Man, the secular left and the Christian right have a bloody hard time understanding each other, don’t they?  These “have you stopped beating your wife” videos don’t help any.

First, the narrator says that Palin says the Iraq war is a task from God.  Except in the excerpt, she doesn’t quite:

“That our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task 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.”

She’s more likely saying, in effect, that Christians need to be assured that there *is* a plan, and that their plan matches up with God’s plan.  There’s a lot of leeway there for interpretation. Yeah yeah, I know you already know which interpretation is correct, but let’s admit some complexity into the discussion, yes?

Secondly, the “Christian zionism” thing, that Christ will only return when Jews have complete control over Isreal.  Isn’t it strange that while the video provides quotes and/or footage for most of the other claims, there are no quotes for this position? Come on, you can’t grab a position out of the air and say “Does Palin believe this? It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate!”

That is disturbing.  It’s surprising that people actually believe that craziness.

And you can parse all you want, Mike, but she is proud of that Christian heritage, she is proud of the fact that she was “prayed over” and it led to her being governor.  She attended services that involved witch hunts.  She goes to a church where the pastor believes that an omniscient god picked Alaska out for a refuge from something that they believe will happen based on a book of the Bible that many scholars don’t even think belongs in the Bible.

I stopped going to church because our pastor started will all this end time fairy wishing crap and as a rational adult, I just couldn’t stomach it.  It’s jut not logical or rational to believe any of this, and these people passionately believe it and you heard the pastor, they’re cheering it on.  They’re cheering on the death and destruction that certain militants are raining down on the world.  I don’t think we want someone sitting in the White House who is literally one heart beat away from the football who is actually cheering that kind of death and destruction on.  You might, I don’t.  That’s not the world I want to live in.

She claims to “respect science,” and in the same breath turns around and says that the morning after pill is bad because she believes life starts at conception.  How many minutes does she think it takes to fertilize an egg?  She is full of this religiousity, which would be fine, but I don’t think she can separate her belief system from secular law, and I don’t want her making decisions for or about me or my family based on her short-sighted Biblical views.

Anyone who claims (or even implies) a war over oil is a task from God worships at the altar of the Hummer (or has a snowmachine racing, environment destroying spouse) and isn’t fit to be thisclose to president.

The thing that should concern every voter is that a true believer in End Times is almost always synonymous with (a) somebody who wantsend times, and (b) somebody so terribly ill at ease in the modern world that they have a visceral hope that it all be pulled down because of a visceral expectation that a society more godly and in tune with their own lives will be erected in its place.

Secondly, the “Christian zionism” thing, that Christ will only return when Jews have complete control over Isreal.  Isn’t it strange that while the video provides quotes and/or footage for most of the other claims, there are no quotes for this position?

We know that Hagee and Robertson are Christian Zionists. We know that they, along with Palin’s ex-pastor, are believers in “End Times” theology. In my mind, then, it seems reasonable to ask whether Palin’s ex-pastor, and Palin, are also Christian Zionists.

Though, frankly, this type of reasoning is similar to that used by conservatives who accuse Obama of being a secret radical marxist because he talked with Bill Ayers. So it should be used carefully.

Mike, that may be the way they do it at your church. But it’s not the way among Bible literalists, which Palin appears to be. By definition, they keep the “leeway for interpretation” as narrow as possible.

But it’s not just about having a self-serving, parochial, ignoramus who believes we’re living in “end times” one alte kocker’s heartbeat away from being C-in-C. (1) 

It’s also a way of viewing the world.

If you grow up in a faith (or no faith) that allows that less credible bits of scripture are analogies or the interpretations of people who didn’t have our scientific perspective, and therefore shouldn’t be swallowed whole, your judgment, your ability to discern truth from BS and to find the bigger patterns in a group of related facts may be very good.

If, on the other hand, you grow up in (or in Palin’s—and Bush’s—cases, choose to be in) a milieu where you’re continually bullied into accepting things that are patently impossible based on zero evidence—because “faith” is a virtue, and expecting some proof makes you God’s enemy—you’re set up for a life that’s just one long round of magical thinking, of thinking that whatever you damn well feel like believing that day is as valid as anything else. (2) 

Palin will either believe anything if it’s wrapped in the Bible, or she’s one of those politicians who’s found that the protective coloration of such people is a real career-builder. Either way, no one with licks of sense (which leaves out the fundies) and decency (which leaves out the Bible-banging pols and their hangers-on) would trust her for dog-catcher.

(1) If McCain is sworn in in January, Palin will have probably decided that Jesus personally wants her to be president by February. By March, she’ll have decided that McCain is spitting in Jesus’s eye by remaining alive. If I were on McCain’s Secret Service detail, I wouldn’t let her in the same city.

(2) This is, of course, the basis of creationists’ complaints about evolution. It’s not just a matter of competing explanations. It’s also what happens to literalists’ kids’ faith when they’re exposed to a system in which “faith” isn’t good enough. Fundies complain about their children losing their religion when they go to college, that’s what happens. When fundies say that scientists are anti-religion, it’s literalism that they’re usually talking about—with some validity.

I get it now! Sarah Palin is Elmer Gantry!

MollyNYC—I wonder if McCain expected his VP pick to generate as much “OMG he’s not going to survive his first term” talk as it has, I wonder how he feels about all that. Most people are just reassessing his likelihood of surviving his first term from purely actuarial pov—between his advanced age and his skin cancer… but I really feel like if he takes office his likelihood of being assassinated will skyrocket—not from a liberal, but from some Biblical Literalist who believes that snuffing McCain and allowing Palin to ascend to the highest office will help bring about the establishment of God’s kingdom and coming of the End Times.

If McCain wins, I’ll be tempted to join the secret service to take that bullet and prevent Palin from becoming president. :D

This reminds me a little of Fred Clark’s post (at slacktivist.typepad.com) on the word worldview as used by Palin in the interview when she was questioned about the Bush doctrine and came back with “his wolrdview?”

Ummmmm….....this is an explicit consitutional right that you are asking Palin to explain.

A right is only a right if you don’t have to justify it.

The button on your site to publish a comment says all anyone needs to know about pandagon

Robert Z - she has the right to practice religion - free from discrimination - when functioning as a private citizen, so long as her practices do not interfere with the rights of others.

Palin’s running for public office, however, restricts no person from criticizing her beliefs either privately or publicly, or questioning her about them.

The removal of religious tests for federal office implies no particular religion must be professed in order to hold a job (top-down restriction); it does not, however, prevent any citizen from refusing to vote for a candidate based on their professed or perceived religious beliefs (bottom-up choice). 

No one is asking Palin to justify her religious beliefs or her right to them.  They’re asking her to explain what those beliefs are, so likely voters can determine just how completely fucking crazy and outside of the mainstream she is.

Could the anti-Christ be a woman?

Just asking.

1. Do you believe in the anti-Christ?
Yes, I do.

2. Do you believe we’re living in the end times?
Yes, I do.

3. Do you believe that Jesus will return in your lifetime?
Yes, I do.

4. Do you believe that true Christians have to battle Satanic agents in the End Times?
Yes, I do.

5. Do you see yourself as a warrior for Christ as part of a new Apostolic movement?
Darn tootin’! Todd, could you toss me another box of double-ought shells?

Ummmmm….....this is an explicit consitutional right that you are asking Palin to explain.

And of course you used that same reasoning to defend Obama when the right wing was running around screaming about his horrible minister, right?

Pam, thanks for putting this video up…I’m sending to several of my friends.  These people like Palin scare me….it’s that religious certitude that they have that makes them think they are the ONLY people who are right and because they are SO right, they have to follow their great commission and keep cramming it down the rest of our throats.  It also makes her think that all of this is due to god and that it must be god’s plan for her to be in this position….god wants her to be vp….god wants her to be pres….he is making a way, to quote the african preacher.  She does not think she can do any wrong, because since god wants this, every action she takes has to be his doing.  I guess that is why she didn’t blink when offered the vp role. 

Man, if she actually gets into the position, we are all gonna die….she’ll see to it.

Oh, and I noticed that in her interviews now she says she is not a member of a church….another whopping lie and I guess her handlers have her say that to try to deflect people away from her wacky religion.

Ummmmm….....this is an explicit consitutional right that you are asking Palin to explain.
A right is only a right if you don’t have to justify it.

Sorry?  When John Kerry ran for President, he was constantly called on by the media to justify his Catholicism and explain how his political beliefs did or did not line up with his religious beliefs.  He did so willingly.  Same with Kennedy, years ago.  As a Catholic, I would love to hear you explain this supposed Constitutional right of politicians not to be asked about their religious beliefs.  Is it some new thing, or does it only activate when Protestant fundamentalists are involved?

Constitution says no religious test as requirement for office.

This thread of thinking should be aborted.

I have to admit, now I really want to know what “prophesies” identify Wisconsin and Alaska specifically as the states everyone will flee to in the rapidly approaching End Times.  I’m still agog at the fig tree thing.  I thought I was raised with some nutty beliefs in the Catholic Church, but I’ve come to realize I’ve got nothing on fundamentalist evangelical churches, where they basically allow the meaning of Scripture to be dictated by whoever shouts the loudest.

Constitution says no religious test as requirement for office.

This thread of thinking should be aborted.

I’ll “abort” this thread of thinking once an open atheist has a shot at winning an election.  Until then, tough noogies.

Implicit in the Biblical literalist way of thinking is an invitation to indulge in the sin of pride, and the Darbyite and other popular schools of End Times theology positively encourage the sin of pride. To claim to know the mind of God now and forever is nuts to Christians raised in a more mainstream 20th century theology in which End Times pays little or no part. The non-literalists tend to favor the statement by Jesus that humans aren’t supposed to know the time of the Second Coming (so don’t try), and tend to be less sure of their own understanding of the Bible and God. Doubt is seen as a complement to faith and not as an enemy. It is good for the soul to admit that Of Course I Could Be Wrong (OCICBW, for the abbreviation-minded).

I fear certainty. Doubt in one’s interpretation of events, ideas, and people is so essential to the ability to grow and adjust and learn. A good president must be able to really listen to advisers offering different viewpoints and different possible solutions, must be able to change his or her mind when events prove him/her wrong.

BTW, she may or may not be a formal tithing member of Wasilla AOG. She seems to have two affiliations, with the other church in Juneau. The other church is not AOG but is in the same general group as that neoPente denomination; reports are that it seems to be more radical in theology and politics (rightward) than W. AOG.