McCain VP choice

[Pangloss]

Okay, seems logical enough. I'm sure many partisans are partisans because they feel they have to offset partisans on the other side. It's probably a very common line amongst partisans.

 

Kind of a mutual-assured-destruction approach to politics.

[Mr Skeptic]

How is my asking questions a bad thing? You don't shut up people who disagree with you, you use your knowledge and intelligence to win them over, or, you listen to them so you can change your own mind.

 

He does?

 

It's been funny to watch both sides now have to attack the things they praised, or praise the things they attacked, just a short while ago.

 

A dog eat dog and make friends with the ones you can't eat world?

[ParanoiA]

Well, by the criteria they are setting "Palin has executive experience" and "Obama and Biden don't," I'd simply like to point out that being consistent with that logic, McCain ALSO doens't have executive experience.

 

Well I did point that out in post #87 as well as the one you replied to. I know I'm a long winded prick, but I did say that I'm beginning to think Palin has the only qualified prerequisite really for the Presidency of the 4, as little experience as it may be. I'm currently mulling over how much credit to give legislators vs executives.

 

In any case, Biden would be smart to concentrate on the issues and leave her experience and shallow education alone. She is so wrong on the issues, it doesn't matter if she ran a fortune 100 company for 8 years, was a general for 10 and governed New York for 10. She is still wrong.

 

Very true. She's actually the Bush #2 they want to make McCain, when you think about it. It's that same right wing religio angle.

Edited September 4, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

He does?

I don't understand what you are asking here.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Very true. She's actually the Bush #2 they want to make McCain, when you think about it. It's that same right wing religio angle.

Interestingly, McCain is more agreeable to the conservative christian than Bush was. When Bush ran, he at least pushed back and tempered his speeches on this issue to some extent. McCain, however, has been allowing them to hold the leash and has made multiple promises to them. I heard the story on NPR earlier today, and it focussed primarily on abortion (Bush used to play word games, but McCain makes no mistake or qualms when he says that human rights start at conception).

 

Beside the simple fact that he nominated Palin to galvanize them, he and his ambassadors have been meeting regularly with fundie christians to bring them on board, and he's been selling out to them several times. Here's one example (since I couldn't find the NPR story I heard earlier and referenced above):

 

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdg0hr1uMSEliqiwYBeYCtJAF96gD92U9OVG0

In St. Paul, the McCain-Palin campaign is working to win over evangelical voters, dispatching surrogates like former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, a well-known evangelical Christian, to chat up delegates.

 

After the convention's storm-shortened first night wrapped Monday night, top McCain adviser Charlie Black and Republican National Committee deputy chairman Frank Donatelli mingled with activists at a "conservative movement leaders reception" at a nearby hotel. The event was hosted by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

 

"You are the tip of the arrow in the battle to advance the McCain-Palin ticket," the group's president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the crowd.

 

"There's more excitement than there's been in a long time," said Kelly Shackelford, a conservative Christian activist, Texas delegate and member of the GOP platform committee. "Talk is cheap in politics. We didn't want McCain to say nice things to us. We wanted him to do something. And he has."

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Now, as to waitforufo's comments... You really ought to try reading a thread before you comment in it. I've answered your questions already, and shared links. But, just since you seem to need more help:

 

 

She wants creationism taught alongside evolution

Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

Yes. The 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire which she filled out. I've already cited this multiple times in this thread. There are also several news stories available where she reinforced those comments.

 

 

 

She is against personal choice in matters of abortion

Many Americans would like more restrictions on abortion. Most liberal western countries have more restrictions on abortion than the US. Name those that do not.

Don't have to. Palin is not for "more restrictions," she's against all restrictions, even in the face of rape or incest she would not allow abortions. She's very cut and dry on this issue, and you are wrong trying to frame it as if she wants "more" restrictions, since she wants total restrictions.

 

You will find that more americans agree with Obamas nuanced position here, and that agreement with Palin's stance on abortion is limited almost entirely to our country's group of religiots.

 

 

She tries to ban books from libraries

Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said books should be band in libraries?

Again, you clearly haven't been paying attention to this thread:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2008/09/sarah-palin-ban.html

 

 

 

She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things?

Sure. 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire.

Again, you're clearly not paying very close attention to this thread.

 

Is ignorance of the origin of this motto really that big of a deal for you?

Yes, actually, but to be honest, the bigger deal for me is how badly she misunderstands the founding principles of our nation. If you are going to be a leader in this nation, you should at least have an accurate understanding of its formation, and not some incorrect blindness about religion and church.

 

 

Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?

Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things?

 

Well, besides that questionnaire to which I keep referring you (you know, the one discussed repeatedly in ths thread), there's also this:

 

VIDEO: Sarah Palin in front of her Assembly of God church

 

(I'm an atheist, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

 

 

 

 

Oh, and there's always wiki (which is not my primary source, just YET ANOTHER for you to answer your questions):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

 

 

Palin may turn out to be an incredibly strategic choice for VP. Lot of news minutes and headlines have focused on her since she was selected by McCain.

Well, the Republicans did say this election isn't about issues.

[waitforufo]

iNow

 

I have not had a chance to look at all of your reverences but the two I did look at did not impress me much.

 

First the book banning. Complete hearsay. One librarian said another librarian told her that the Palin asked a question about how to ban books. The original librarian could not be reached for comment. Again, any speech or bill where she promoted book banning?

 

Second I watched the YouTube video. What she said was "we have to pray that there is a plan and that the plan is God's plan." How do you reconcile that quote with your comment "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?"

 

Why should anyone pay attention to you if that is the best you can come up with.

[iNow]

iNow

 

I have not had a chance to look at all of your reverences but the two I did look at did not impress me much.

 

Well, I don't care. If you're not at least willing to look at the links I've shared throughout this thread to support my position, I'm not going to bother taking your attacks of my position very seriously.

 

Also, frankly, I don't have to support my points which were bulletted (and to which you responded). I clearly stated in the sentence immediately preceding them that it those were my personal litmus test, so bugger off if you disagree. It's not my problem.

[bascule]

iNow

 

I have not had a chance to look at all of your reverences but the two I did look at did not impress me much.

 

Are you serious? After your "Can you site a bill" "Can you site a bill" "Can you site a speech or interview" "Can you site a speech or interview" you only bothered to look at two of his references? (by the way, the word you're looking for is "cite", not "site")

 

Remind me to never respond to any requests from you for sources to back up my statements. You clearly just don't care.

 

Why should anyone pay attention to you if that is the best you can come up with.

 

Why should anyone pay attention to you when you make multiple requests for someone to dig up information for you then don't even bother looking at it?

[iNow]

Second I watched the YouTube video. What she said was "we have to pray that there is a plan and that the plan is God's plan." How do you reconcile that quote with your comment "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?"

 

Why should anyone pay attention to you if that is the best you can come up with.

 

 

Actually, mate... here's what she said:

 

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out

on a task that is from God

. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

 

It certainly helps to provide the context of my comment if you don't intentionally truncate the quote she made.

 

 

 

 

Tell me this... what precisely is supposed to be the difference between a Christian who thinks God tells them to go to war against Iraq and someone like Osama Bin Laden who believes that God tells him to go to war against America?

 

 

I think it has something to do with the "us/them" mentality (and how most people in the US see christians as part of the "us" group), but the motivations are strikingly similar. Stupid religiots.

Edited September 5, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[waitforufo]

Actually, mate... here's what she said:

 

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out

on a task that is from God

. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

 

It certainly helps to provide the context of my comment if you don't intentionally truncate the quote she made.

 

Perhaps you should read that quote again for yourself. What she is saying is that those in attendance should pray that the task our leaders are sending our service men and women on is in fact God's will. Her implication is that if the task is not God's will, it will fail.

 

So I guess your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, prays that our leaders have no plan, but if they do have a plan that their plan is against God's will?

 

Believing that you should sign up for the McCain campaign. Not even McCain has been quite that hard on Obama.

 

By the way, your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, believes that God created all things seen and unseen, invisible and visible. I guess you're comfortable with that as well?

Edited September 5, 2008 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Perhaps you should read that quote again for yourself. What she is saying is that those in attendance should pray that the task our leaders are sending our service men and women on is in fact God's will. Her implication is that if the task is not God's will, it will fail.

 

So I guess your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, prays that our leaders have no plan, but if they do have a plan that their plan is against God's will?

 

Believing that you should sign up for the McCain campaign. Not even McCain has been quite that hard on Obama.

 

By the way, your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, believes that God created all things seen and unseen, invisible and visible. I guess you're comfortable with that as well?

 

You've never met a logical fallacy you don't like, have you?

 

 

To address your primary attack - I CAN"T STAND THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PANDERING WITH THIS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE!

There. I said it.

I still agree with many of the other things they're doing, and also recognize that the US is not yet at a point where someone who openly rejects religion could get elected.

 

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

[waitforufo]

 

(I'm an atheist, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

 

(I'm an patriot, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

[iNow]

(I'm an patriot, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

 

Wow. I'm a patriot, too. So what?

 

Since when did this dialog become about me and not the issues our nation faces?

[waitforufo]

Are you serious? After your "Can you site a bill" "Can you site a bill" "Can you site a speech or interview" "Can you site a speech or interview" you only bothered to look at two of his references? (by the way, the word you're looking for is "cite", not "site")

 

Remind me to never respond to any requests from you for sources to back up my statements. You clearly just don't care.

 

 

 

Why should anyone pay attention to you when you make multiple requests for someone to dig up information for you then don't even bother looking at it?

 

I did not say that I would not get to them eventually. I just did not have time at the moment. Also, the two I did check were so weak I just had to point it out.

 

Thank you for correcting my homonym errors.

 

iNow,

 

Back to you're "In God We Trust" national motto issue. Me thinks you protest too much. Our founders did sign a document stating that the origin of our rights was the Creator. They also signed the document pledging fidelity to it with their sacred honor. By pledging with their sacred honor whey were inviting eternal damnation if they did not defend the document. So I do think there is strong evidence that they publicly trusted in God.

Edited September 5, 2008 by waitforufo

[bascule]

Back to you're "In God We Trust" national motto issue. Me thinks you protest too much. Our founders did sign a document stating that the origin of our rights was the Creator.

 

They also signed a document which said the American government is in no way founded on the Christian religion and put separation of church and state in the first amendment to the Constitution. Also, the document you're describing was penned by a man who sought to "erect a wall of separation between church and state" (his words) and thought "the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

 

When making suppositions about whether or not the Founding Fathers would've been okay with "In God We Trust" on our national currency try to keep it in context. Madison was wary of even hiring Congressional chaplains.

[iNow]

Most of the greater thinkers of that time also believed in a Deist / Pantheist god, not a Theist interventionist god like most of todays believers.

 

Either way, that's far from on topic.

 

 

 

Here's the quote from Palin which reinforced my disdain. Palin was asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" She responded:

 

"Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

 

 

Now, Mr. Waitforufo:

 

The founding fathers didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892, and didn't include the phrase "Under God" until 1954.

 

Next...

 

In God We Trust first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

 

 

 

So, yeah. I've got a problem with a person running for the second highest office in our land having a complete misunderstanding and vacuous recognition of this point.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

[Pangloss]

People on the right do generally know about the 1956 addition -- it's a frequent talking point even amongst the beer-and-pretzels, gathering-around-the-BBQ-listening-to-country-music crowd, iNow. Most likely she just meant in the sense that "God" was good enough for the founding fathers. They did believe, and even if you pawn it off as "deism" it's still a firm belief in Christianity. The important thing is that they would not have involved religion in government. IMO we should just focus on that and not worry about who believes in what.

 

It wouldn't be any better if an atheist were running for president and reporters were asking him/her "How would your atheism inform your presidency?" Some things are just as stupid when reversed.

[iNow]

They did believe, and even if you pawn it off as "deism" it's still a firm belief in Christianity.

Oh yeah? I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one. Prove it.

 

 

It wouldn't be any better if an atheist were running for president and reporters were asking him/her "How would your atheism inform your presidency?" Some things are just as stupid when reversed.

 

Doesn't matter. This is a pretty clear example of "foot in mouth" disease, and I don't really care about her religion as pertains to this point (only peripherally, anyway). The only way that her religion potentially factors into this is that it misinformed her answer. Either way, whether she's christian, jewish, hindu, buddhist, atheist, or mormon, she was still VERY wrong on one of the simplest (beer and pretzels) issues out there.

 

On my litmus test, this was just extra credit. She'd failed long before I got to the "it was good enough for our founding fathers" stupidity.

[Pangloss]

Oh yeah? I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one. Prove it.

 

All I know is that they stated such belief, but the deism analysis is limited to a few specific "fathers", not the whole kit and kaboodle, which is how you and others here have reported it. But I don't think you're wrong in asking the question and I tend to agree with you regarding how they would have perceived the intersection of religion and government.

 

 

 

On my litmus test, this was just extra credit. She'd failed long before I got to the "it was good enough for our founding fathers" stupidity.

 

Seems reasonable enough to me.

[iNow]

All I know is that they stated such belief, but the deism analysis is limited to a few specific "fathers", not the whole kit and kaboodle, which is how you and others here have reported it.

I'm still waiting for you to either prove this or concede that it's your own personal and potentially misinformed opinion.

 

 

But I don't think you're wrong in asking the question and I tend to agree with you regarding how they would have perceived the intersection of religion and government.

To be fair, that was more Bascule's point than mine (but I, too, agree with it completely).

 

 

 

[Pangloss]

I'm still waiting for you to either prove this or concede that it's your own personal and potentially misinformed opinion.

 

Prove what, exactly? That the founding fathers were christian?

 

Sure, right after you prove this one:

 

Most of the greater thinkers of that time also believed in a Deist / Pantheist god, not a Theist interventionist god like most of todays believers.

[iNow]

Prove what, exactly? That the founding fathers were christian?

Precisely. Yes. That is the claim you made that I'm asking you to support.

 

But, I'd actually welcome a source from you since I have, in fact, found a small handful of conflicting stories.

 

According to this link:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

...It turns out that Anglicans made up 55-60% of the entire religious spectrum for our nations founders, and Anglicanism can effectively be lumped under the christian umbrella. What is disconcerting is how this idea of them being "christians" seems only to be supported by christian websites. Other references tell a drastically different story.

 

I think perhaps you will concede the point once you keep reading my next few references.

 

 

For example, in much greater number have I found cites like this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

 

Which state:

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

 

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric.

 

 

...and here...

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/christian_nation.html

In recent years, we have been told by a variety of conservatives that America’s founding fathers established the country under Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and should operate accordingly.

 

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

<...>

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

 

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance.

 

 

 

This site, while much more forceful and not as objective about the approach, makes the case quite plainly, sharing quotes from these thinkers, and ending with the comment:

 

With just these examples, you have the facts necessary to rebut any fundamentalist who proclaim this to be a Christian nation "just as the founding fathers desired".

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html

[Pangloss]

I wasn't saying they were fundamentalists, I was just pointing out that they were christian, which your links support. I've already agreed with you twice now (here's a third time:) that they were not fundamentalists, or as you put it "theist interventionist" types.

 

But you guys do push that "most of them were deists" line too far, IMO. There's insufficient historical support for that conclusion.

[iNow]

Of course, wiki has it, too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

 

 

You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. My links DO NOT support your point, they do, in fact, support mine that they were deists. And, frankly, you have yet to share a single source supporting your contention, so I'm not sure how else I can move this forward until you concede, retract your comments, or prove me wrong.

[Pangloss]

Wait, you cited Infidels.org and American Progress and you call those facts? Please, I gave at the office.

 

The only non-partisan source you cited is Adherents, which states in a cute little chart that:

 

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%

Presbyterian 30 18.6%

Congregationalist 27 16.8%

Quaker 7 4.3%

Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%

Lutheran 5 3.1%

Catholic 3 1.9%

Huguenot 3 1.9%

Unitarian 3 1.9%

Methodist 2 1.2%

Calvinist 1 0.6%

TOTAL 204

 

In a word, Christians. You said it yourself:

 

It turns out that Anglicans made up 55-60% of the entire religious spectrum for our nations founders, and Anglicanism can effectively be lumped under the christian umbrella.

 

And the Wikipedia article you cited directly contradicts your "most" statement:

 

Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]

 

And I already agreed with you, from the beginning, (here comes #4:) that they weren't fundamentalists.

 

So what, exactly, is the problem?

[iNow]

I'm confused where you think my arguement suggested that the founding fathers weren't fundamentalists. I agree, they were not, but that was never a point that I was here trying to make (I left that as a given, really).

 

I guess none of this really matters. It's false to suggest that the founding fathers were christian unless you expand the definition of christian to be one which is unrecognizable by today's standards (are there a lot of Anglicans in the US?)

 

Like I said, time to get past this.

 

The bigger issue that brought this all up... before waitforufo came in and asked me to repeat all of my references so he could then again dismiss them... was that she failed with me personally on some of my key selection criteria for the higher offices and elections (what I termed "litmus test").

 

One of those issues was a horrid misunderstanding of the founding principles of our nation, and the thought that (not only did) our founding fathers say the pledge of allegiance to the flag, but that "under god" was already a part of that pledge and was okay with them.