Sarah Palin, scary yes or no?

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2008 09:04AM #1

Sarah Palin made a comment that the Iraq war was a 'task from God'.
Does it scare you that she could become Vice - President and if anything happens McCain, President?

Malari · 08-09-2008 09:14AM

A little

I don't know if you only wanted Christians to vote, but yes, she scares the wits out of me. A self-confessed bible-believer who does not think evolution or global warming exists? Yes, she is a scary uber-conservative. And she gives her children silly names...

brianthebard · 08-09-2008 09:19AM

A little

I like to think i'm tolerant of most people's faith,but i draw the line at waging war in god's name.Total nutjob,should've stayed in the kitchen where anti feminists belong.

kmick · 08-09-2008 09:29AM

Lets face it half of America are like that. She is just another human clinging on to something which seems to order her world more. Anyway I would not worry too much about it mostly they just pretend to be religious. You cant be a politician and decent Christian.

JimiTime · 08-09-2008 09:34AM

You don't have the option in your poll for some reason

But I would say No, she doesn't scare me, but No, I don't welcome her.

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2008 10:17AM

A little

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't have the option in your poll for some reason But I would say No, she doesn't scare me, but No, I don't welcome her.

Come on Jimi she either scares you or she doesn't?

Galvasean · 08-09-2008 11:39AM

A little

When she intoduced herself as a 'moose hunting hockey mom' that alone gave me the heebie-jeebies.

JimiTime · 08-09-2008 11:40AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Come on Jimi she either scares you or she doesn't?

Read my post again. The No option in your pole says 'No, I welcome her'. Well as I said, which you don't seem to have seen is that I said, No she doesn't scare me. But I don't welcome her neither. Just because I'm not frightened by her, doesn't mean I welcome her. Comprende vous?

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2008 11:47AM

A little

JimiTime wrote: »

Read my post again. The No option in your pole says 'No, I welcome her'. Well as I said, which you don't seem to have seen is that I said, No she doesn't scare me. But I don't welcome her neither. Just because I'm not frightened by her, doesn't mean I welcome her. Comprende vous?

Je comprende. But you are occupying a unique position.
You don't find her comments about Iraq scary, what next? God tells her to bomb Iran on another task and she follows the next task?

toomevara · 08-09-2008 11:53AM

A little

A knuckle-dragging creationist who discounts evolutionary theory, is pro-life even in cases of incest or rape and is fundamentally against stem cell research?..'Scares' is not the word I'd use more like 'Terrifies'....then let's factor in her propensity to shoot everything that walks or crawls combined with an attitude to environmental issues verging on the criminal...the woman is beyond pastiche and beyond stereotype...an absolute nightmare...

Asiaprod · 08-09-2008 12:02PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Je comprende. But you are occupying a unique position.
You don't find her comments about Iraq scary, what next? God tells her to bomb Iran on another task and she follows the next task?

Tim, stop trying to steer the debate, Jimi gave his views. He is entitled to hold his unique position.

robindch · 08-09-2008 12:06PM

A little

toomevara wrote: »

A knuckle-dragging creationist [...] the woman is beyond pastiche and beyond stereotype

Being beyond stereotyping didn't stop GWB from occupying the White House for eight nasty years. Seemed to be more of an asset than anything.

A very scary idiot indeed.

is_that_so · 08-09-2008 12:13PM

Scary no although I would oppose pretty much everything she believes in. No evidence to date that she wants everyone to believe what she believes. Each to their own I say. Tony Blair was a strong believer and he was allowed to run Britain for 10 years. Incidentally it was a speech to a group of Christian students.

... they should not only pray for men and women in the military but to make sure the leaders of this country are sending U.S. soldiers "out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
...

Linky

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2008 12:15PM

A little

Asiaprod wrote: »

Tin, stop trying to steer the debate, Jimi gave his views. He is entitled to hold his unique position.

Of course he;s entitled to hold his position be it unique or ubiquitous.
Maybe he'd like to elaborate on his views.

Honey-ec · 08-09-2008 12:19PM

A little

toomevara wrote: »

is pro-choice even in cases of incest or rape...

She's pro-life, not pro-choice, and rabidly so.

Not only that, but during her tenure as Governer of Alaska the only school-given sex-education that she would support was that of abstinence. Small wonder her 17 year old daughter is pregnant if she wouldn't allow basic contraceptive advice be taught.

Galvasean · 08-09-2008 12:30PM

A little

It's curious. I always felt Senator McCane was quite reasonable and fairly non-extreme. Then he announces a running mate who is quite the opposite.

- anti-evolution
- doesn't believe in global warming
- promotes only abstinence as a form of sex ed.
- anti stem cell research
- shoots mooses for fun
- believes God promotes the Iraq war
- compares herself to a bit bull (does that mean she bites children?)

Scary lady.

Honey-ec · 08-09-2008 12:33PM

A little

Galvasean wrote: »

It's curious. I always felt Senator McCane was quite reasonable and fairly non-extreme. Then he announces a running mate who is quite the opposite.

That was a deliberate (and very cynical) move on his behalf. He purposely chose a running mate who is pretty much the polar opposite of him in order to appeal to the conservative Republican, many of whom he was at risk of alienating simply because he's relatively liberal himself.

Malari · 08-09-2008 12:34PM

A little

Galvasean wrote: »

It's curious. I always felt Senator McCane was quite reasonable and fairly non-extreme. Then he announces a running mate who is quite the opposite.

- anti-evolution
- doesn't believe in global warming
- promotes only abstinence as a form of sex ed.
- anti stem cell research
- shoots mooses for fun
- believes God promotes the Iraq war
- compares herself to a bit bull (does that mean she bites children?)

Scary lady.

Quite the opposite indeed. She is a woman. Maybe the single most influential asset in his selecting her?

philologos · 08-09-2008 12:41PM

No, I welcome them.

is_that_so wrote: »

Scary no although I would oppose pretty much everything she believes in. No evidence to date that she wants everyone to believe what she believes. Each to their own I say. Tony Blair was a strong believer and he was allowed to run Britain for 10 years. Incidentally it was a speech to a group of Christian students.

So is Gordon Brown, so is being Christian a reason not to vote for someone in the secular world? If so that is actually rather sad if you ask me.

CerebralCortex · 08-09-2008 12:50PM

A little

Jakkass wrote: »

So is Gordon Brown, so is being Christian a reason not to vote for someone in the secular world? If so that is actually rather sad if you ask me.

If someone follows what you think of as fantasy as fact and lives there life by it would you put them in power? Theres even probably loads of atheists I wouldn't vote for either. I don't think its sad to vote that way.

Honey-ec · 08-09-2008 12:50PM

A little

Tony Blair purposely waited until he had stepped down to convert to Catholicism, precisely because it was felt that the British public would not tolerate a Catholic Prime Minister.

Anyone who does not believe that religion (or lack of) has a direct bearing on voter behaviour is very naive.

Galvasean · 08-09-2008 01:02PM

A little

Being Christian wouldn't put me off a good political candidate.

However lacking belief in evolution or global warming certainly would. As would someone going around saying they know 'God's plan' in relation to declarations of war.

Of course i know not all Christians are like that.

philologos · 08-09-2008 01:03PM

No, I welcome them.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If someone follows what you think of as fantasy as fact and lives there life by it would you put them in power? Theres even probably loads of atheists I wouldn't vote for either. I don't think its sad to vote that way.

It's clear the British public are more tolerant than you are then. Electing both Gordon Brown (Christian), and David Milliband (atheist) to parliament. I personally think representing the right policies is a reason to vote for a candidate, not their religious beliefs or affiliations. It's about matching changes to your country that you would agree with.

--amadeus-- · 08-09-2008 01:08PM

A little

Extremity of belief (any belief) that has a direct knock on to policy and by extension real lives is scary.

We can come on here and have a knock-about debate and no-one really gets hurt. You might believe in creationism, I don't. You might believe in abstinance as the only appropriate form of sex-ed, I don't. At the end of the day we leave the keyboard and live our lives by our own lights and we have a government (like most in Westren Europe) that steers a moderate course and by and large leaves citizens to make up thier own minds and practice what they will.

This woman - and Bush before her - clearly has a policy of leading from teh edge rather than the centre. Decisions she makes which she feels are right by her code would greatly impact how millions of people (most of whom would not share her beliefs) live thier lives.

So yes, she is very scary.

Malari · 08-09-2008 01:09PM

A little

Jakkass wrote: »

It's clear the British public are more tolerant than you are then. Electing both Gordon Brown (Christian), and David Milliband (atheist) to parliament. I personally think representing the right policies is a reason to vote for a candidate, not their religious beliefs or affiliations. It's about matching changes to your country that you would agree with.

I agree, but when a politic candidate is blatant about their beliefs and the influence that has on their policies, then electing them does become a matter of whether you agree with their religious affiliations. If you are unaware of a public representative's allegiance to his faith then there is no reason to object to them, per se. When they announce the reasoning behind the policies is faith-based, then it becomes a reason not to vote for them.

is_that_so · 08-09-2008 01:54PM

Jakkass wrote: »

So is Gordon Brown, so is being Christian a reason not to vote for someone in the secular world? If so that is actually rather sad if you ask me.

Yes I agree it is sad. The reference to Blair was to highlight that we can find it tolerable or easy to ignore in someone popular but not when there is a very strong and in some cases irrational dislike towards an individual.

toomevara · 08-09-2008 01:55PM

A little

Honey-ec wrote: »

She's pro-life, not pro-choice, and rabidly so.

indeed, precisely what I meant of course...thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-09-2008 02:02PM

A little

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbkrtDGDAbw

There is a video on you tube of Ben Stein saying SHE scares HIM.

Now let us put this in context. This is one of the ID followers, a disgusting liar, a man who tricked people into interviews for a bad movie and then edited at length the videos to make the people say things they never really said. His ideas and concepts make people who believe in UFOs, Demons and Elvis look normal.

And SHE scares HIM.

I need say no more I feel.

sdep · 08-09-2008 02:05PM

Jakkass wrote: »

So is Gordon Brown, so is being Christian a reason not to vote for someone in the secular world? If so that is actually rather sad if you ask me.

Tony Blair thought that overt declarations of faith were an electoral turn-off in the UK, as this shows:

BBC / Tony Blair wrote:

... But while it was commonplace in the US and elsewhere for politicians to talk about their religious convictions, he added: "you talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter".

An Anglican bishop found this regrettable, saying:

BBC / Rt. Revd. Michael Nazir-Ali wrote:

I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter.

Link

Galvasean · 08-09-2008 02:12PM

A little

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbkrtDGDAbw

There is a video on you tube of Ben Stein saying SHE scares HIM.

I noticed him complaining about people electing people who run up massive budget deficits and then complaining about people electing people who don't invest enough in military spending in the same breath.
Wonder where all the deficit money is going?
Oh that wacky Stein. :pac:

is_that_so · 08-09-2008 02:20PM

sdep wrote: »

Tony Blair thought that overt declarations of faith were an electoral turn-off in the UK, as this shows:

An Anglican bishop found this regrettable, saying:

Link

I think the Blair comments on the US emphasises the normality of profession of faith in the US in all elections. All candidates do so and two have got into bother over it to date;Obama and Palin.

sdep · 08-09-2008 02:24PM

is_that_so wrote: »

I think the Blair comments on the US emphasises the normality of profession of faith in the US in all elections. All candidates do so and two have got into bother over it to date;Obama and Paln.

Religions are keen to assert that faith is widespread in the UK too, but there's a definite taboo on bringing it too directly into secular politics.

Dave! · 08-09-2008 02:27PM

A little

She is mad as a bag of cats.

Pompey Magnus · 08-09-2008 02:59PM

A little

Imagine if McCain died soon after winning the election, we would have her for 4 years as leader of the Free World. As hard as it is to believe but I think she would be even worse than Bush because I think she genuinely is a devout Christian. Without the sensible McCain as a counterbalance she would be an absolute nightmare.

philologos · 08-09-2008 03:00PM

No, I welcome them.

is_that_so wrote: »

I think the Blair comments on the US emphasises the normality of profession of faith in the US in all elections. All candidates do so and two have got into bother over it to date;Obama and Palin.

I personally think it's only healthy to discuss your faith. I personally find it a major turn off when people associate God with the Iraq war. I think God is an impartial judge, and will look down on this, and look at the Iraqis exactly as if they were Americans and analyse the nature of their actions. Same with any major world conflict. I'm personally a pacifist, and look for a more peaceful world instead of throwing God in as a tool for war. It's saddening. I do still prefer McCain to Obama, but I'm not sure about Palin, I thought it would be a good thing at first.

However, I agree with the Catholic Primate Sean Brady when he was speaking about faith in Ireland and the secular media:

He was "intrigued to discover last weekend that it was quite natural to expect the US presidential candidates to answer direct questions about their commitment to faith, their willingness to support faith-based organisations, their position on moral issues and how it would affect their appointment of public officials". He looked forward "to the day we have the same level of openness and choice in our own elections here in Ireland and in Europe".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0825/1219616651409.html

Pompey Magnus · 08-09-2008 03:21PM

A little

Does America really have an openness to belief? I mean for a country which has had a grand total of one admitted atheist member of congress in almost 250 years it doesn't sound very open to me. Might it be possible that in fact some people have to actually hide their true beliefs over there?

I would guess that atheists who want to get into politics are open about the particular Christian denomination they pretend to be a member of. Is this really something you want to see over here or is it the persecuted Christian complex coming out again where the liberal media over here don't constantly link God with politics and determine a person's electability on how they interpret a collection of Bronze age stories.

philologos · 08-09-2008 03:32PM

No, I welcome them.

Charco wrote: »

Does America really have an openness to belief? I mean for a country which has had a grand total of one admitted atheist member of congress in almost 250 years it doesn't sound very open to me. Might it be possible that in fact some people have to actually hide their true beliefs over there?

Well it's apparent Tony Blair had to conceal his a bit also in the UK. Both as bad as another in my view.

CerebralCortex · 08-09-2008 03:33PM

A little

Jakkass wrote: »

It's clear the British public are more tolerant than you are then. Electing both Gordon Brown (Christian), and David Milliband (atheist) to parliament. I personally think representing the right policies is a reason to vote for a candidate, not their religious beliefs or affiliations. It's about matching changes to your country that you would agree with.

Why am I less tolerant? Do you not use the teaching of your religion as a guideline for living your life? If thats what a candidate did then I wouldn't vote for him. Simple. I don't think thats intolerance I think thats democracy. Who knows maybe Gordon Brown is a half ass christian so bends the rules and strays from his path? Maybe David Milliband doesn't have the strength of his convictions and sacrifices his pov to protect his christian/religious vote?

philologos · 08-09-2008 03:41PM

No, I welcome them.

David Milliband has openly said he is an atheist in the British media. I don't think it's affected him too much.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504229/While-Blair-converts-Catholicism-8-Ministers-say-believe-God.html

Pompey Magnus · 08-09-2008 03:49PM

A little

Jakkass wrote: »

David Milliband has openly said he is an atheist in the British media. I don't think it's affected him too much.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504229/While-Blair-converts-Catholicism-8-Ministers-say-believe-God.html

I'm confused, do you think the European or American model is preferable?

philologos · 08-09-2008 03:52PM

No, I welcome them.

Charco, the US model would be preferrable if it meant everyone could speak the same way about their faith / beliefs as Christians can. That is indeed if what you say about the USA is true about atheists denying their disbelief in congress.

sdep · 08-09-2008 04:03PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Charco, the US model would be preferrable if it meant everyone could speak the same way about their faith / beliefs as Christians can. That is indeed if what you say about the USA is true about atheists denying their disbelief in congress.

The Daily Mail article you linked shows UK politicians giving quite a diverse set of religious views: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic and atheist; some orthodox and some definitely not.

I've not seen the same spectrum of declared faiths in US politicians running for the highest office. Is this due to a narrower range of religious opinion, or because politicians there can't openly say what they believe?

Pompey Magnus · 08-09-2008 04:33PM

A little

Jakkass wrote: »

Charco, the US model would be preferrable if it meant everyone could speak the same way about their faith / beliefs as Christians can

In what way are Christian politicians prevented from talking about their beliefs in Ireland (a country where the vast majority of the population is Christians, lets not forget)? This isn't the Soviet Union, politicians are free to believe what they want.

What they shouldn't expect is to be given a free ride on their beliefs like they are in America. If a politician believes children should be taught creationism then they should defend themselves and not be given a Get out of Jail Free card from the media by invoking God. Similarly if they want women to be forced to wear burkhas when in public or other crazy nonsense.

That is indeed if what you say about the USA is true about atheists denying their disbelief in congress.

Perhaps you are correct, maybe atheists just aren't as good at politics as Christians, maybe by a statistical fluke only one atheist has ever run for Congress, or maybe, just maybe, Congressman Pete Stark was the first and only atheist member of Congress to admit that he was atheist (and this only at the end of his political career) because he knew it would basically kill his chances of being elected.

We have a much better system over here, people are elected on merit (its just a pity that our talent pool is so weak) and not their religious belief.

PDN · 08-09-2008 04:50PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If someone follows what you think of as fantasy as fact and lives there life by it would you put them in power?

Yes, I would vote for an atheist if they were the best candidate for the job.

PDN · 08-09-2008 04:59PM

In the poll I responded as a 'Don't care' because her beliefs are, I believe, fairly irrelevant to her political role.

As for her comments on the Iraq war - that just sounds like a Christian's way of saying something is right or wrong. That wouldn't scare me any more than Christopher Hitchens' vocal support of the Iraq War because he believes it to be the right course of action.

I certainly hope Palin doesn't become VP, mainly because I'd like Obama to win the election. I would find it scary that someone with such an obvious lack of leadership ability could become President (the last 8 years of such a scenario has been bad enough) but her religious beliefs have nothing to do with that.

CerebralCortex · 08-09-2008 07:11PM

A little

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I would vote for an atheist if they were the best candidate for the job.

Yes I know you would cause you could be sure they weren't going to make any fantastic claims about the nature of the universe.

PDN · 08-09-2008 07:22PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes I know you would cause you could be sure they weren't going to make any fantastic claims about the nature of the universe.

Au contraire, my dear Cerebral Cortex. I think an atheist politican would be quite likely to make fantastic claims about the nature of the universe. However, since such subjects lie far outside the realm of their political responsibilities I don't think their irrationality in that respect should disqualify them from the more mundane duties of setting a budget or invading other countries.

wolfsbane · 08-09-2008 07:50PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sarah Palin made a comment that the Iraq war was a 'task from God'.
Does it scare you that she could become Vice - President and if anything happens McCain, President?

Have you got the actual speech? The quote seems a bit ambiguous - is the war definitely 'of God', or should we be praying to make sure it is if we are to fight it?

I'm not really scared in any case, for I doubt Palin will have any ultimate say in what happens, nor will any President. I may be too cynical, but until I know better I am working on the premise that the rich and powerful run America, never mind who is their front-man/woman or front Party.

I base this on a choice between the options, as I see it, of noble patriotism and astounding incompetence displayed over the past century, or money-making rackets masqerading as wars to defend liberty over the same period.

Maybe it's a bit of both. But do you really see Obama or McCain upturning the Washington set, as they both boast they are going to do?

PDN · 08-09-2008 07:57PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you got the actual speech? The quote seems a bit ambiguous - is the war definitely 'of God', or should we be praying to make sure it is if we are to fight it?

Don't go spoiling their fun by bring facts or accurate quotations into this thread. Heck, there are still people out there who insist on believing that George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2008 08:03PM

A little

PDN wrote: »

In the poll I responded as a 'Don't care' because her beliefs are, I believe, fairly irrelevant to her political role.

As for her comments on the Iraq war - that just sounds like a Christian's way of saying something is right or wrong. That wouldn't scare me any more than Christopher Hitchens' vocal support of the Iraq War because he believes it to be the right course of action.

I certainly hope Palin doesn't become VP, mainly because I'd like Obama to win the election. I would find it scary that someone with such an obvious lack of leadership ability could become President (the last 8 years of such a scenario has been bad enough) but her religious beliefs have nothing to do with that.

I see very little difference between Palin's thinking the Iraq was was the will of God and the suicide bombers of 9-11 thinking their killing was the will of God.

In fact there are only two differences:
1. Far more people died in the Iraq war.
2. They believe in different Gods.

axer · 08-09-2008 08:10PM

A little

She also said that building a gas pipeline (along with the Iraqi war) was part of god's plan.

She seems a bit of a fundametalist to me. No extremism is good.

Sarah Palin, scary yes or no?

Do Palin's extreme fundamentalist beliefs scare you? 112 votes

Comments