and talented and has enough resources to run for president forever.

So far, though, that money hasn't bought him much love.'

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/09/0 5/what_now_for_mitt/
Pro writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 3:12 AM
What now for Mitt?, pt. 2
cont...

'In retrospect, his role as a surrogate emphasized Romney's greatest weakness, his perceived insincerity. Romney struggles to connect with voters because they can't pin down what, beyond Republican bromides, he really stands for. Both McCain and Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas beat him during the primary season mainly on authenticity.

While I was not especially enamored of the Romney administration, Romney certainly had his successes as a governor. But if the reports about McCain's selection process are to be trusted, Romney was the third choice at best, behind Senator Joe Lieberman and, of course, Palin. What a curious list: Lieberman isn't even a Republican, while Palin has flirted with a political party - the Alaskan Independence Party - that advocates Alaskan secession. Really, America cannot have a vice president who would contemplate tearing the union asunder. Still, she got the nod over Mitt.

Palin, obviously, appears to be an instant problem for Romney going forward. If McCain wins, she's the sitting vice president when he leaves office. Even if McCain loses, she has a bright future in the party, if the rapturous response she got in St. Paul on Wednesday is any indication...'
Pro writes: Wednesday, September, 10, 2008 3:06 AM
What now for Mitt?
ADRIAN WALKER
What now for Mitt?
By Adrian Walker, Globe Columnist | September 5, 2008

'For a man who has rarely met an aspiration he couldn't achieve, these must be strange days indeed for Mitt Romney.

This has not been his year, and it sure hasn't been his week.

After his presidential campaign went colder than New Hampshire in February, Romney immediately embarked on his next campaign: making himself indispensable to John McCain. He was widely hailed as one of the most eager and aggressive of McCain's surrogates. If his campaign for president faltered, surely his bid for the second spot wouldn't.

Except, of course, that it did, when he was passed over for a governor of a state a fraction of the population of Massachusetts, a woman almost no American outside Alaska had heard of a week ago.

At one point this week, Romney was reduced to practicing his speech without knowing for sure whether he would get a chance to deliver it. And once he secured his slot, Romney was downright pathetic Wednesday night in his role as one of Governor Sarah Palin's warm-up acts. His attempts to attack "liberal Washington" made him sound as though he's slept through the past eight years. His Reaganesque faux-populism sounded even phonier than usual. To say the governor of Alaska blew him off the stage would be putting it mildly.

You have to wonder where Romney's political future lies now. One Republican consultant I talked to yesterday suggested that his best scenario is to hope that McCain loses. That way, he can move to Iowa the day after the election and start his 2012 presidential campaign.

That worked for John Edwards, right? Oh, wait - no, it didn't.

"He'd like you to think he's Ronald Reagan, a conservative with a smile, but Reagan had convictions," the consultant said. "He's a management consultant who thinks about getting from Point A to Point B."

Ouch...'
Yttrium writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:42 PM
2 cents
Is she a plastic Barbie? Well, I suppose you could make the case...please, go ahead.
gettingoldernwiser writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:24 PM
INTERESTING
For a nation to be founded basically for religious freedom, to find ourselves having such "discussions". Of course, many wars have been waged because of religion so entirely expected.
my2centsplus writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:22 PM
Ridge
wouldhave been an excellent pick. Thompson. Romney. Heck, I could even scrape down to Pawlenty. Oh, need a woman? Lets see... hummm a qualified female GOP. How about..
Liddy Dole?
Bay Bucannan?
Olympia Snow?
Kay Baily Hutchenson?

This was the panderto the bigoted right pick. Hey, here's a question. Why did Madame Palin suddenly promote the head of the AK National Guard, after he changed his story and suppor or Palin? Oh geez. Can't have something a little shady with the perfectapalin, now can we
my2centsplus writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:14 PM
Yttteeeei
McBarbie? I need to explain the plastic gal and her sidekick?

LOL. Double standards come home to roost!
miss vicky writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:52 PM
Power from God, not Organized Religion!
Comparing any non denominational Church to the hateful, bigoted Racist Rev.,Wright Church is offensive to those of us who proudly support a true, peaceful loving Christian Church! You don't know what Spirituality is all about! I could not listen to hate speech preaching in any Church a second time; certainly not for years, as the indiscreet Obama did. Ex Democrat
Yttrium writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:44 PM
Bigot, the 2bit word we all know well
No no, I think $.02 should continue. So why does he say, "McBarbie?" I think he should expand on that.

Is there someone in particular he had in mind for the VP pick? Haha. Ha.
miss vicky writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:23 PM
2CENTS AGAIN YOU'RE SHALLOW AND CONFUSED
A true, Christian would not sit in a Rev.,Wright Church for 20 years! Lady Sara is a free Spirit and a beautiful Soul but '2 cents worth,' it takes one to know one. So that explains your anti Palins church and her beliefs.! You can't know what you don't possess!
gooddebate writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 9:49 PM
debate technique
I think that there are a lot of posters who don't realize how their posts impact others. Everyone has a certain common sense meter that can spot weak arguments. In many cases we train ourselves to ignore the feeling when it's something that we agree with though.

Here is a weak argument:

The goat dude uses the interpret someones comments with the slant of my own view ("She has called Iraq God's plan"), then call them facts("These are facts, Mr. Medved"), and finally use this as an excuse for a wild conclusion about the person ("This woman is a terrifying freak").

This argument won't change anyone's mind. I think it's not meant to anyway. I think that these poorly debated view are posted out of the misguided idea that it might create some momentum to a point of view and cause a certain fear to contradict that view.

Lets tighten up the debating and come up with some view that can be supported.
my2centsplus writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:48 PM
I would sure like to hear
Madame Palins and Master McCain's views on mormonism. Palin belonged to an athletic organization of Christians, who would not let LDS pray with them, because they were not 'christian'. Then there's Mac's mom's comments....

Addds up to no vote for me. Obama is scarey. But I feel that if we are going for the worst two tickets in history, we ought to go for the Gold,and get this over with. I refuse to vote for Palin,and a lot of it is based on her 'faith'. She's just another do as I say, not as I do christian, in my booklett.Call me a bigot, but I think that role was taken over already.
kermit writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:39 PM
Xrules -
. . . . you can decide your vote by the toss of a coin or a candidate's hair color. Point is. . . it's a slippery slope judging BEFORE office based on religion.
my2centsplus writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:36 PM
What goes around
Comes around. I have no problem with Madame Palin ing asked some serious questions about her religion.

Its bout time I say. Purge the Party! Vote 3rd party or Obama!
redstate writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:13 PM
lies, lies and more lies
Some have asked why liberals will repeat things that have already been shown to be false. I maintain that they simply don't care about the truth. To them, truth is all relative. The only thing that matters right now is Obama's election. Truth be damaged.

Yes, they will try to paint Governor Palin as a religious nutcase, but I don't believe that is the real problem faced by McCain-Palin. The real problem is the cooked up "Troopergate" scandal. It is being investigated by Alaskan Democrats and supported by armies of Democrat lawyers. I'm sure the MSM is doing its best to "help" as well. The chief investigator has already promised an "October surprise" when the final report comes out on October 31.

Clearly, the contents of the final report are predictable. Republicans need to insure that the public knows well in advance who is working the investigation, who is writing the report and what the nonsense result will be. There can be no October surprise.
mack writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:40 PM
Medved is a bigot
kingsXrulz wrote: "Michael doesn't think that an atheist can get elected president because the mostly-religious electorate won't vote for an atheist, NOT because he (Medved) allegedly hates atheists."

No, Medved doesn't think atheists are qualified to be president because of who they are: atheists.

Medved is a bigot.
kermit writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:29 PM
Pathetic Salamander. . .
. . . you really are a hate-spewing, lying little man. And what's interesting - every time folks like you go on your Mormon-bashing rampage, people go to the LDS church website to investigate and discern for themselves. Keep it up Salamander!! You're just driving up the "hits" on the LDS church website. . .
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 6:37 PM
kermit
"Article 6 of the constitution [sic] of the United States, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
-- That's right (except for the need to capitalize the "C" in Constitution). And it should serve as a general rule IMHO for how us voters make our selections. HOWEVER, let us be PERFECTLY CLEAR here: that clause refers to government requirements for the holding of office. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the criteria used by those of us who are deciding who to vote for; it isn't even a suggestion directed at us. It is a directive to the federal government never to make such an official requirement, and that's all.

"I think Tea Party has made some very valid points."
-- I agree, and I said so in my response to her. What I don't like about her invoking Article VI, section 3, is that it comes off sounding like the invoking of a Commandment ("Thou shall not perform a religious test"). Exit polls may give some indication, but it's quite possible that a significant portion of the voting population makes their choice based on religion. It is their RIGHT to do so.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 6:15 PM
Leo Sequi
"Or what Palin does: demands libraries to be purged of [books] she does not approve?
-- This lie has been disproved. Why are you repeating it?

"Oh and how biblical is the doctrine of Palin's church that opponents of GWB go to hell? "
-- That evil people go to hell, you mean?

"It is all double standard."
-- That is a double lie, since you've now told it twice.

"if you have right to attack black liberation theology, everyone has the right to attack Palin's pentecostal lunacy and extremism. You can't have it both ways, you zealot."
-- 1) The part of black liberation theology that is attacked is the POLITICAL part, not the religious part. 2) Where in Sarah Palin's church are radical political statements EVER made? or ANY overtly political statements, for that matter? Give evidence. 3) Of WHAT person-group-organization do you think that I am a zealot? Name it.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 6:11 PM
Leo
"Your conservative "mind" is like revolving door. Attack the faith, beliefs, churches, preachers and dignity of liberals in all possible ways, demand that conservative nutjobs [sic] and their religious extremism and theocratic fantasies should be matter of "privacy".
-- Since this is addressed to ME, let me give you MY opinion. That way, you can stop lying sooner rather than later. I have NEVER engaged in ANY of the attacks you mention. Either prove me wrong or drop it.

"Hasn't it been the conservative evangelicals who have screamed how their faith influences everything and that they have a right to inject their faith into all realms of political life and policy and how have the right to demand people of other beliefs to subject themselves under the tyranny of your their religious dogma."
-- Wrong on several counts: 1) I have NO religious dogma. 2) "their faith influences everything" what? everything on Earth? Be specific. 3) "right to inject their faith into all realms of political life" means what? You probably thought that was a powerful statement when you wrote it, but it's actually a non sequiter. What "realms" and in what manner? 4) "demand people of other beliefs subject themselves"; again, either give examples or concede that you're only speaking of ideas (most of them yours) and NOT actions.

"Example: they demand that gays should be persecuted and oppressed in [society] because their [religious] dogma says so."
-- Really? If you have some recent government documents that show this, please share.

"or that women's reproductive choices and health should be subjected under religious scrutiny."
-- Morality DOES NOT require religious basis; however, it IS just as correct.
kermit writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 5:41 PM
Article 6 of the . . .
. . . constitution of the United States, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I think Tea Party has made some very valid points.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 5:40 PM
Leo The Lyin'
"[A] Holocaust [revisionist] like Medved is probably the last person on earth to talk about bigotry."
-- Well, if YOU are calling MEDVED a Holocaust revisionist, it becomes pretty clear then which side of the Zionist fence you stand on.

"Your conservative double standards are so tiresome: you have to right to crucify liberals for not being "christian enough", attack their faith or beliefs or even spread rumors they're muslim, but when your vice president candidate belongs to a weird cult, suddenly it is a "private matter"?"
-- 1) Let's temper our terms, okay? Not "crucify"; criticize. 2) Being critical of someone for not following the tenets of THEIR OWN RELIGION is not some heinous crime; it's pointing out hypocrisy or a lack of belief. 3) When has Obama's faith or beliefs EVER been attacked? 4) The few idiots spreading the rumor that Obama is a Muslim have NOTHING to do with the rest of us. 5) By your use of the term "weird cult", YOU are becoming that which you are railing against.

"Pot blames the kettle but in this case Medveds bigotry surpassed any critique directed at Palin's religious fanaticism- is Medved seriously suggesting that Rev. Wright was fair game (he himself attacked Wright) but the weirdness of Palin's church is off limits[?]"
-- Yes, because Wright makes POLITICAL statements within the confines of his church.

"Conservative double standards and lies."
-- No double standard whatsoever.

kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 5:15 PM
Tea Party
-- I'm okay with everything you wrote, except for the last sentence:

"May I remind everyone that the Constitution forbids religious tests."

-- With all due respect (and I mean it), that has NOTHING to do with the discussion we are having here. Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with the rest of your post, but please don't mangle the Constitution in the pursuit of making your point.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 5:06 PM
mack
"Then you must be a bigot, Michael. You don't think atheists can be president."

-- Michael doesn't think that an atheist can get elected president because the mostly-religious electorate won't vote for an atheist, NOT because he (Medved) allegedly hates atheists.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:55 PM
SteveL
I think it's wonderful how you take the time to show up and add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
eddie too writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:54 PM
Sorry Leo, wrong again.

I see that you have no evidence. Just another troll throwing shiit against the wall and hoping something will stick. Are you using the same computer Hazel uses? The two of you working in shifts maybe?
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:49 PM
matthew
"Finally! Now us gay Americans can get married without having scripture shoved down our throats."
-- It was shoved down your throat back before you could get married?

"What a wonderful election year this is turning out to be!"
-- Agreed. Especially if a certain proposition in CA is approved.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:43 PM
Hazel
"I mean, you guys brought religion into the political mix, now didn'tcha?"
-- We (whoever "we" are) did?

"Seems payback is always a beotch."
-- Or maybe it's just you.

"Palin's extremist ties to an extremist church/pastor easily trump Rev. Wright"
-- In your opinion. Spit on the floor and you'll see what it's worth. I wasn't aware that Palin's pastor has ever made a political statement inside the church. Could you please share some of them with us?

"and just looky at the polls in FL where the jewish community makes up a large part of the base!"
-- Latest Florida Poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling (Democratic group) on 9/6-7/08; 968 Likely Voters, margin of error +/- 3.1%:
McCain 50, Obama 45 (August: McCain 47, Obama 44)
Yeah, just look at the polls!

"Seems that Palin's ignorant anti-semitic, religious-ideologically skewed comments regarding jews has struck a chord."
-- Again, let's have the quotes. Don't make the allegations if you can't back them up.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:27 PM
JoeRP
"Palin's religion is her own business unless she is going to use convoluted ridiculous interpretations of bible versus to implement troop deployments and Middle East peace treaties."
-- The Bible versus What? (or Who?). You are interpreting this backwards. She has faith in the protection of believers in their actions, NOT that The Bible tells believers what actions to take.

"As long as Palin assures me that she will use our military to promote our national security, there won't be any problem."
-- Then pay close attention, because she IS going to do exactly that.
Leo writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:27 PM
eddie too
"mainstream"

The idea that opponents of Bush or his policies go to hell?

I have never said that i supported what Wright said. i just said that if Obama should be judged by his church so should Palin. And minority of Americans are evangelical religious extremists who believe in banning books, forcing others to make their family planning choices subject of government tyranny that is based on religious extremism.



eddie too writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:16 PM
So Leo, you have no evidence?

That is what I thought.
eddie too writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:14 PM
Leo, good analysis

except that we have no evidence that Palin or her church are outside of mainstream christianity. On the other hand, we have videotapes of what Obama's mentor preached. Only a small segment of the American left buy into Obama's church's teachings. Palin's religion is mainstream based on evidence available to date.

Your credibility would improve if you could provide evidence for your accusations.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:13 PM
D, part deux
"The Republicans have told us that we're in the middle-east to spread the ideals of American Democracy; in fact, our existing President believes that it's his God given destiny."
-- In fact, it's to allow the people there to exercise Democracy period, NOT "American Democracy" in-particular.

"McCain also has professed his Christian beliefs. He say's evils must be destroyed?."
-- Do you not want evils to be destroyed?

"In Christian literature, there is a fundamental ideal that GOD is associated with truth. So, if conservatives feel that they are agents of GOD, then they must be consistent with the facts, and American citizens should judge them by their facts."
-- After all of that, you end with a non sequiter? LAME.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:11 PM
Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
"In this upcoming Presidential election, each American must finally ask her/him self, "do I truly believe in American Democracy, or am I willing to forfeit a better future by clinging to the status quo?"
-- So, up until now American Democracy has been just a concept never put into practice?

"I say this because I strongly believe that this election is one that will be dividend by race not by class, and this sickens me."
-- What you just wrote sickens me. 1) If this election is 'divided' by race, which side will you blame for that? the side that says "we are all inclusive" and leaves it at that? or the side that couldn't STFU about it even if you put a gun to their head and threatened to blow their brains out if they didn't? 2) Are you saying that the election SHOULD be divided by class? Why?

"We say that we take pride in the constitution; however, I believe we fail, at times, to embrace its true meaning."
-- As YOU fail to spell it with a capital "C".

"It's hypocritical to judge other nations governmental practices, calling them divisive when their citizens have limited freedoms, when race has not been fully addressed on our own soil."
-- Wrong! 1) We have the right to call it like we see it; divisive IS divisive. 2) What are the current US government practices that are divisive?

"Is this not one of the reasons our young are dying for in the middle-east?"
-- Because of racial divisiveness? No.
Tea Party writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:10 PM
Sam
Thank you, my husband and I were raised in denominational churches, he was a conservative Lutheran and I, a low church episcopalian. We left our church's years ago, we attend a non denominational church that is a Full Gospel church. Our Pastor is out of the Assemblies tradition and unlike what many bigots believe or say, we don't jump the pews or swing from the chandeliers. My prayer language is like your wifes, a private communication between me and the Lord. My husband doesn't even hear me, nor I him. We have deeply held beliefs from our Biblical perspective, it's no body elses business how we practice our faith.
I know a lot of people are believing these are the "end times" but my husband and I believe
we've been in the end time's since the Resurrection. There are people who are forever looking for signs of the times, devouring prophecy, we believe that while the end of days will happen, it's not for us to know, we are to occupy and spread the Gospel and not worry about
when.
One of the reasons Huckabee turned us off as a candidate was his refusal to defend Mitt from the scurrilous attacks about his faith by media and the moderators at one debate. We realized that by attacking Mitts, ours would be next.
May I remind everyone that the Constitution forbids religious tests.

Leo writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 4:04 PM
kingXrulez
Oh, please...

Your conservative "mind" is like revolving door. Attack the faith, beliefs, churches, preachers and dignity of liberals in all possible ways, demand that conservative nutjobs and their religious extremism and theocratic fantasies should be matter of "privacy".

Hasn't it been the conservative evangelicals who have screamed how their faith influences everything and that they have a right to inject their faith into all realms of political life and policy and how have the right to demand people of other beliefs to subject themselves under the tyranny of your their religious dogma.

Example: they demand that gays should be persecuted and oppressed in soceity because their reiligious dogma says so. or that women's reproductive choices and health should be subjected under religious scrutiny. Or what Palin does: demands libraries to be purged of boods she does not approve?

Oh and how biblical is the doctrine of Palin's church that opponents of GWB go to hell?

It is all double standard. if you have right to attack black liberation theology, everyone has the right to attack Palin's pentecostal lunacy and extremism. You can't have it both ways, you zealot.



mack writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:59 PM
Medved is a bigot
Medved wrote: In other words, the angry response to her stems not from what she says or what she does, but who she is. There’s a word for that sort of response. It’s called “bigotry.”

Then you must be a bigot, Michael. You don't think atheists can be president. You're basing that not on what a particular atheist candidate might have said or done, but on WHO THEY ARE. The fact that you say ALL atheists are disqualified, instead of judging their INDIVIDUAL actions, indicates you don't care what they've DONE or SAID.

You're a bigot, Michael.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:39 PM
animal grill
"Suddenly, faith is off limits. After months of attacking the theology at Obama's church, you want to lay off. Do conservatives have a single principle?"

-- Sure. Here's one: faith is off-limits, as it has (or should have) been from Day 1. Who attacked the theology of Obama's church? Who? It was the political rhetoric that was criticized, not the religious rhetoric. Now that may be confusing since Black Liberation Theology combines the two, but know that the tenets of Trinity United's Christian teachings have not been attacked in the political realm; it is the political views expressed alongside the faith instruction that has -- and rightly so. There's no change in principle, no double-standard. It might require some sophistication and the ability to make subtle distinctions in order to discern the reality of how things are.
Leo writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:34 PM
Holocaust revisonist
like Medved is probably the last person on earth to talk about bigotry...

Your conservative double standards are so tiresome: you have to right to crucify liberals for not being "christian enough", attack their faith or beliefs or even spread rumors they're muslim, but when your vice president candidate belongs to a weird cult, suddenly it is a "private matter"?

Medved naturally supports "Pray away the gay" fraud, because he supports all form of spiritual or psychological violence against gays, favors oppression and discrimination of gays on all areas of life. he also enjoys ridiculing the memory of dead gays even to the point of making fun of the eulogies of their loved ones.

Pot blames the kettle but in this case Medveds bigotry surpassed any critique directed at Palin's religious fanaticism- is Medved seriously suggesting that Rev. Wright was fair game (he himself attacked Wright) but the weirdness of Palin's church is off limits....

Conservative double standards and lies.


K.G. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:31 PM
Obama's Nutty Economic Justice Plan...
...that he proposed on O'Reilly last night was far more frightening than anybody's religious beliefs. Increase Taxes on Sub-Chapter S corps, SS taxes, tax cap gains taxes and shoot the death tax through the roof in order to help "a waitress who works for min wage plus tips..."?

As if you can simply tax the rich and give it to the poor and you won't hurt the economy and thus the poor in the long run? O'Reilly was trying to set him straight, but Obama would have none of it.

His "unnuanced understanding" of macro economics should have us all shaking in our boots. Obama should have gone to Harvard business school rather than Wright's church for his economic education.

You might make the case that Obama is just lying for votes. My impression: He really doesn't know better.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:28 PM
hambones
"I have to disagree with Michael on one point, attending a virulently anti-American and racist church. Those are political - not theological ideas and they should be brought to the public's attention."

-- Your position is EXACTLY THE SAME as Medved's. You don't disagree with him AT ALL. That's a good thing, but DO try to pay attention.
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:21 PM
Little Boy, Roy
"She is so inexperienced that she just hasn't had time to get around to her religous agenda, yet."

-- You're so inexperienced that you just haven't had time to get around to learning how to spell "religious" yet. [Other drivel, such as his scumbag prediction that Palin's daughter will be raped will receive no analysis. What a piece of filth!]
kingsXrulz writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:13 PM
Goat Licker
"she has pushed Creationism as a science in public schools"

-- Does lying make you feel like a man? or is it just feeling yourself that does that?

"And her minister is far worse -- certainly worse than anything Jerimiah Wright has done or said."

-- Cite some examples, will you? Her minister hates America? believes that we are a racist nation, does he? takes the Lord's name in vain, has he?
kermit writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 3:10 PM
You hit it on the head. . .
. . . KG - I am less concerned with WHO or HOW someone prays, and more concerned with HOW their religious beliefs will influence their governing.
K.G. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 2:29 PM
Mitt Was Forced to Give His...
...Faith in America speech. Perhaps Palin will have to do the same thing before she's done: Go on record as to exactly how her faith would affect her governing.
K.G. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 2:23 PM
Matt: No, Religion's On the Table
JoeRP's plea for "measured concern" is noble, but cool heads prevailing re: religion will probably not happen any time soon.

Here's how my cool head measures the current religious climate:

(1) Jeremiah Wright: Classic black liberation theology, co-opting a few Biblical citations (PARTS of the Sermon on the Mount) to justify going after "exploiting Europeans" in favor of "exploited Africans" and other people of color.

This is not a religion per se, but a church-sponsored political movement to combat the "white man's greed ruling a world in need."

(2) Latter-day Saints: Believe the U.S. Constitution was inspired of God as a tool to protect our God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An LDS Article of Faith reads: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almight God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

LDS draw the line if religious a practice were contrary to the laws of the land.

There is no reason to believe a Mormon would govern according to end times escatology.

(3) Some evangelicals and fundamentalists: There are concerns, I believe, that people with passionate end time beliefs might govern pro-actively with Bible prophecy in mind.

It's not bigotry to employ "measured concern." How people view the Trinity is irrevelant to governing; how leaders might put their religious beliefs into the practice of governing is a legit concern for voters.

Obama's "religion" leads him to conclusions with which I do not agree. Would Palin's? Right now I am a Palin supporter, but I would like to know where her religious beliefs would lead her, especially in foreign policy.

It's a reasonable question to ask.

SteveL writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 2:19 PM
What if Sarah were Muslim?
Suppose McCain had picked as his running mate, a fundamentalist Muslim woman named Sara Mohammed al-Paleen. She's pro-gun, pro-life, wants to lower taxes, gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome, the whole nine yards. But she's a fundamentalist Muslim who is going to be praying from the Quran and giving speeches with "Allah be praised!" in them.

Would that make you less inclined to support the McCain/al-Paleen ticket, Mr. Medved?
Jean writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 2:17 PM
Hmmm
Seems to me, that if Jesus came to earth right now, he'd sit down with the children, the crippled, the sick, the dying, and those most in need of his guidance.

Since it seems some here feel they are the experts already on what God feels, they need not worry. He probably won't be knocking on your door.

FYI. The Catholic faith says a creed in mass. Part of that creed is to pray for the day when all faiths come under the teachings of the faith, once again, and acknowledge the Catholic faith, as the one true faith.

Think of that, and think of Biden, and Pelosi. Then think how they twist and mangle Catholic teachings and beliefs, on abortion, and being honest.
RecknHavic writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 2:07 PM
Why They Don't Understand
The left's (democrat leaders and press) lack of understandin is actually to be expected.

"The man without the Spirit does not except the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Cor 2:14
Porsche Mom writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 1:58 PM
Free speech
Liberals believe in free speech, but only if the speech is based on liberal ideas.
matthew writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 1:51 PM
Religion off the table!
Finally! Now us gay Americans can get married without having scripture shoved down our throats.

What a wonderful election year this is turning out to be!

Keep up the good work Republicans.
Mr. B writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 1:47 PM
Intolerance of the left
To White Slanderer and other leftist bigots.

Whenever a people chooses to follow a higher standard, enemies of those people immediately try to hold those same people to a standard of perfection not even expected by the adherents of that faith.

Should one fall short of the standard they are trying to reach the left immediately pounces on them with charges of hypocrisy and deception. As if every human error demonstrates the falsehood of our chosen creed.

I, for one, am glad that my fate is not judged by my enemies against their supposed standard of perfection, but rather by a merciful God.
Mary Jo writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:56 PM
hey MSM: Quit making fun of my friends
I am a Papist.
I have many evangelical friends and Catholic charismatic friends whom I love and respect.
The "MSM" is no longer mainstream if it ridicules the deepest beliefs of many Americans.
If they don't know how prevalent "speaking in tongues" is, they need to get out more.
We all agree on McCain-Palin - we are ready to support and to quote JSM "fight" with them.
Thank you, Michael, for your insight into this issue.
ConservativeJoe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:37 PM
Measured concern is not bigotry
“Of course, a careful examination of any church or any denomination would find plenty of potentially embarrassing or offensive details.”

That’s pretty much the sentence Medved is trying to rest his whole article on.

It is true to varying degrees. But has its limits with regard to certain “faiths”.

Pastor Hagee, for example, is a bigot whose group lobbies politicians on foreign policy matters in an unhelpful manner. And seeing as how Lieberman compared this bigot to Moses, I would never vote for Lieberman on a national ticket.

Palin’s religion is her own business unless she is going to use convoluted ridiculous interpretations of bible versus to implement troop deployments and Middle East peace treaties.

As long as Palin assures me that she will use our military to promote our national security, there won’t be any problem.

But the Assembly of God church to which she belongs has brought scrutiny on itself in ways other denominations have not. And so she will have to assure me she is not in the tank with these people. In order to bring about the rapture, The Dome of the Rock must be destroyed and the third temple built. The government of Israel must occupy certain borders regardless of whether or not this means destroying other people's homes.

Peace treaties between Arabs and Jews that prevent this are the work of the antichrist.

Seems to me the person who e-mailed Medved is showing measured concern.

The Washington Times is hardly a liberal publication:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangeli cal-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/
K.G. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:33 PM
People With Brains
Do not engage the White Salamander. He suffers from a deadly form of MDS: Mormon
Derangement Syndrome.

Ironic, isn't it, in terms of the attacks on Palin?

The fair, straight-thinking evangelicals at Evangelicals for Mitt, Article6 and Hugh Hewitt were dead right. If YOU go after someone for their religious beliefs, they will be coming for YOU next.

And please, no not compare Mitt's or Sarah's faiths with Jeremiah Wright and black lib theology, which, as we all know, is POLITICAL and racist at its core.

ConservativeJoe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:30 PM
Measured concern in not bigotry
“Of course, a careful examination of any church or any denomination would find plenty of potentially embarrassing or offensive details.”

That’s pretty much the sentence Medved is trying to rest his whole article on.

It is true to varying degrees. But has its limits with regard to certain “faiths”.

Pastor Hagee, for example, is a bigot whose group lobbies politicians on foreign policy matters in an unhelpful manner. And seeing as how Lieberman compared this bigot to Moses, I would never vote for Lieberman on a national ticket.

Palin’s religion is her own business unless she is going to use convoluted ridiculous interpretations of bible versus to implement troop deployments and Middle East peace treaties.

As long as Palin assures me that she will use our military to promote our national security, there won’t be any problem.

But the Assembly of God church to which she belongs has brought scrutiny on itself in ways other denominations have not. And so she will have to assure me she is not in the tank with these people. In order to bring about the rapture, The Dome of the Rock must be destroyed and the third temple built. The government of Israel must occupy certain borders regardless of whether or not this means destroying other people's homes.

Peace treaties between Arabs and Jews that prevent this are the work of the antichrist.

Seems to me the person who e-mailed Medved is showing measured concern.


aranha writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:27 PM
Utah Democrats
The Utah Democrat Party has been running ads in Utah claiming that Sarah Palin's church is anti-Mormon. It goes right to what Mr. Medved is saying. They're trying to use the beliefs of our various religions to turn us against each other, all in an effort to elect Barack Obama.
Jed writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:24 PM
Anonymous
Not all tolerance is necessarily wise. I have multiple, impersonal problems with gay people and have not found a way to reconcile their acts with any honest faith. Considering that God destroyed civilizations that built on that foundation (Sodom and Gomorrah) I just don't see it. I suppose that those who cannot abide by a higher law (marriage between a husband and a wife) will find a lesser construct to live by.

There are gay people who I admire, but they are those who do not put their sexual identities first. They leave that part of themselves in the closet. (There are also straight people who I do not admire for the same reason--they put their sexual identities first and have trouble restraining or tempering their passions. I am very much against adultery and pre-marital sex.)

I do believe that God's mercy is infinite, and that he can save gay people who repent and other sinners, too. It is really a matter of repairing or healing the soul first, not the body, though in the end, the two are inseparably connected, except in death. I do not believe God will save any gay person IN their sins, no less others. Repentance is necessary, and that typically requires prayer.
Pennsylvania Voter writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:21 PM
People, People...
Don't get excited about all of the attacks on Gov. Palin. This is vintage Saul Alinsky left wig attack methods. The attacks are intended and calculated to be personal and difficult to respond to. It's kind of like the question "So, have your stopped beating your wife?" There are only two possible answers, both of which make the responder look bad. It's a perception game played by trial lawyers and the left wing.

It is done to manipulate your thinking about a candidate and it can be quite clever and effective in a very evil way.

What we need is a book of anti Saul Alinsky principles.

No wait, we already have one, called the Bible.





Jed writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:19 PM
Jed Merrill
The mark of a well educated man is tolerance. Not blind tolerance, but tolerance based in understanding.

Hugh Hewitt is a great man. He is able to look at world religions and see both their strengths and apparent foibles and still see greatness.

Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and Evangelicals have all done good in this world, and I certainly hope that is what God judges by, because if salvation comes down to having one perfect doctrine in this life, no more than one religion's practitioners can conceivably be saved.

That is not to say that some are more right than others or are not more closely associated with God's intent than others, but we would all do well to be kinder and gentler in this war of faith.

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, said that true religion was visiting the sick, the widow, and the orphan. I can believe that. Can you?



jtb-in-texas writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:05 PM
The Democrat Party today is truly the
legitimate heir of the Confederacy...

They select people based on race, gender, or religious beliefs--and attack those who use their Constitutional Right to disagree...

The Democrats are indeed still the party of Jefferson Davis...
Steve writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 12:03 PM
Animalgirl-You've Got To Be Kidding Me
Conservatives were NOT attacking the theology of Obama's church. They were attacking the radical, anti-American rhetoric that Rev. Wright preached to Barry for 20 years. Get it straight.
Steve writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:58 AM
White Salamander, Can You Read?
White Salamander for some reason decided to use a wonderful article on religious tolerance and politics to show his own intolerance for religion, namely Mormonism, so i'd like to ask him a few questions:

Did you read this article, or did you just see the words Romney and Mormon, and decide that it was time to faith bash, despite the ridiculous hypocricy of doing so here?

Do you not understand that every faith has its own peculiarities, including the one to which you addhere, (assuming you are not athiest) that there is no religious test for office, and that your opinion of Mormon historical events that occurred 150 + years ago are biased?

Do you understand that the same religious intolerance you are dishing out to Mormons can, and will be used against Evangelicals in this election, that you are somewhat to blame, and that it is dividing the Republican party?

I have had it with religious intolerance in politics, especially, and mostly on the right. The attacks on Romney didn't come from the left, they came from the DEEP right. Medved hit it right on the head in this article.

Religious intolerance came at Romney first and foremost from certain evangelical christians on the far right, who are intolerant of other religious. Please take note- the world, and our party will be much better off if we practice religious tolerance. Now that it's coming back at you, hopefully you will take note for next time.
Willie 860 writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:56 AM
Bigotry
To the left its only extreme when it does not fit into their very narrow view of the world. The left continues preach that they are all about diversity when the truth is that they are all the left and thats all.
D writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 11:25 AM
Be Consistent
In this upcoming Presidential election, each American must finally ask her/him self “do I truly believe in American Democracy, or am I willing to forfeit a better future by clinging to the status quo”? I say this because I strongly believe that this election is one that will be dividend by race not by class, and this sickens me. We say that we take pride in the constitution; however, I believe we fail, at times, to embrace its true meaning. It’s hypocritical to judge other nations governmental practices, calling them divisive when their citizens have limited freedoms, when race has not been fully addressed on our own soil. Is this not one of the reasons our young are dying for in the middle-east? The Republicans’ have told us that we’re in the middle-east to spread the ideals of American Democracy; in fact, our existing President believes that it’s his God given destiny. Mc Cain also has professed his Christian beliefs. He say’s “evils must be destroyed”. In Christian literature, there is a fundamental ideal that GOD is associated with truth. So, if conservatives feel that they are agents of GOD, then they must be consistent with the facts, and American citizens should judge them by their facts.
BG writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:51 AM
Hewitt
Hugh was right. If the left (and some of the Evangelicals) could attack Romney on his religion, attacks on the Evangelicals would be next.

Get ready for questions like: "Have you ever spoken in tongues", "Do you think Mormon's are Christians", "Do you consider the Pope to be the anti Christ" or are Catholic saved (ie. Christian)"? The list is endless.

I like Sarah Palin. I am glad she is on the ticket. I can even put up with previous anti-Mormon positions based on misunderstanding,or a lack of accurate information (quite common). However, Evangelicals are going to start getting the same garbage the Mormon's got for the last year.

The strategy will be to hold Palin accountable for every strange thing someone thought her Pastor/Church may have said. They will also twist and distort whatever was said and claim it is the truth.





R. Scott R. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:45 AM
Assaults on Mormonism
white Salamander writes, "the early history of the Latter Day Saint cult have been documented, and no other logical conclusion can be drawn OTHER than Joseph Smith was a con man who used religion as a get-rich quick scheme."

First, it is offensive to refer to a world religion as a cult.

Second, of course there is another conclusion that can be drawn; that is, that Joseph Smith was sincere. There are millions of members who believe he was. Even if you don't believe he was a prophet, you could be respectful to those who do.

Early documents by his enemies are most likely biased against him.

Finally, to quote Mr. Medved, "Every religion seems weird to those who haven’t been raised in that tradition."

Sandyp99 writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:41 AM
Isn't it ironic...
that those who genuflect the lowest at the altar of tolerance are the ones who are the least tolerant of those with Christian beliefs?

If you're going to preach tolerance, you should be tolerant of everyone... even those you don't agree with.

It's very clear that those who are the most opposed to Christianity's claims are the ones who feel the most threatened by them.

Methinks they doth protest too much. See, Christians read books too! :D
animalgirl writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:41 AM
Disgusting
Suddenly, faith is off limits. After months of attacking the theology at Obama's church, you want to lay off.

Do conservatives have a single principle?
Brianbnc writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 10:23 AM
Andrew
You conveniently left out the part about judgment. Franklin also knew that his actions here on earth would be presented to God and he would be judged - regardless if he believed God had a direct role in his life.

There are very few Democrats that believe this fact. If they did, they won't vote for abortion and taxation.

Is it God's work to defeat murderous dictators and religions? Is it God's work to supply everyone with heat for the winter? Is it God's work to fight against socialism when it's proven without a doubt that as people are taxed less they give more to charity and church.. and proven that US charities provide more aid to the world than all Governments?

You and I won't judge these questions. But Heavenly Father will.

If they Dems want to make this a religious election, they are going to lose by a landslide... and real conservatives like me and my wife won't be voting for McShame.
Carole writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 9:57 AM
Thoughts
Reckn: Yes. Somehow the post got messed up. ;->

Goat: You missed the point of the Medved's piece completley. Let me reiterate; to those not in a particular faith, those looking from without find many things strange. And those that judge people on the basis of who they are, are bigots.

Which begs the question; The democrat left that is now smearing Palin for everything they can dream up; is this an example of the much vaunted tolerance and compassion they supposedly 'own' as a party?

Selective 'tolerance' is still bigotry, guys.
RecknHavic writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 9:44 AM
Uh..
..is it just me, or does anyone else think there's some bizarre sentences in this post? Improper pasting? Hacked post?

Just wonderin..
Sam T. writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 9:41 AM
Palin's faith is a plus...
THIS IS RICH...

There are people ot there that think it is BAD that a person like Sarah Palin would want to pray?

Pray for:
1. guidance in our nation's & military leaders in a time of War?

2. the ability for Alaskans (& Americans), to reap the benifits of our GOD given resources through the buliding of a new pipeline & thanking GOD for the gift of the resources to do so?

3. personal peace & a loving spiritual healing of homosexuals as well as others who are living life styles outside of GOD's wishs & commandments, and in accordance with God's word?

4. personal guidance wisdom and leadership in public service to our citizenry of Alaska & this country?

5. to pray for the eternal salvation of those who are not believers?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? ? ?

I am a baptist and do not speak or pray in tounges, but my wife is and has been raised up & found her spiritual salvation in the Assemblies of God faith, and DOES pray in tounges..

It does NOT bother or scare me, in that it is something that occurs between her & GOD through the grace & spirit of Jesus Christ our savior, when she is in the most devout & deepest state of prayer & communing in prayer with God..

Those who are NOT Christian, or do NOT have a strong Christian faith may NOT understand this state of deep prayer and communing with the Lord...

Those who are trying to besmurch Palin in some way because of her Christian believes and her membership in a rather LARGE mainstream Christian demonination is just another SMEAR JOB from the left & the anti-evangelical Christian media...

Palin's faith is a plus,
NOT a negative...
Andrew writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 9:18 AM
Ron
You may thank Ben Franklin, but by today's standards he would not fit into the Republican party's view of orthodoxy. He was a deist - do you even know what that means? It is the belief that there is a god, but that he plays no part in the daily occurrences on earth and is indifferent to events here. Seems rather sensible to me - at least a lot more sensible than believing that a gas pipeline is somehow god's will...
hambones writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:56 AM
bigotry
I think Hugh called this one back when he wrote his book about Romney. If it becomes safe to attack one person's faith, then it will soon be safe to attack any other faith.

I have to disagree with Michael on one point, attending a virulently anti-American and racist church. Those are political - not theological ideas and they should be brought to the public's attention. Belief about the rapture, speaking in tongues, transupbstantiation, or the nature of God are the types of issues that have no bearing on an individuals policy positions or ability to govern.
Hugheser writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:55 AM
OOOPS!
Ana Mus please forgive me!! I meant to address My Pet Goat.
Ron writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:52 AM
A lot of fundamentalist Christian
I am pleased that we live in a country that has two main parties that reflect the Judeo-Christian believes of our forefathers. After two hundred and thirty years, we are having a wide-open Presidential election with a Baptist, a Catholic, and two other "Born-again" Church-going, Bible-believing Christians, all who are psrticipants in this election. In the past, we have had an outstanding Jewish Vice Presidental candidate, who this year not only adressed the other parties convention but could very well have been on that party's ticket.

We have a diversity of race, gender, and religion in all of our country's elections, local, state, and national. Thank you, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, et.al.
hambones writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:49 AM
sgt relic
I think its safe to say that Alaska has not had an immigration problem since the days of the gold rush. There's been no need for her to delve into the issue. As Joe said, for now her public position will no doubt align with Sen. McCain.
Ana Mus writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:34 AM
Hugheser, you obviously did NOT
understand what I wrote. You might want to re-read it.
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:25 AM
All Sarah Palin rumors debunked
This is an excellent site for debunking Sarah Palin lies from the left:

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors /

And try this link to watch the Democratic savior of the world, the man who will heal our pain. You will agree, it is simply marvelous. Enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/the-daily-shows-ob ama-bio_n_122350.html
Hugheser writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:24 AM
The ignorant meter is pegged out!!
The people that write about evolution as a fact like Roy and Ana Mus must think ignorance is a virtue. It's not true. There is no evidence that supports it. The reason you don't want to believe in creationisim is then you would have to give an account of your life to a Creator. If you believe in evolution then you can believe that when you die then that's it. Game over. Sara Palin and her church believe things that are in the bible. The bible gives clear direction that we should pray for all things and all men. Should we pray that we should win in Iraq? Yes!! The bible teaches that God wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. King David (he's in the bible) prayed to win battles all the time. The word rapture does not appear in the bible so she can't be a "Rapturtists" what ever that is. Christians do believe that Christ will return for His church. Christians do believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and there is no other way to heaven. So they believe that others (Jews&Gentiles) need to hear that message. It is out of love.
Class, thank you for attending our Christianity 101 class today I hope it helped curtail some of your ignorance.
Wendy writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:20 AM
Do not be bullied
Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement;
it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously
to advance their beliefs.

Sarah Pal in is being scrutinized and mocked for her religious belief. She prayed once in her church that God is commander in chief and that the military is doing a task of God and she prayed for the task to be the plan of God. Nothing outside the mainstream religious

Sarah I guess one time believed that it was God's will to accomplish a pipe line. It would be one of her major accomplishments in Alaska. Bring energy to the USA which means development and jobs could be God's will and a prayer for the common good. Secular America will tout everything for the children but the actual delivery of that very thing to bring posterity is outside the common good?

I hope she is not bullied and can bring light and His love through her prayers and to us.
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 8:14 AM
The only "true" faith for liberals...
You will agree, he is a beacon of hope and the savior of hummanity. Enjoy.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/29/video-the-lyin-king/
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:59 AM
Even Christopher Hitchens, who thinks
any religious belief is a form of mental illness, notes that the Democrats are hardly in a position to attack Sarah Palin on her sincere views given Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's hypocritical positions.

As Hitchens wrote:

"She has inarticulately said that her gubernatorial work would be hampered "if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with god." Her local shout-and-holler tabernacle apparently believes that Jews can be converted to Jesus and homosexuals can be "cured." I cannot wait to see Obama and Biden explain how this isn't the case or how it's much worse than, and quite different from, Obama's own raving and ranting pastor in Chicago or Biden's lifelong allegiance to the most anti-"choice" church on the planet. The difference, if there is one, is that Palin is probably sincere whereas the Democratic team is almost certainly hypocritical." http://www.slate.com/id/2199568/
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:52 AM
Sgt Relic
I do not know Sarah Palin's immigration postition either, but that does not mean she doesn't have one. I assume as Veep she is going to have to support McCain's position (which you know). I am pretty sure that is a question which she will be asked.

I know this much, Obama's position is worse than McCain's. McCain at least can be influenced. I want to see illegal immigration ended. I do not necessarily want to force all illegals home. We should decide who stays on a case by case basis with the emphasis on having jobs, speaking English, assimilation and eventually citizenship.
Perceptor II writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:49 AM
This is very much a problem
This was the problem with Biden's attack on Palin yesterday. He lied in saying that Palin doesn't believe in climate change (she's expressed skepticism that it's *entirely* caused by human actions, but she formed the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet and Alaska Climate Change Strategy, so she's apparently dedicated to reducing the human component to climate change). And then he mentioned nebulous "other" beliefs that he thought extremist. And what would these beliefs be, Senator Biden?

It was as if Biden was whispering to his supporters, "Look out for this one. She's one of those crazy Christians!"

So many of the lies out there are centered around her religious beliefs, or rather a very distorted version. She isn't pushing creationism in public schools, not even to be taught alongside evolution. She hasn't tried to ban books. She isn't anti-Semitic, and in fact Israelis who've met with her seem to really like her. She actually wants condom use to be taught in public schools. But the facts are unimportant when the task is to take down "one of those crazy Christians".

Face it, Democrats. You've got a real problem with bigotry in your own party.
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:48 AM
Roy you are wrong
When asked in the Alaska Governor debates what is next for Alaska if Roe v. Wade is overturned, she said that decision was up to Alaskans to decide and the legislature to pass laws. A very reasoned, democratic, and federalist answer.

As far as creationism goes, Palin only said if a student raises it the debate can take place in the class room. She has not supported teaching creationism in class rooms (guess what Sarah Palin's father was a science teacher).

My point is don't believe everything you read. Because believe it or not, the MSM has not been exactly objective and fair when it comes to Sarah Palin.
Joe writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:41 AM
My Dem friends are going nuts
With crazy Sarah Palin stories. They are running around like scared chickens cluckng every rumor fed to them by the media this week.
Sgt Relic writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:38 AM
Mr. Medved
I know it is off topic but I can find no place on Townhall to post it, since the illegal immigration issue seems to have disappeared.

Palin has no position on immigration. Isn't this strange to anyone else?

Is Townhall just committed to carrying water for the GOP ticket or are we still not afraid to raise the sticky issues?
PeskyFacts writes: Tuesday, September, 09, 2008 7:00 AM
Moral? Enlightened? If so, be afraid
She is so inexperienced that she just hasn't had time to get around to her religous agenda, yet. However, if she becomes vice president here are some things to look forward to from Sarah:
- SARAH PALIN WOULD FORCE OWN DAUGHTER TO BEAR RAPIST'S CHILD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
- Sarah Palin- Her religious views on Iraq war, pipelines, end of world and same-sex marriage: http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch /archive/2008/09/05/sarah-palin-her-religion.aspx
- Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8 243554c.html
- Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God':
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_i raq_war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs)
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 9 Minutes 36 Seconds Ago
Last updated 15 Minutes 41 Seconds Ago
Last updated 16 Minutes 12 Seconds Ago
Last updated 16 Minutes 54 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 21 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

the'll cut and run, Neo Con,
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By dreadnaught
Grace
 Re: Will Obama crash the crashers?
  By Ronna
SS-"Christians"...!!!
 Re: This Day in American History...
  By NeoConScum
Munck, you confirmed my
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Ronna
Ronna
 Re: Will Obama crash the crashers?
  By grace
oh, and btw,
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
melwhoore at wits end
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By dreadnaught
Hengler wrote his thesis at U of BR
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By grace
'shrieker
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
Ronna 1:52 PM
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Bob Munck
NeoConScum
 Re: Shocker: Palin #1
  By Seadog
Jillian
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Molotov
JAG CA...That Durn Nobel Pissss Prize
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By NeoConScum
MellorSJ2
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
wack a- doo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By dreadnaught
LEE WRITES
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By David
Warmers is the word... Patches is right
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By JAG CA
Obama admits to being Muslim
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Ronna
as for the cretin:
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By dreadnaught
StoicPat:Ain't It Typical of MSM-Lapdawg
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By NeoConScum

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll