"From ABC's Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
What Palin actually 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 [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Still a bit disturbing, AA.
Nobody reads my posts anymore. Sighhh...
Not at all, to me, MFT. Compare it to what a Lincoln, or Roosevelt, or Churchill, or Reagan, said. It seems to be another variant on the "Our country, may she be in the right" kind of sentiment. Somepeople join it to "my country, right or wrong", others to a prayer to God that we are in the right, others to Destiny or Fate...
I know, or think, we differ on the religious question, MFT. We both are infidels, but the fideists are a highly varied lot--and as much as I'm perturbed by IM, or the Thuggees, or Jim Jones, or Bishop Cyrus, or the Church Militant in general, or Aum Shimri, or Hale Boppers of all stripes, is as much as I am unperturbed by Palin believing in a God which governs the universe and her praying that our human actions should be in accord with that governance.
Should we make a distinct thread for that?
In any case, MFT, you know enough of Yankee history to know that such sentiments are dense throughout past leadership. So, why is it disturbing now if not then?
AI, we did, or at least I and Le Pew did, read your Liberal Brain graphic....but can't an explanation also have lots of corroborating evidence?
All right, I feel better. But the link I had there was to the Gibson interview -- conducted and edited in true Stalinesque fashion. Also, anyone clicked on the "Palin-neocabrones" link there? It's a strand we haven't touched upon, yet...
In any case, MFT, you know enough of Yankee history to know that such sentiments are dense throughout past leadership. So, why is it disturbing now if not then?
I didn't say it wasn't disturbing back then, either. Maybe "disturbing" was too harsh a word. Whether we think we're on the Course God Has Chosen is something a bit silly to ponder as it's an empirical impossibility to know (on several levels: is there a God? If there is, is this entity concerned with Humans in the vastness that is the universe? You know, stuff of that sort).
That's how I mean "disturbing," not in the same breath that, oh, it's muttered around in Berkeley. I mean this in all due respect, as well.
I'd rather hear something to the effect of, "We're guided by the Revolutionary ideal of eventual emancipation and liberty for one and all..." Whether or not a supreme, all-knowing Deity is at the helm starts edging into the realm of Monty Python. And to ascribe God to one person's plan or another is exactly what we don't need more of in this world.
It's still okay for Libertarians to point-for-point agree or, in this case, disagree with Republicans these days, yes?
AA, check out this photo.
Hmmmm, what does this have to do with one's right to disagree, MFT? Setting aside this being an issue of Libertarian vs Republican, which I don't believe it is at all [yes, I have met religious libertarians], or even Infidel against Fideist, which is definitely a part of the picture, the whole point of an argument is that the participants come in, and may well leave, in disagreement. If the issue was about preventing disagreement, then there would be no need for argument. Just send out assassins to silence the disloyal opposition and be done with it. [Then we'd each have to hope our assassins hit first, and then trust that the other's assassins would lose the will to act once their source of payment was eliminated. Unless they were paid first, in which case we each would hope they were not particularly scrupulous assassins. And we would both desperately hope they were unlike Angel Eyes, a far too scrupulous assassin for our disagreeing good..But that's another tale].
Anyway, MFT, neither of us is a Believer, and neither of us is a Republican, and yet we disagree on the "disturb" factor as to Palin's religiosity. We're gonna have to wrangle over this like Real Men....sitting in a saloon with a pitcher of Moose Drool chilled and gleaming before us.
I saw that photo from your original posting of it, MFT. It's already been downloaded into my list of faves.
You were right; it is Mordor.
Unfortunately, Mt. Rainier is all placid and nicely snow capped. It likes that Mt. Doom quality.
Now, before I shuffle off this little globe, I've got to see that mountain in person.
"likes" should be "lacks". Old age creepeth upon me.
AI said: " AI said...
Nobody reads my posts anymore. Sighhh..."
I'm sorry, AI. I got so caught up in studying that image you put up of the Liberal Brain that I never went to click on that article. Just did, and now understand why you sigh. I do owe you a good beer..
Which reminds me, will you ever be in Boston some Saturday? Starting this next week will be going into town regurlarly on saturdays..."
I don't know if the Palin/Neocabrones meme has legs, but it says a lot of the MSM that when they want to make sure you know a woman dances with the Devil they tell us her partner is one of those behorned "Neocons".
Now, does she have a neocon streak in her? I don't have the foggiest. Althoug, if she did, it would only cement my enthusiasm for her having been picked.
AA, yes, of course we'll continue wrangling over this. Here's a little snippet from history I found, regarding Thomas Jefferson's dealing with Islam Militant:
Jefferson (then an ambassador) presented a letter to the infant American Congress on March 28, 1786. In this letter, he communicated the response an Islamic Ambassador gave to justify piracy and murder:
The Ambassador answered that it [piracy] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
Now, Jefferson was the one for bringing American gun-powder and Marines to deal with Islam Militant. Jefferson was a deist (on most days, anyhow), and when he talked about this course of action with John Adams (a Christian Puritan through and through), Adams said if America fights Islam Militant in this fashion today, it will fight them forever. Adams, the religious, didn't want to take military action. Jefferson, the Enlightenment thinker, did.
So it isn't all that necessary to invoke the name of God when needing to kick some religious fundamentalist ass. Anyhow, I just thought I'd share that little historical snippet with you. Off to drink some beer...
AA: Sure, let's have a beer in town one of these Saturdays (but not at the beginning of October, I'll be busy then). Just send me an email a day or two in advance, and we'll work it out. Could even try this Moose Drool MFT is drooling about -- does it exist outside the Northern Tundras?
I haven't seen it outside of the Northwest, but that doesn't mean one of the more eclectic local pubs isn't harboring it.
Ok, AI, will e-mail you.
" Adams said if America fights Islam Militant in this fashion today, it will fight them forever."
Actually, Adam had a good insight into Islam here. Once you make a noise with Islam by fighting rather than submitting to it, you pretty much stay a target until either you, or Islam, vanishes. And that could be a very long time.
However, Jefferson had it right. You gotta fight the bastards, because once you submit to them then all the pressure is to further submission.
That's life in the dar al Harb. Pepean self annihilation in slow motion, or determination unto war to avoid that annihilation. It's a bloody stark Cult, this one of Mecca.
Yes, you're correct: Jefferson saw it more clearly, and it's a bit surprising with Adams that he'd be willing to lay down for Islam Militant (a theocracy) just after defeating a British religious decree to rule (King George III; different kind of theocracy). At least that's one of the inconsistencies I see in Adams line of thinking.
Post a Comment