Freak out!

Receiving a copy of "Obsession" the movie in the mail has spooked at least one US resident who is now wingeing and whining that "They're just instilling fear in us. I'm tired of living in fear."

The amazing thing is that there are quite a few letters to the editor that seem to agree with her.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/09/pennsylvanias_smoking_ban_migh.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 12, 2008 12:02 PM

"For this, Charlie Gibson ought to be run out of town on the Dan Rather Express, and no one should mistake him any longer for a credible and even-handed journalist."

It really is unfortunate. He and G.S were the only one's to pose direct questions to Obama regarding his positions in the Democratic primary, for which they were both castigated by the rest of the MSM, and subsequently denied any presidential debate moderator duties.

ABC was chastised initially for doing an excerpt interview before it was even conducted, from the left, for fear that Palin would be treated with kid gloves. They couldn't have been more wrong. Instead, she got a typical liberal media hatchet job.

Although I will certainly support the McCain / Palin ticket, for me the alrenative is unthinkable, Their collective ignorance, regarding Islam and jihad, whether willful or not, is quite disheartening.

This unfortunate reality is the truth to the Obama talking point of "more of the same".

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 12:11 PM

I watched the Sarah Palin interview on the ABC Web site today. Charlie Gibson also tried to get a firm "yes or no" answer, as to whether Gov. Palin would approve of US military intervention in Pakistan. She wisely answered, in effect, that everything is on the table (I don't want to misquote her). Charlie tried to back her into a corner on that one. I think she handled the interview very well.

Aren't Obama and Biden the ones, who say they would follow OBL to Pakistan (the gates of Hell)? I don't think McCain or Palin would make such a stupid statements on Pakistan, as Obama did in a debate.
--
CT Yankee

Posted by: CTYankee at September 12, 2008 12:12 PM

The Obama team is in big trouble, so you have the MSM types do hatchet jobs on the Republicans. I say Palin will be on them like a pitbull! give them hell Gov.Palin!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 12, 2008 12:13 PM

"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." --Gov. Sarah Palin

Charlie Gibson doesn't get it. There is a difference between praying that "God's will be done" and claiming that the Bush Administration's military policy is actually doing God's will. She never stated, as Mr. Gibson implied, that the US military plan is "God's plan".

Gov. Palin's prayer was much more carefully worded than Rev. Wright's, "God D**m AmeriKKKa" sermon.
--
CT Yankee

Posted by: CTYankee at September 12, 2008 12:24 PM

A very carelessly used quote, but one doesn't expect much from journalists of any stripe.

Posted by: Jerry M at September 12, 2008 12:29 PM

Well I guess getting slimmed, and insulted, and crapped on, come with the job of candidacy.

It's weird that we elect the candidate with the least slime on them.

Palin has the least slime so the opposition has to invent some.

Posted by: duh_swami at September 12, 2008 12:33 PM

Robert,

Typically I find myself hard-pressed to find anything in your articles I disagree with. Alas, this is one I can't quite reconcile.

Charlie Gibson quotes Palin saying,

"Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

What she actually said is,

"...our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

How exactly is this improperly quoting Palin? And how is his question not relevant when considering whether or not Palin puts her religious convictions before United States interests?

While I agree that McCain's camp tend to have a more realistic grasp of the threat we face from Islamists, that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of stupid ideas. Like say, believing the world is less that 10,000 years old, or that all the evidence that demonstrates the validity of Evolution is irrelevant. Should we not expect that our leaders base not only their opinions but also their policy decisions on objective evidence as opposed to subjective convictions?

What Sarah Palin said to her church is very revealing with regard to how she will make decisions if she becomes Vice-President (potentially President following heart failure). For one, we can assume she believes that there is: one, a God; and two, that he/she/it has a plan. It also implies that she may believe she knows that plan. What we can assume, then, is that she may potentially attribute to God's plan either her own wishes, or that of some religious authority that she respects. Both of these notions should be frightening to anyone who is concerned with our country following objective, evidence-based policy making.

In any case, best wishes.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 12:35 PM

Obama is in free fall, McCain has moved ahead of him in the Rassmussen daily poll and Obama leads by only 2 points in Washington which should be a safely Blue state.Howard Kurtz wrote a rant complaining about being manipulated, of course he never complained about being manipulated by Obama.Here's some interesting quotes about the press from Powerline, including one from Mark Steyn.

____________________________________________

It's not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, "the media are getting mad." They're getting mad because their candidate is losing. They've spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can't coast across the finish line. I'd be mad too, I guess, but I think I'd have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: At the Corner, Mark Steyn weighs in:

Howie feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.

Posted by: Roxane at September 12, 2008 12:45 PM

I have to agree with v4ri4bl3 - how is this a misquote? Both sentences say the same thing.

Posted by: Rucker at September 12, 2008 12:46 PM

I forgot to add, that this type of critical inquiry should be mandatory considering that Bush made the claim that God told him to invade Iraq.

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

This type of policy making is unacceptable, and no American patriot should stand for it. Anyone who claims to be a voice or an instrument for his/her divinity should be automatically dismissed from important decision making. This type of nonsense is exactly why we should be asking Palin tough questions.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 12:47 PM

v4ri4bl3:

All right, I will spell it out.

Gibson quoted her as saying, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

That is a declarative sentence -- a statement.

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."

That is not a declarative sentence. It is a prayer, a wish.

Do you really not see the difference?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 12, 2008 12:49 PM

My point is that the statement reveals what I mentioned previously: her belief in God, and that God has a plan.

These are important when considering the questions we ask her. And they are more than enough to justify asking the question he did. Although I think asking her what she believes is God's plan is more relevant.

The fact that it is a prayer instead of a statement is nothing short of irrelevant. She obviously wants our foreign policy to coincide with her notion of God's plan. That, my friend, becomes enormously dangerous the day she believes God's plan is to kill all Muslims or convert all the world to Christianity. Obviously, I don't believe that is what she wants. But how will we know if we don't ask her?

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 12:58 PM

The optative mood, the jussive mood, the hortatory subjunctive -- why, what this country needs is a good indo-european grammar book.

Brush up, not your Shakespeare, boys, but your grammar, even of moods not listed in English grammar books, and practice the art of close reading and textual analysis. Forget about The Times. Open up Reuben Brower and Theodore Baird and Christopher Ricks.

Then the mendacity of the way Gibson phrased his question, his deliberate misinterpretation of what Palin had in fact said (perhaps he simply wanted to make up for how he had cross-questioned Obama, and what better way than to be so grossly unfair to Palin?) will be unmistakable.

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2008 12:58 PM

v4ri4bl3:

The fact that it is a prayer instead of a statement is nothing short of irrelevant.

Hardly.

It's the difference between saying "I really hope we're doing the right thing" and "We're doing the right thing."

That you would not see this as a significant difference is extremely odd.

RS

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 12, 2008 1:01 PM

I also have to add my voice to the doubters, I don’t see the misquote by Gibson at all. I have reread the quote several times, and it seems that his question was absolutely correct. As that rare bird, a liberal pro-Obama loyal Jihad watch reader (just to be clear, one who not only reads these pages, but agrees with the vast majority of what I read here), I think that it is far from clear from a anti-jihad perspective that McCain in a slam dunk preference over Obama. Now I understand that the vast majority of the readership and writers on this site tend to lean heavily conservative, so I am not surprised that they would support McCain for a variety of reasons, but the given assumption here, that Obama would not be as effective as McCain against world wide jihad is, a best questionable. If, for example, you assume, as I certainly do, that Obama would move our country far more aggressively off of oil, and decrease our use of imported oil more than McCain would, that fact alone, might do more to hurt the cause of jihadist then anything else the President might do. One final partisan shot regarding Palin: I try to be evenhanded and I would ask Republicans to do the same: can you honestly tell me that if Obama had picked someone of similar obscurity and lack of resume that you would not scream about the shocking lack of qualifications. The arguments that have been advanced for Palin’s credentials is laughable. Her knowledge of the world outside of Alaska seems tiny. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—if she would become President, she would be hands down the least qualified person to assume that office. ( I concede that her lack of qualifications doesn’t preclude that possibility that she might turn out to be a good president, but that isn’t the point, we don’t pick people who are obviously unqualified for serious jobs and hope that it works out.)

Posted by: esquared at September 12, 2008 1:04 PM

What is odd, is how you have translated "following God's plan" into "doing the right thing." If that is the case, then the Islamists must be doing the right thing. Which, I think we can agree, they are not.

Whether she thinks we are advancing God's plan or hopes we are doesn't really matter to me in this case, because the latter invites the former.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:07 PM

v4ri4bl3 on fox this morning, Newt Gingrich had some good points about how the msm elites are so focused and scared when ever anyone makes God statements. when in the past you had Dem's favorite pres. Kennedy and Roosevelt use the "God" statements, and it was a hit with the left back then. Have the left go so far left, that the feel threatened with any mention the "God" word. Get over it, Christians's use of the word of God is quite different when islamist use their god allah, a very big difference!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 12, 2008 1:10 PM

v4ri4bl3

What is odd, is how you have translated "following God's plan" into "doing the right thing." If that is the case, then the Islamists must be doing the right thing. Which, I think we can agree, they are not.

I did nothing of the kind. But I did, in giving you that analogy, reveal to my satisfaction that you have no interest in treating this issue fairly, and so there is no further need for me to discuss it with you.

And as for hoping one is doing God's will, see the speeches of that crazed jihadist-like right winger, Abraham Lincoln.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 12, 2008 1:12 PM

One final partisan shot regarding Palin: I try to be evenhanded and I would ask Republicans to do the same: can you honestly tell me that if Obama had picked someone of similar obscurity and lack of resume that you would not scream about the shocking lack of qualifications.

Palin is not at the top of the GOP ticket and she has more experience then Barack Obama.She has been a chief executive of a city and state and is commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. She visited her troops in Kuwait before Obama visited troops in Iraq. She also stopped to visit wounded troops in Germany, something Obama did not do. Obama has no military experience and no executive experience. He's probably one of the least qualified candidate ever to run for POTUS. The NY Post when endorsing McCain noted Obama's tissue thin resume.

Posted by: Roxane at September 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 12:58 PM

OK let's start at the beginning. Initially you wrote:

"Charlie Gibson quotes Palin saying,

"Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

What she actually said is,

"...our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

How exactly is this improperly quoting Palin?"

Funny, how you think that Gibson's "quote", which begins with a capitalized word, when in reality there were preceding words, by your own admission, when you used the ...

When quoting someone, it is usually helpful to provide statements in proper context and not to paraphrase.

There is actually a word that should appear in the actual statement to provide proper context. I will provide it below:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also,[pray] 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."

The insertion of the second reference to pray provides the proper context as it was irrefutably intended.

You then responded, when utterly rebuked in your initial claim:

"My point is that the statement reveals what I mentioned previously: her belief in God, and that God has a plan."

Not true. That was not your point at all. Your point was that Gibson quote and what she said in context are the same. Thay are obviously not.

You then dropped this gem:

"She obviously wants our foreign policy to coincide with her notion of God's plan. That, my friend, becomes enormously dangerous the day she believes God's plan is to kill all Muslims or convert all the world to Christianity."

She explicitly said that she can never presume to speak for God and can never presume to know what God's plan is. She simply prays that we, as a country, and through our elected leaders, she hopes that is coincides with God's plan, whatever that may be.

She has no "notion" of what God's plan is as you falsely accused her of admitting to.

Honestly, v4ri4bl3 , Palin believes in God. So what? Is she the first VP candidate that believes in God in your estimation? Does that distinguish her from her peers or political opponents in any way?

Try being truthful, no matter how hard it is for you.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 1:16 PM

ZenaWarriorPrincess,

You are mistaken if you think I am afraid that our future President or Vice-President has a faith in any God(s). In fact, I would ignore the fact as irrelevant, as long as they don't claim to speak for any supernatural body or base our foreign policy on that communication. This is precisely why our Constitution prohibits respecting any religious estblishment. Because, given the opportunity, the sect with the majority would no doubt do everything in its power to oppress those who disagree with it.

Maybe you should introduce yourself to Fred Phelps of the esteemed Westboro Baptist church who preach hate against homosexuals, and protest with signs that say "God hates fags." Maybe then you would understand why I don't make any exceptions for the Christian brand of divinely inspired hate and ignorance or the Islamic one. Politics based on religious beliefs have an atrocious track record. And I would think that perhaps we could base our decision making on what we have in common, as opposed to what divides us. Maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:18 PM

Who's this Abraham "with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right" Lincoln you mention up there? And what's this optative mood I now hear so much about? "JR, I'm so confused."

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2008 1:20 PM

Can there be much doubt that Charlie Gibson will be voting for the community organizer come November?

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 1:22 PM

v4ri4bl3 -

As I watched the conversation unfold, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But with this:

"Maybe then you would understand why I don't make any exceptions for the Christian brand of divinely inspired hate and ignorance or the Islamic one."

you have now showed your hand, as being one of those people who think Christians (of which I am one) and Islamic terrorists believe the exact same things.

For people such as yourself, it does not matter how many times it is explained that Christianity and Islam teach very different things. It does not even matter that a (so-called) Christian shouting ugly names is not equal to Muslim terrorists bombing buildings and doing suicide attacks. In your mind, those two things are exactly the same, aren't they?

Goodbye.

Posted by: Mo at September 12, 2008 1:27 PM

Robert,

Its fine, of course, that we disagree on this. I don't see how you can possibly ascertain that I am being "unfair," especially considering that I would ask that all candidates be asked equally important questions regarding their religious convictions.

How you can sit day-in and day-out and write about religiously motivated violence and not see the need to inquire about the religious motivations of our own leaders is beyond me.

And, as far as good old Abe, this must be the same Lincoln who said,

"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged."

The fact that people of good will might attribute that to God's will is not my concern. My concern is with those individuals of hate and intolerance who consequently attribute that hate to God's will. You of all people, should understand the importance of that.

Respectfully Yours.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:28 PM

v4ri4bl3 your statement of "god hates fags" is disgusting. Saran Palin is Christian who speaks with passion and uses the same type of "God" reference as did past presidents such as Kennedy, Regan etc. It seems today's left are terrified of fellow Americans, but seem to to allow islamists free use of their allah, or you cannot seem to tell the differnce between the Christian God or the allah moon god?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Mo,

No, they are different in the their results. And I most certainly do not, damned be anyone who claims otherwise =), think that the threat of Christian inspired hate is equal today to that of Islamic inspired hate. But I am also not short-sided enough to consider Christiany's, as for many other dogmas, past crimes washed away. The Vatican still funds money to encourage Aids ridden Africa to remain so, to discourage homosexuality as sin, etc. etc. I'm not going to completely forgot those things because of the severe threat Islam poses to the West. And I will continue to expect our leaders put the interests of their country in front of those of their church.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:34 PM

ZenaWarriorPrincess,

Isn't it amazing how every thinks God is on their side. You Christians really need to get off the high-horse on this issue. Rejecting Islamic supremacism does not require endorsing Christianity or ignoring hate, and ignorance perpetrated in it's name. The fact that you and so many others think this is a good way to prevent criticism of the actions of some of your fellow Christians is pathetic.

I could care less if you are Buddhist, atheist, satanist, whatever. As long as you desire to support or constitution and the equality of our countrymen, you and I are allies.

All this, "The left hates Christians or God," belly-aching is really just static in our conversation.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:38 PM

Posted by: v4ri4bl3.. September 12, 2008 12:58 PM
"The fact that it is a prayer instead of a statement is nothing short of irrelevant.
She obviously wants our foreign policy to coincide with her notion of God's plan.
That, my friend, becomes enormously dangerous the day she believes
God's plan is to kill all Muslims or convert all the world to Christianity.
Obviously, I don't believe that is what she wants.
But how will we know if we don't ask her?"

v4ri4bl3
You have a twisted understanding of "Gods plan" according to the New Testament.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at September 12, 2008 1:43 PM

"I also have to add my voice to the doubters, I don’t see the misquote by Gibson at all."

Posted by: esquared at September 12, 2008 1:04 PM

In the wise words of master Yoda, "That is where you fail."

Your support of Obama should have no bearing on the deserved criticism of Gibson in this instance.

Remember, the truth is the truth, no matter who utters it.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 1:44 PM

Awake,

I don't actually appreciate your accusations of dishonesty. But I don't think that you can be childish enough to think that anyone would think I lied anywhere in my correspondence.

I agree that Mr. Gibson's attribution of the quote as a statement of fact instead of a statement of desire was somewhat inaccurate. However, he did quote her words as they were written, and he may very well have thought that she intended them as a statement.

In any case, Palin then has the opportunity to answer the question and clear up the discrepancy, doesn't she?

Either way, he read her words as they were written, and regardless of his potential misunderstanding, the question was relevant.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:46 PM

v4ri4bl3 is trying so hard to spin equivalence of a Christian prayer "God let your will be done" with Islamic fundamentalist one...without examining the principles behind the petition of God from the Christian's based upon the bible, to the Muslim's call upon their Allah in context with the Quran.

That is where any vague similarities end abruptly.

This is why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is not :)

(sound familiar?)

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 1:53 PM

Bottom line is that Gibson should have quoted Palin accurately, then asked her "do you mean by this quote that we are in a holy war?" Then it would have been ok. Give her a chance to clarify, instead of railroading her with a quote MISQUOTED, out of thousands of her own quotes she can't remember exactly on the spot to verify if it was exact or not.

I agree with Spencer, Gibson's position in journalism and his fame and influence make it unacceptable for him to be so sloppy. As for v4ri4bl3, with his inability to see the difference between Palin and religious fanatics, I would take his driver's license away for such a gross optical problem.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 1:58 PM

v4ri4bl3 wrote,

Either way, he read her words as they were written

Let me get this straight.

So if you say, "I do not think my logic is poor"

I can quote you as saying "My logic is poor."

Excellent. And perfectly fitting.

Posted by: kamala at September 12, 2008 2:02 PM

Soteria,

Please.

If you think that it takes a theological argument to validate my opinions then you are going to find yourself at a total loss. I don't need to agree with someone's interpretation of the Bible to understand that they THINK they are interpreting it correctly. I could care less what in the Bible could be used to justify the Iraq war. What is important is whether or not Sarah Palin thinks that our national interests should coincide with HER interpretation of God's will.

To the rest,

Not to beat a dead horse, but if your going to bash Charlie for attributing her statement the way he did, here is a list of sites you will probably want to complain to.

Oh, and considering that she actually did say (Robert let me know if I get this wrong),

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that..."

So obviously she DOES think she knows God's will to an extent. Or perhaps I am making this all up?

• The Christian Post, "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God." (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080905/palin-pray-u-s-plan-in-iraq-is-god-s-plan.htm)

• Newsmax "Palin: Iraq War is 'God's Plan'" (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_iraq_war_gods_plan/2008/09/05/128092.html)

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:03 PM

v4ri4bl3 wrote:

"I don't actually appreciate your accusations of dishonesty."

Then stop being dishonest.

You wrote, initially:
"How exactly is this improperly quoting Palin? And how is his question not relevant when considering whether or not Palin puts her religious convictions before United States interests?"

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 12:35 PM

That was your first offering. It was a declaration that supposes Palin implying that she knows God's will. That is a false accusation, if you comprehend her words in context.

Your second accusation is mere projection that because Palin is a deist, that she will put her religious beliefs ahead of the country's needs.

You now admit:
"I agree that Mr. Gibson's attribution of the quote as a statement of fact instead of a statement of desire was somewhat inaccurate."

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 1:46 PM

Do you see a contradiction there, or did you simply have an epiphany in the last hour or so?

Gibson has every right to ask Palin questions about her religious faith. He does not however, have the right to attribute sentiments and statements to her that are false and willfully taken out of context.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 2:03 PM

Awake,

Would your definition of projection include supposed knowledge that Gibson "willfully" took out of context what she said?

And no, there is not a contradiction, I literally did not see the point Robert was trying to make, and felt that the question was relevant.

Now I do understand the point Robert was trying to make, and disagree that Gibson should be automatically feathered as lying; he could have understood her statement that way. And I still think the question was relevant.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:07 PM

"Would your definition of projection include supposed knowledge that Gibson "willfully" took out of context what she said?"

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:07 PM

Either that, or unforgingingly shoddy "journalism". You decide.

Also, it was a question in the same vein as "when did you stop beating your wife"? It is a complex question logical fallacy. He asked the question based on a false attribution of her sentiment by taking her words completely out of context.

Your writing style is familiar to me.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Soteria,

Yes Christianity is a religion of peace. Just ask the now-dead slaves who were sold by Christians justifying slavery based on their religion. Or perhaps the multitude of individuals championing heliocentricity, or perhaps the pagans who persecuted in Christianities infance, or homosexuals who can't get the same tax breaks as straight Christian couples, or the children who are kept up at night afraid of hell-fire. Yes truly your religion is all peaceful and benign. Unfortately, even an amateur review of its history belies your claims.

With that said, I will reiterate that I don't consider Christian bigotry to be anything like Islamic bigotry in the 21st century. But I don't attribute that fact to Christianity or the Bible. I attribute it to the enlightenment. Just as we can attribute our government to the Romans.

Kamala,

I think Mr. Gibsons misunderstanding could have been had easily. Your example is blatantly obvious. His question is relevant regardless of which interpretation he had.

Denver,

Sarah Palin is a religous fanatic. She believes that creationism is Science, and that God has something to do with a gas pipeline in Alaska. My concern is determining to what degree is her fanatacism.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:22 PM

The only folks I know of who compare Christians to Muslim fanatics who want to put a bullet in you are rabid secular liberals who congregate at sites like Dkos. A site notorious for bashing Christians and working class Americans.

So I'd take the argumentative and dense variable with a bucket of salt.

Posted by: waltc at September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

"If you think that it takes a theological argument to validate my opinions then you are going to find yourself at a total loss. I don't need to agree with someone's interpretation of the Bible to understand that they THINK they are interpreting it correctly. I could care less what in the Bible could be used to justify the Iraq war. What is important is whether or not Sarah Palin thinks that our national interests should coincide with HER interpretation of God's will."
Posted by: v4ri4bl3

Instead of making assumptions that Palin's views were formed in some full of hate ultra radical Praise the Lord pass the ammo and shoot any Raghead and ask questions later church...How about examine the church itself and their statement of faith? Somehow I don't think you honestly want to know specifics concerning Palin, you just want to spread the "appearance" she might have some ultra radical leanings, alluding to some Christian army to kill every Muslim nonsense. How about prove me wrong here and contact them yourself???

http://www.jccalaska.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FaithHighway/10000/3000/582JU/vision

Our Purpose: To win souls and make disciples!

Our Passion: To Love God and Love People!

Our Path: Win, Connect, Disciple, and Send.

1. WIN: New believers are added to the church through relational evangelism, church services and outreaches.
2. CONNECT: Both new believers and new church members are "plugged in" to Juneau Christian Center. Life Group Leaders help these individuals become a part of the Life Groups that meet weekly in homes. (Please see Life Groups for more details.)
3. DISCIPLE: Individuals enter the School of Destiny which consists of five seven-week levels of study. The School of Destiny will equip believers.
4. SEND: As each believer progresses through the School of Destiny, he/she will branch out into a ministry.

Our History

Charles and Florence Personeus arrived in Juneau in the gold rush days with a message of God's love for Alaskans. Thanksgiving Day 1917, Bethel Pentecostal Mission, Alaska's first Pentecostal mission, opened in a South Franklin saloon, which was closed due to Prohibition.

A storefront building on Main Street served as the church building beginning in 1929. To accommodate new growth the new pastors, Ralph and Bertha Baker constructed a building in 1940 on the corner of 4th and Franklin. In 1955 once again the growing church needed a bigger venue. A new church building was built at the edge of town, on the waterfront on Glacier Highway.

When construction on Egan Expressway began a new site was needed. A larger beautiful sanctuary was built in 1965 across from the old church at 4th and Franklin. The church also purchased the building across the street for offices, a bookstore, coffeehouse and additional classrooms.

George and Betty McNeven and their family pastored the church from 1974 to 1985. Pastor McNeven had a vision for a Christian school and a desire to relocate in order to be able to expand the ministry of Bethel Christian Center. In 1977 eleven acres were purchased for the new 34,000 square foot facility. The building was finished in 1978 and Juneau Christian School was established in that same year.

Pastors Mike and Deenie Rose arrived in 1987 with their two sons. The church is continuing in the rich tradition of growth and Godly influence in this city. Once again Juneau Christian Center is building to facilitate the needs of a growing congregation. We are presently finishing construction the HUB youth center, our new youth and children offices, and a renovation of 5 classrooms. Our next phase includes new church offices, a bookstore, a cafe and a sanctuary that will seat over 1,100 people.

Want to email them and ask them their views on the bible?

PHONE
907.789.2176

E-MAIL
info@jccalaska.com

MAIL
P.O. BOX 32000

JUNEAU, AK 99803

v4ri4bl3 why not lay your "fears" of Palin being some modern day murder all the Sarrasins crusader and

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

OT,

Obama said at Colombia last night that education funding and our ability to compete - "particularly in math and science" - will be one of the highest priorities of his Presidency.

Meanwhile, Stanley Kurtz has documented the dispensation of education grants Obama received when he was chairing a community-outreach program back in his Chicago days. The program - of which "some guy down the street" (former terrorist William Ayers) was intimately involved, appearing at and addressing the meetings according to the minutes - rejected the applications of math and science clubs for money, but accepted those from Afro-centric and Chicano organizations. In short, identity politics trumped REAL education, and the money was poured down a rat-whole that produced no tangible advancement for the kids of Chicago.

Folks, please get this info out. Google Stanly Kurtz and the radio interview he gave last week that so angered and mobilized the Obama campaign; expose the hypocrisy of Obama, today's great advocate for math and science...who yesterday rejected math and science clubs when he was empowered with the funds to make a real difference.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 2:27 PM

v4ri4bl3: I am not religious but do think that much of the Left is antagonistic to Christianity because it asserts absolute values and the Left is very much about asserting moral relativism. It's a modern replay of Socrates in Plato's dialogues maintaining there are absolutes in his many give and takes with the Sophists, most of whom, like the modern Left, exhibited a snide, know-it-all attitude until they crumbled under the weight of Socrates' arguments.

I see in Palin the quiet confidence of another absolutist. I would contend this is part of the reason why many on the Left detest her. I'm rooting for Palin, if for no other reason (and, yes, there are others) than that the Left in hysterics is a fine spectator sport.

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 2:31 PM

Soteria,

Are you done speaking for me? Or shall I actually be capable of having my own opinion?

One that irritates me about those of you who I agree with in regard to Islamism is that you are all so set on believing that Christianity is perfect, and that secular individuals like myself are just Christian haters.

Note that I never said Palin is going to call for holy war on Muslims or try to kill anyone. I said it is important to ask questions so that someone like that doesn't land in the white house. The exact same critical inquiry should be applied to both Republicans and Democrats. But you are so narrow-minded and partisan that anyone except a Church-Going Christian American is automatically your enemy and doesn't understand the threats of our nation as well as you do. Please. Get off your self-righteous asses and set aside this nonsense. And please quit attributing to me things I did not say, and positions I have clearly not taken.

No I don't hate Christians.

No I don't think Islam = Christianity.

No I don't hate Republicans.

No I am not a rabid liberal "whatever."

I, like you all, am a tax-paying American, who deserves to have a president that isn't a puppet for a religious—or for that matter any sort of partisan/sectarian—organization.

Waltc,

Thanks, if that is in someway a position of mutual respect towards me.

Technically I could say that the only people I talk to who think Christianity is above Islam, are atheist-bashing, secular-bashing, right-wing Rebublican screwballs. But, since I don't agree with that or your statement I will say that it is important for us to put these types of biases aside when having this type of discourse.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:39 PM

v4ri4bl3,

In your previous post (see copy below), you made the assertion that "Bush made the claim that God told him to invade Iraq" does not provide any direct quote from President Bush. However, the link that you provided doesn't really support this. Rather, it references quotes from former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath about what *he said* that President Bush said. Are you certain that Nabil Shaath was being accurate?

Can you provide any direct quotes from President Bush that support your claim?

The only quote directly from President Bush were ones in which I agree.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region" and set up a radical empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia, he said.

The insurgents' aim was to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world". He portrayed Islamic radicals as a single global movement, from the Middle East to Chechnya and Bali and the jungles of the Philippines.

**********************
v4ri4bl3 wrote:
I forgot to add, that this type of critical inquiry should be mandatory considering that Bush made the claim that God told him to invade Iraq.

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

This type of policy making is unacceptable, and no American patriot should stand for it. Anyone who claims to be a voice or an instrument for his/her divinity should be automatically dismissed from important decision making. This type of nonsense is exactly why we should be asking Palin tough questions.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at September 12, 2008 2:43 PM

Wellington,

I understand what you mean and I somewhat agree. But I am not the left. And moral relativism has nothing to do with my argument or my criticisms of Palin.

I was even contemplating today how it would be funny to get Obama into office so when his policies fail the Democrats will shut up about how bad the Republicans are doing in office. But that would be a cynical, nonobjective vote.

My criticism of Palin are based on my expectations that our politicians uphold the values of our constitution, including a right to believe whatever you want and not be treated differently; to not base policy decisions on religious convictions alone; and for her to uphold the education standards for our kids. This latter is something I find hard to believe that creationist is capable of.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:45 PM

"Soteria,

Yes Christianity is a religion of peace. Just ask the now-dead slaves who were sold by Christians justifying slavery based on their religion. Or perhaps the multitude of individuals championing heliocentricity, or perhaps the pagans who persecuted in Christianities infance, or homosexuals who can't get the same tax breaks as straight Christian couples, or the children who are kept up at night afraid of hell-fire. Yes truly your religion is all peaceful and benign. Unfortately, even an amateur review of its history belies your claims."

Ahh yes now we are getting somewhere.

v4ri4bl3 is just another ultra hater of Christianity who surfs anti bible websites that combs revised history for anybody who said they were a Christian yet directly disobeyed the bible and went on murdering rampages and tortured little children. These same people must rely on incomplete & questionable historical commentary.

Meanwhile present day, which religion is actually doing all these things RIGHT NOW? Where are homosexuals are hanging from nooses in the public squares, anybody speak against the religion publicly is playing Russian roulette with their lives, honor killing their own children, women are treated like sub-human cattle...on and on and on.

v4ri4bl3 apply this paranoia to Islam and you might have a leg to stand on here.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 2:49 PM

Sorry for not proofing my opening paragraph above.
It should have read:

v4ri4bl3,
In your previous post you made the assertion that "Bush made the claim that God told him to invade Iraq". However, the link that you provided doesn't necessarily support this since it does not provide any direct quote from President Bush. Rather, it only references quotes from former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath about what *he said* that President Bush said. Are you certain that Nabil Shaath was being accurate or that he interpreted Bush's remarks correctly? Are there any sites which quote Bush on this directly?

I'd prefer to see direct quotes from President Bush rather than quotes from other sources that claim to be quoting President Bush.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at September 12, 2008 2:57 PM

"Are you done speaking for me? Or shall I actually be capable of having my own opinion?"

Gee I'm merely responding to your statements. So answering you is "speaking for you" game-of-the-moment? I've done this so many times with ultra left wing types like you v4ri4bl3, its just another trip down memory lane.

*SoteriA gets some popcorn & pulls up the recliner next to the pc to enjoy another classic re-run*

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 2:58 PM

The Cool Ghoul,

Thank you for pointing that out. No I do not have a direct quote. However, keep in mind there were actually two witnesses to that speach Nabil Shaath, and Abu Mazen. I can't speak for Bush, but if someone claimed I said something similar in the press I would deny it.

Also, further down in the article he is quoted directly, when asked if he sought advice from Senior Bush, he said he appealed to a different "father" for help. There is isn't much difference in opinion then.

Either way, instead of relying solely on evidence to justify the war in Iraq, he is looking for revelation.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 2:59 PM

"v4ri4bl3 is just another ultra hater of Christianity who surfs anti bible websites that combs revised history for anybody who said they were a Christian yet directly disobeyed the bible and went on murdering rampages and tortured little children."

Soteria,

First of all, I don't hate Christianity. I simply think it is a false representation of understanding our world. These statements are why I say you are trying to speak for me.

You mean those anti-bible websites like this one?

• http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2031&version=31

"13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Here Moses commands his warriors to slaughter innocent children. Would you consider Moses a true Christian such as yourself?

Maybe he was just full of it and you have a better understanding than he.

Besides, this conversation is pointless. I could care less if all of the people who committed violence in the name of Christianity and claimed to be Christians misunderstood the bible. The point is that they believed they were inspired by God to do so. This is the problem. Apparently you wouldn't care to much if people were murdered in the name of Christianity as long as they interpreted the book your way.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:08 PM

Granted, Moses was Jewish... =)

But he listened to the same source right!

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:09 PM

"Either way, instead of relying solely on evidence to justify the war in Iraq, he is looking for revelation."

Utter Cods wallop. The evidence is temporal. The prayer is for guidance to do the right thing.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 3:09 PM

Cornelius,

Funny I always thought doing the right thing was solely dependent on having evidence to support it. Must have missed that somewhere.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:13 PM

v4ri4bl3,

I'm impressed. You held your own against formidable odds here.
I'm surprised that so many Christians are quick to insult or slander you for the apparent offence of trying to discuss the dangers of too much religion in politics.
Perhaps some of those over-protective Palin supporters should realize that she is perfectly capable of defending and speaking for herself.

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 12, 2008 3:14 PM

v4ri4bl3 said--

"My criticism of Palin are based on my expectations that our politicians uphold the values of our constitution, including a right to believe whatever you want and not be treated differently;"

Show me evidence that Palin will work to undermine these rights.

He goes on:

"to not base policy decisions on religious convictions alone"

Again, show me evidence that Palin will base policy decisions on religious convictions alone.

Seems to me from Palin's own words that she simply has a faith in God, and God for most Christians is about the same as a moral conscience for atheists, practically speaking. I have seen no evidence that

** Palin's God tells her to do bad things or unconstitutional things, and that

** Palin would follow this kind of God over and above all other considerations.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no reason to believe that Palin is not just basically rubber-stamping her moral conscience with "God". And I have no reason to change my view that Palin is a good and for the most part exceptionally bright person. This is 180 degrees different from what Muslims do. They have specific God laws they can't change and they believe human input in developing laws is bad.

Show me that Palin wants to force people at gunpoint to accept Creationism. That's what a religious fanatic is, not someone who believes in putting Creationism up for a public referendum, or who believes in using the bully pulpit to try to inject the concept of Creationism into the public arena. Your definition of "religious fanatic" is ridiculous. FYI, I don't believe in Creationism, but from what I've read, Creationists don't want to force people with violence to accept Creationism -- all they want is through legal means to allow Creationism to be given representation in school curriculums along with Evolution. Many Creationists would be happy if teachers simply mentioned for 5 minutes that there is an alternative view to Evolution! What they object to is the complete censorship of the other side of this debate. So objecting to complete censorship, and simply wanting a tiny sliver of the pie makes you a "religious fanatic"? They sound reasonable to me in terms of their political agenda (though I disagree with their views on the issue itself). In fact, I think it would be good for high school level students to be given an assignment to write a paper on the pros and cons of Evolution vs. Creationism (without the teacher penalizing any pro-Creationist students simply because they support it, but only for logical or research faults).

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 3:16 PM

Denver,

It would be nice and well if it was that simple. Unfortunately Creationism claims to be Science, which it is not. That is why it should not appear in a Science classroom, except as an example of what is not science and why. But thats not what its promoters are looking for. They are looking for it to be presented as a credible world-view from a Scientific perspective, which it isn't. It has nothing to do with censorship. By all means discuss it in political science as a social phenomenon or in religious studies as a credible idea. But not in a Science classroom.

You misconstrue my concern for Palin's views. I am not concerned with her moral conscience. I am concerned that her policies might be guided by her religious convictions where they should be guided by evidence. I can't yet determine if that is the case, but I am trying to learn more about her.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:24 PM

I too, admire your moxy, v4ri4bl3. You are holding your own magnificently. Some of the other posters need to be reminded that ad hominum arguments are just as fallacious as tu quoque.

Posted by: skevin at September 12, 2008 3:25 PM

Haha so classic.

"Would you consider Moses a true Christian such as yourself?"

Moses the murderer. Lets invent our interpretation and then tie in modern day Christians for something the Jews did thousands of years under circumstances & commands God specifically gave to them and no one else. Like Jesus used your basis of interpretation in any of His teachings?

Hint...don't try to expound on interpretations of something you hate. It will only come across as worthless rhetoric formed in your hatred.

"I don't hate Christianity".

Then why did you take it upon yourself of coming on here making the all too common accusations? That is a amazing talent of speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

This is all sooo typical of the secular liberal community. Completely ignore all the horrid modern day injustices brought to us by Islam to focus on a carefully constructed deception by omission concerning Christianity.

No wonder liberalism is such a strange bedfellow with Islam. The enemy of my enemy is my friend [until the Shariah sword is at your neck]

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 3:26 PM

v4ri4bl3: Thanks for your response. I certainly don't think Palin is a fanatic or anything like it. To me she has mountains of common sense, loads of character and toughness and high intelligence. In short, the very ingredients that should be prized in a leader. As for her creationism, it is my understanding that she has merely expressed the opinion that it should be taught alongside evolutionary theory. Actually, I would quibble here only to the degree that creationism and Intelligent Design (just a new term for the teleological argument for the existence of a deity) are perfectly logical propostitions but that they belong in a philosophy or religion class, not in a science course.

Since I myself have taught evolutionary theory and accept its major premise as a given, I do not look kindly upon those who merely dismiss it with specious arguments. We have loads of evidence, anywhere from over 80,000 Neanderthal skeltons alone to numerous examples of Homo erectus, Homo habilis, at least six species of Australopithecus and even earlier and more primitive Hominids, like Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus ramidus, to sustain the argument that man indeed evolved over hundreds of thousands and even millions of years. And if God exists and did it this way, then in no way does the evolution of man detract from the magnificence of such a supreme entity. With all of the above, I have no solid information that Palin would simply dismiss any of this. Do you? In short, she's OK and then some. That's my take on her.

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 3:27 PM

"Funny I always thought doing the right thing was solely dependent on having evidence to support it. Must have missed that somewhere."

Nonsense. Rarely is evidence entirely incontrovertible. Iraq was no exception. Many if not most criminal trials are based upon a preponderance of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. After weighing the evidence, gut instinct often comes into play when making a decision (I'll bet even the likes of you have relied on it once or twice in life).

A little prayer for guidance is just a means of trying to clarify one's ability to weigh the evidence.

Interesting, how such a simple concept could seem so inexplicable to an atheist.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 3:28 PM

Charley who?? Oh...I guess you're talking about one of the "news" actors on one of the little three networks. Does anyone actually waste time watching them anymore? I had been under the impression that they had failed and gone out of business. I thought that Dan guy had finally finished them. Guess they're still hanging on? Doing comic parodies of journalism? I'll have to watch sometime.

Posted by: Rick at September 12, 2008 3:32 PM

"This is all sooo typical of the secular liberal community. Completely ignore all the horrid modern day injustices brought to us by Islam to focus on a carefully constructed deception by omission concerning Christianity."

Actually if anyone is hating here I would put that onus on you. You are throwing every type of alienating jab you can to show how much different we are. Ask yourself why I read Jihad Watch daily if I am ignoring Islam. Ask yourself why a wrote an article for my local group of atheists trying to convince them that our government doesn't understand Islam well enough to handle it. Ask yourself why I have a copy of just about everyone of Robert Spencer's books on Islam. Ask yourself why I criticize Obama openly for his naivety regarding foreign policy. But I guess that is beyond you. You are so dead-set on making me the Christian-hating, secular, radical left wing opponent, so that you can ignore opinions contrary to your one.

I suppose, unlike you, I am not hypocritical in my opposition to injustice. I find it in Stalin's attempts to oppress Russian Christians during his reign, by the Vatican in its support of officers in the Third Reich and persecution of science, and I find it behind the trigger of an AK47-wielding jihadist. I do not allow bias to interfere with this analysis.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:35 PM

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.

The oldest trick in the book and unfortunately Palin fell for it under pressure.

Notice Gibson never said "These are your exact words;" he merely uttered an incomplete phrase "exact words," hoping that she would as she apparently did, take the bait and swallow it!

The sleazy tactic is used by various scumbag attornies to trick a witness on the stand. An alert trial lawyer on the other side of course will quickly object that the witness is being lead.

In the extremely likely event that Palin ascends to the VP post in Washington, her first week will no doubt entail the usual introduction to someone who will "show her the ropes" and instruct her on "how things are done around here."

After that she will be no different than all the rest.

As far as Palin taking direct orders "from her god" -- I don't have a problem at all as long as her "god" isn't allah or the "central banks."

I'm still NOT voting for McCain and I'll be damned if I ever vote for Obama.

I guess it looks like ET is still in the lead because no matter how you slice the cheese in this election -- it still stinks.

It hasn't even started.

OBTW Charlie -- YOU STINK!

Posted by: witness at September 12, 2008 3:35 PM

v4ri4bl3,

I'm not sure that I'd rely too much on either Nabil Shaath or Abu Mazen for accuracy. Also, President Bush can't spend all his time responding to inaccurate quotes attributed to him.

Most of what I've seen directly quoted from President Bush appear to be prayers for guidance (which differs from a declaration as Robert pointed out earlier) and warnings of the global consequences of Islamic jihad - which I believe to be accurate.

But I do agree that overall, President Bush's staff has done a poor job of handling the media and responding to attacks.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at September 12, 2008 3:38 PM

"I'm impressed. You held your own against formidable odds here.
I'm surprised that so many Christians are quick to insult or slander you for the apparent offence of trying to discuss the dangers of too much religion in politics.
Perhaps some of those over-protective Palin supporters should realize that she is perfectly capable of defending and speaking for herself."

I had to scroll up and examine any responses to see who [if anyone] was "insulting & slandering" v4ri4bl3.

Getting deeper in here.

"I too, admire your moxy, v4ri4bl3. You are holding your own magnificently. Some of the other posters need to be reminded that ad hominum arguments are just as fallacious as tu quoque.

"Ad hominem" [Against the person]. A person makes statements and one responding to the content doesn't fit the definition.

Or maybe getting shallower, venturing into the cheap retorts of supposed slander, insults and Ad hominem.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Cornelius,

What ever you do to help you weight the evidence is fine. The point is that you do not base your judgment on anything other than evidence. I guess you do agree on that. You didn't say a jury bases their decision on Circumstantial Evidence AND the teachings of Vishnu, or private conversation with Zeus.

The point is in positions of power, like a Jury or a Politician, the faith card is not an acceptable justification for a decision. "God told me that he was probably guilty," is NOT an acceptable answer. Wouldn't you agree? Or would someone who made their decision to put you in jail based not on conclusive evidence, but on their conversation with Buddha, be okay with you?

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:45 PM

StephenA55 and Skevin,

Thanks for not allowing me to be the lone voice in here. I can't be the only one on this site who doesn't give Christianity a free pass or automatic superiority over other religions simply because it has had its own reformation.

And I know its not the purpose of this site but did anyone happen to catch this example of Christian superiority? - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4732048.ece

Apparently a comedian in Italy is "facing prosecution for "offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person" of Benedict XVI."

But I guess we should just ignore that because Christianity is superior to Islam. We should only protest when Muslims are guilty of religious bigotry. Whenever it happens with the Vatican we can all "go back to sleep," as Mr. Spencer so often jokes.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 3:55 PM

We must all remember that Cristians are followers of Jesus Christ. Without Christ, there are no Christians. Christ never harmed anyone. He was a healer and a lot more. His life is the example that Christians try to follow, as imperfect as humans are.

Muslims are followers of Mohammad. Mohammad was a perfectly hateful human being. He cut the heads off his captives. He hated Jews. And on and on. His life is the exact opposite of what any reasonable person should be.

Jesus Christ did "reasonable" things to better those around him. Mohammad did entirely "unreasonable" things to inflict great harm to some and treated his followers as subjects.

Athiests can believeand do as they wish, with all their rights intact, thanks to our mostly Christian society and mostly Christian founders of this great country.

Posted by: Spot on at September 12, 2008 3:59 PM

The summary sheet so far on v4ri4bl3:

Appeared out of nowhere. Check

Disagreed with Robert yet failed to prove his initial criticism. Check

Atheist. Check

Obama supporter (though he hasn't officially decalred that yet). Check

20+ comments from him alone on this thread so far. Check

De-railed the initial topic of the thread. Check

Says he doesn't really appreciate me calling him dishonest, even though he was being dishonest. Check

Let me the first to say, welcome back non-croyant / Roobart / GBA!!

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 4:08 PM

Spot,

For the most part I agree with you. But there is nothing Christian about the enlightenment. And we owe a hell of a lot more to to the philosophy of John Locke than we do to the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.

Try reading Thomas Paine, start with The Age of Reason, and see how Christian you think the voice behind our revolution was.

In a biography of Paine I am reading, Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Moderrn Nations (by Historian Craig Nelson).

In one of the first three chapters, I believe, he states outright that after the founding fathers were dead our country went from an attitude of Science and Enlightenment to Evangelical Religion.

The principals of democracy are not Christian in any way, but Greek. We became free by questioning religious authority and religious thought, not by submitting to it. Now again, in our day we are faced with a threat of religious oppression and together we must stand for the principals of constitution.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:10 PM

v4ri4bl3,

While my comments are not aligned with the original intention of the article (misquoting of Palin in a televised interview), I'd like to pause on your latest assertions concerning science and creationism not being considered such by first mentioning three errors in assuming that science and religion are and should (and even can) remain separate entities and that "religious" theories should not intrude in science.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some empirical support, though. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience research, or conclusions on the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no legitimate use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their point of view if they're allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of summarily disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical ramifications. If evolutionary naturalism is a true description of biological development on earth, then the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

In practice, science does not merely study the physical universe. It also posits causes to physical effects. Your view (of which I'm inferring that science can only measure the physical while theology can only "measure" the metaphysical) forces us to accept that all physical effects have prior physical causes. This is unnecessarily restrictive. Where does one get the idea that physical phenomenon cannot be caused by an agent?

The object and domain of science should be the physical world, but it's goal should be truth, not merely physical explanations. Though science is restricted to examining physical effects , when causes are inferred, there should be no such limitation.

A simple example makes this point. We use our faculties to explore the world around us. Mine, for the moment, are writing the words of this post. As I write I choose specific physical objects as symbols which convey meaning to you. You've seen empirical symbols like these in your environment for years and, through induction, have learned the "language" of the symbols, the invisible meaning behind them. Through a process that includes empirical factors a transaction takes place between our minds and our minds meet.

Note that part of this process is phenomenal, but not all. There is a relationship between the empirical and that which cannot be measured. An examination of the natural world ("science") is helping to give information--meaning--about that which is supra-natural. But you seems to posit that this is an illegitimate relationship.

To make the point another way, if we saw a vase levitate and move in a non-random fashion around the room, would it be reasonable to infer the possibility of a metaphysical reality from this evidence in the physical universe? I think so. At least it shouldn't be excluded by very definition.

Creationists claim that issues like origin and governance can be properly inferred using empirical methods. Consider forensic medicine. Medical examiners use scientific methods to determine if an individual died of natural causes or by foul play. Was it a heart attack or was an intelligent agent involved? In the same way, scientific evidence could, in principle, indicate that creation was the result of an agent rather than chance.

Philosopher and mathematician William Dembski puts it in perspective when he writes, "It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory." Consider the SETI project, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Here is an especially noteworthy example of inferring intelligent causes from scientific research methods, much like the movie Contact demonstrated.

I'd like to suggest a "radical" alternative: Restore to the scientific process the classical emphasis (a la Aristotle, who said something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to) on truth, on identifying ideas worth believing. This is where the issue of your (inferred?) bias takes on a completely new light.

Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that when a Christian deals with issues like science and faith, it's fair to say he's biased in that he brings certain assumptions to the process, just like everyone else. A Christian's bias, though, doesn't inform his conclusions in the same way that biases inform the conclusions of a scientist restricted by your definition that "creationism is not science".

The current bias of science arbitrarily eliminates certain answers before the game even gets started. Scientists must come up with conclusions that leave God out of the picture because their definition of science demands it.

A Christian is not so encumbered. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of supernatural intervention. Both are consistent with his world view. He can judge the evidence on its own merits, not hindered by a definition of science that automatically eliminates supernatural options before the evidence is viewed.

As a result, the Christian's bias broadens his categories making him more open-minded. He has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's the critical distinction.

Therefore, there is no good reason why science--the "what," the empirical--can't help man understand the meaning--the "why," including the theological "why"--behind all that is.

Posted by: HunterPro at September 12, 2008 4:10 PM

v4ri4bl3 --

Praying that we are doing what God would have us do is not, by any means, saying that what we are doing is God's plan. Gibson asserted the latter, while Palin said the former.

When you choose to act, don't you hope (or possibly pray) that your choice is the right choice?

"I pray this is right"

is not the same as

"This is right"

It's not complicated.

Scott

Posted by: Skaught at September 12, 2008 4:12 PM

Awake,

Go back to sleep. First off, I don't support Obama. The rest of the assumptions I don't expect you to change. If you actually have something useful to say do it. Otherwise, quit patting yourself on the back while I'm trying to have a serious conversation. Please.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:13 PM

Scott,

Thanks for the clarity. I obviously hadn't thought Sarah Palin might just be hoping for the best. How much do you charge for advice like that?

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:15 PM

v4ri4bl3,

I'm sorry that my last post was so long...I tend to go a bit overboard when presenting arguments as I would rather err towards logic and sound reasoning rather than a few simple and trite phrases that don't completely capture the entity of a position. My last post concerning religious relativism (Christianity horrors=Islamic horrors) was the same.

In reference to religious superiority...is that not expected or even right? To extend this even further, is that not intrinsic of ANY idea or ideal? You hold it because it is superior to others and you defend it for that reason. You do it with your religion (atheism) and ideals while I do it with mine. To condemn some for doing simply that which is natural to debate and introspection is not intellectually honest.

Posted by: HunterPro at September 12, 2008 4:17 PM

Spot On l agree totally with your comparisons, it seems the left is fine as long as you agree with them, they love to lump all religious people together. how many times you will read on this site, headline as ajoke "that Baptists went and bombed some site", well as you read on, its islamists as usual!
Christianity has reformed, and we do not promote hatred of any people, in fact the turning of the cheek is still very Christian. If people would just listen, read og speeches by other US presidents, and that time of ear, there was no scream of using the Bible and God for guidance.

Now we have the Democrats, saying that Jesus was a "community organizer, and Poncious Pilot was a Governor. Now the left love to use relgion when they want, and have the audacity of comparing Obama to Jesus! how wacky is that! THe MSM is doing the work of the Dems, and at the same time puttng back the real work of defeating islamists.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 12, 2008 4:21 PM

I had a chance to read more of what v4ri4bl3 had to say, and I agree with what Robert and others have concluded. He/she clearly is not interested in the truth here, as all efforts to point out the clear error that Gibson is making (intentionall or unintentionally, I don't presume to know) go ignored. When a person continues to assert that 1+1=3, you have no choice but to walk away.

Scott

Posted by: Skaught at September 12, 2008 4:23 PM

HunterPro,

I would rather you clarified my position before writing such a long, and inaccurate rebuttal.

First off, I do indeed believe science has a bearing on all claims about the existence of said things. Science, in my opinion, leaves with the only respectable position being Agnosticism with regard to any creater. There is exactly as much evidence for a creator as there is for unicorns. None. If I am wrong, find me one peer-review article in support of creationism. Find me one experiment done to support the hypothesis.

You claim,

"Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no legitimate use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of properly gathered scientific evidence for their point of view if they're allowed."

No actually they don't have an abundance of evidence. And they don't need the scientific communities permission to conduct experiments—a requirement in science. The problem is they haven't done any experiments. The scientific method goes

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Creationists stopped at number 3. Evolution on the other hand has been through, and continues through this process regularly. That is why creationism is worthless. Its arguable that they even did step 2.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:23 PM

The purpose of this site is to unite against the threat of Jihad. Believers, athiests, and agnostics can all engage in respectful discussion of issues. There is no reason that we have to agree on everything, as that is clearly impossible.

However, I find it interesting that people who otherwise have a healthy skepticism about the MSM all of a suddent buy into every "religious freak" vibe that the MSM tries to send out.

Nobody said policy should be based primarily much less exclusively on religious grounds. The prayer by Palin and Lincoln is quite humble---it is an invocation of trying to be on the right side.

Hugh is absolutely correct---if you don't "get it" then you need to be more precise in your interpretation and use of words.

I challenge anyone to find a quote where Bush, Palin, or any other Republican elected official said anything about any action (war or otherwise) on the basis of a religious justification.

To a person who is religious, trying to do the right thing has a religious element to it.

Would you prefer that religious people tried to do the wrong thing?

I suspect you just don't want religious people around---or at least not in the public square.

You need to make a decision. Are you truly concerned about JIhad, or are you just looking for an opportunity to bash believers?

Posted by: JSobieski at September 12, 2008 4:25 PM

Scott,

Perhaps you missed the part where I agreed that his interpretation of her words was distorted but that it does not automatically mean he lied, or that his question was irrelevant.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:26 PM

"God told me that he was probably guilty," is NOT an acceptable answer. Wouldn't you agree?"

Show me where Gov. Palin has ever made a statement analogous to this? Or President Bush for that matter?

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 4:27 PM

HunterPro,

When I mean Christianity is not superior to Islam I mean in the context of being a world view that is factual and that it's history is not clean. Hence, it is hypocritical to claim superiority.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:33 PM

Cornelius,

I'm not claiming they did. It was only mentioned to illustrate the type of concern that I have for ALL potential candidates.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:41 PM

"Scott,

Perhaps you missed the part where I agreed that his interpretation of her words was distorted but that it does not automatically mean he lied, or that his question was irrelevant."

He either was purposefully misquoting her, or he was misquoting her in error. Either case, bad journalism.

His question, being based on something she didn't say, is irrelevant. He's asking her about her belief that we're doing God's task in Iraq. Since she never claimed to hold that belief, the question is indeed irrelevant.

It's akin to me asking you, "Do the police know you beat your wife?"

It's based (hopefully) on a false precedent.

Scott

Posted by: Skaught at September 12, 2008 4:48 PM

Its always so humorous when the critics of Christianity have to consistently point to a version of history they agree with in order to bring Christianity and Islam on even terms today.

Why not compare what the religions are doing *today*
when appraising content? After all both claim to have foundational books that have not changed since the birth of both religions, and both are claiming unwavering commitment to their founders? Christians living today cannot be held responsible for any crimes committed by the Crusaders...and Muslims living likewise cannot be held responsible for any wrongs done by Saladin & his armies.

But the haters of Christianity will not dare make this point a priority, so back to history revisionism for guilt by myth association for modern followers of Jesus.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 4:48 PM

ZenaWarriorPrincess- It is sometimes hard to get back to the basics and try to understand how this all started. Christianity started with a humble Jewish Christ that tried to heal and help those around him. Islam started with an Arab Mohammad who we all know was ruthless in his opression of people. We can always argue about the details, but it is what it is.

You are always right on track with your understanding of what Islam has to offer to the world; which is nothing.

Posted by: Spot on at September 12, 2008 4:48 PM

JSobieski,

While doing the right thing might have a religious element to you, because it does not to me we must meet where we have common ground. Typically that comes in the form of utilitarianism.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:55 PM

"I'm not claiming they did. It was only mentioned to illustrate the type of concern that I have for ALL potential candidates."

Fair enough. Then I'd say it was a concern that has no concrete basis, particularly based on the available evidence.

Meanwhile, hopefully, you have other concerns, such as the propensity of some politicians to blame Islamic terror on grievance and poverty...and to see government as the solution to all societal problems, etc.,

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 4:57 PM

The principals of democracy are not Christian in any way, but Greek. We became free by questioning religious authority and religious thought, not by submitting to it. Now again, in our day we are faced with a threat of religious oppression and together we must stand for the principals of constitution.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3

I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth like you have been doing all along. The same way in fact that Charlie Gibson tried to put words in Sarah Palin's mouth as he posed the questions. If you are an example of Charlie's audience, then I know all I want to know about Charlie.

I said that the founders of this great country were mostly Christians. That is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. The founders of this country were mostly trying to get away from a hateful King's rule. As a result of their Christian principles, we have our founding documents which give us inalienable rights. These right come directly from God, as stated by our founders.

I suggest that you re-evaluate your values. You seem to be all mixed up. How can you live with yourself being so screwed up. Why don't you go get a life and try to be truthful.

Posted by: Spot on at September 12, 2008 5:02 PM

Scott,

Had I asked fellow Christians to pray that my wife be beaten or that violence against my wife be according to God's will, it would be applicable to ask me if I beat my wife. Just as it is relevant to ask Palin if she thinks we are in a holy war, when she prays that the war in Iraq is according to God's will, which would make it a holy war.

Soteria,

I don't follow a VERSION of history. I follow history. The fact is roughly 6-7 states still have legislation that bar atheists from even holding office. Up until about the 1920's Homosexuality was a crime in many states. I doesn't take a genius to realize that these are Christian in origin, considering as you would that the majority of American's are Christian. Religious bigotry is what is. The fact that Christianity has been forced to clean up its act in the past couple of hundred years doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious against potential religious bigotry. It still exists. Even in Christianity. Deal with it.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 5:06 PM

v4ri4bl3 said--

"My criticism of Palin are based on my expectations that our politicians uphold the values of our constitution, including a right to believe whatever you want and not be treated differently;"

Then later, v4ri4bl3 said--

"Science, in my opinion, leaves with the only respectable position being Agnosticism with regard to any creater. There is exactly as much evidence for a creator as there is for unicorns. None."

Now, if a designated VP candidate was on record saying the second comment, I bet v4ri4bl3 would have no problems with that candidate, and would probably want to vote for him or her--and yet that second comment should reasonably raise alarm bells about whether that candidate values the "right to believe whatever you want and not be treated differently".

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 5:06 PM

From Robert Spencer to v4ri4bl3:
That you would not see this as a significant difference is extremely odd.

… so odd, in fact, I think v4ari4ble is pulling our chain.

And as for hoping one is doing God's will, see the speeches of that crazed jihadist-like right winger, Abraham Lincoln.

… and for the matter, John Kennedy.

Variable, I think you're slipping into a Moral Equivalence fallacy here:

When I mean Christianity is not superior to Islam I mean in the context of being a world view that is factual and that it's history is not clean. Hence, it is hypocritical to claim superiority.

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not shouldn't affect your ability to read objectively. Read the New Testament, the Koran and browse a little of the Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

And don't give me any of that "but it's in the Old Testament" stuff, that's why its called Christianity. You're going to have a hard time finding justification in the text of the New Testament for barbarism similar to that promoted by Islamic texts. If you're as big on facts as you claim, check them.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at September 12, 2008 5:07 PM

"Otherwise, quit patting yourself on the back while I'm trying to have a serious conversation. Please."

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 4:13 PM

your first comment was baseless and incorrect, to which you conceded later. I guess this passes as serious conversation in your book.

No matter what name you use, you never change, and therefore, the end result will in all liklihood not change either.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 5:08 PM

Spot,

I have nothing to re-evaluate. You are a pernicious, egotistical, fool, who happens to be Christian.

Maybe you forgot about the Divine Right of Kings that was one of the main reasons why we got away from England. Or perhaps you forgot about the persecution of protestants by the Catholics that lead our founding fathers here—to get away from the persecution perpetuated by fellow Christians.

Had you read anything at all about the development of our constitution your wouldn't be able to plug your ears and ignore the enlightenment inspired principals we share today. Hell, I bet if you had your way, only Christians would get to vote eh? All Muslims would be expelled or forced to convert. Oh and any opinions you disagree with would be silenced. Gee, you don't sound to much like founders at all.

Have you even heard of the treaty of tripoli!? Signed by John Adams, and read before Senate and approved unanimously in 1797?

And I quote,

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Most of the attempts to inject religion into our Government have been done well after the death of our founding fathers. In God We Trust gets coined in the mid-late 1800's. Under God, gets injected into the pledge in the 1950's. But I suppose that's not the history you would like to remember.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 5:16 PM

"Scott,

Had I asked fellow Christians to pray that my wife be beaten or that violence against my wife be according to God's will, it would be applicable to ask me if I beat my wife. Just as it is relevant to ask Palin if she thinks we are in a holy war, when she prays that the war in Iraq is according to God's will, which would make it a holy war."

Incorrect. First, you missed my point entirely with the wife beating question.

Second, praying that the decision to take down what you believe is an evil dictator who is a threat to your country and others is the right thing to do (doing the right thing is, naturally, something God wants you to do) does not make it a "holy war". Any more than a judge praying that he fairly and wisely judges a court case makes it a "holy hearing". Or a financial planner praying that he makes good decisions on behalf of his clients a "holy investment".

What's next, a gardner praying that she makes the right choices on what she plants is engaging is "holy hortilculture"?

It's clear you have some hang ups when it comes to belief in God, and you're making some silly assumptions that don't make much sense as a result.

Scott

Posted by: Skaught at September 12, 2008 5:20 PM

Denver,

If Sarah Palin said Science leads her to believe in God I would be less concerned. In fact it is precisely the reason why my statement shouldn't cause concern because I made a statement about my opinion, not about how my decision making would go. And I sure as hell wouldn't deny you the rights Americans died for.

For you to get "V4rirbl3 would take away everyones right to believe," out of "I don't believe in God," is pathetic. You should apologize.

RalphInfidel,

I could care less if the Bible justifies violence. I could care less if the Koran justifies violence. I'm neither Muslim nor Christian. I care how Muslims and Christians behave based on their interpretations of those texts. Christians up until the enlightenment found plenty of reasons to burn witches and kill disbelievers without any help from my reading of the Bible.

Awake,

I would like to have a serious conversation. Unfortunately I have a handful of Christians with their panties in a bunch because someone thinks they should be held to the same standard as every other religion. Sorry I would ask for something so unthinkable.

Scott,

On another note, ask yourself why we fought Britain for nearly a decade, to gain these inalienable rights, if they were already provided by God? Was he too busy at the time to stand up for them? While it may be a cute, religiously-sensitive way of explaining our rights, in actuality it should be obvious that these rights are granted by civil-society, guaranteed by its laws alone, and defended by its military. Or maybe the Revolution is just more of that fake history I keep hearing about.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 5:28 PM

For those who arrived late, our dear returning friend, v4ri4bl3, has spent some quality time with us here before at JW, most recently under the moniker non-croyant.

I have provided his "serious conversation" in the last thread that he was with us, below:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020568.php

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 5:30 PM

Scott,

With regard to your last post, we can agree to disagree. When Jihadists pray that, Allah willing, infidels are murdered and Islam reigns supreme, it concerns me for the same reasons as Palins comments, albeit to a greater degree.

The fact that you don't care if American policy is controlled by religious conviction doesn't mean the rest of us have to tolerate it.

If Sarah Palin is just hoping we are doing the right thing that is fine. This is just another reason to ask her about her statement. Does she think we are in a holy war, or does she simply hope that we do what is best. I don't see why you are making such a big deal about such an inquiry.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at September 12, 2008 5:34 PM

It would be a good sign if we could all agree that religion has no place in politics, as a minimum, since we have no problem in saying this in regard to Islamic countries.
Though having said that, I would far rather live under a Christian theocracy than an Islamic theocracy,(shudder) but secularism has proven to be by far the most successful kind of government.
The answer to too much Islam in the world is not just more Christianity, but surely more reason and rationality. Just my 'umble opinion.
To declare an interest, I was born and raised in a devout Methodist household. My father heard the 'call' and became a lay preacher. He was kind enough to not hinder my way to agnosticism and to hide his disappointment.
The big tent is big enough for all. (but no camels)
Peace!

Posted by: StephenA55 at September 12, 2008 5:36 PM

I don't take kindly to a single poster hijacking a thread. It seems to me that this discussion has degenerated needlessly into tu quoque arguments and retorts.

V4ri4bl3: I did a quick count, and you have posted on this thread at least 32 times in the past 5 hours. That's... ridiculous.

How 'bout we get back on topic?

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 12, 2008 5:36 PM

RalphInfidel,

I could care less if the Bible justifies violence. I could care less if the Koran justifies violence. ...

Which was exactly my point about your attitude: you have no point.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at September 12, 2008 5:49 PM

I sure the MSM keeps this up. Watch Obama-Bin-Biden sink more as they continue their foaming at the mouth assault on Palin. Normal average everyday hard working folks identify with her as "hey, she is alot like my wife, my mom, my aunt" etc...

Mainstream America seems to be taking it personal when these elitist snobs sneer at her.

Posted by: SoteriA at September 12, 2008 6:09 PM

SoteriA,

Someone described Palin as the Dems "Moby Dick".In that they are going to end up destroying themselves as they attempt to destroy her. Some of them really do get what's going on although most still don't. I was watching Hardball with Chrissy Matthews and he read the quote from the Dem Congressman comparing Obama to Jesus and Palin to Pontius Pilate. Matthew's asked his guests are these people crazy?Those kind of over the top comments just drive more people to McCain.Matthews knows that some fools don't.

Posted by: Roxane at September 12, 2008 6:25 PM

Good idea, Marisol. Back to topic indeed. So, here's my contribution: I like and respect Sarah Palin. I neither like nor respect Charlie Gibson. How's that for back on topic?

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Wellington,

Check out the 'Cologne Conference' thread. My thesis was posted at 4.48.

I'm curious about your opinion. Post there.

Thanks.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 12, 2008 6:41 PM

v4ri4bl3, you said--

"For you to get "V4rirbl3 would take away everyones right to believe," out of "I don't believe in God," is pathetic. You should apologize."

But I didn't get "V4rirbl3 would take away everyones right to believe," out of "I don't believe in God". First off, your "out of" is not what I was quoting from you. You previously said:

"Science, in my opinion, leaves with the only respectable position being Agnosticism with regard to any creater. There is exactly as much evidence for a creator as there is for unicorns. None."

This quote of yours goes beyond just saying you don't believe in God, to saying that nobody else who disagrees with you on that has a "respectable position" and then further demeaning people who believe in a creator as being like people who believe in unicorns.

Second, what I "got" out of that was not that you would "take away everyones right to believe," but rather that you would have no problems with a candidate who demonstrated your contempt for all others who disagree with you about agnosticism, which is a hypocritical stance, since such a candidate would logically raise the same alarm bells (from the other side of the issue) that you are ringing out about how Palin doesn't value other ways of thinking about religion.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 12, 2008 6:47 PM

I'm with Marisol, the thread turned into the
v4ri4bl3 show. Usually I try to read all comments, but this is a little too much.

My two comments are...When a Christian acts up it is in spite of Christianity, not because of it...
When a muslim acts up it is because of Islam, not in spite of it.

When people talk to Allah in the mental institution, and Allah talks back to them, we give them 'Thorazine' and 'Stellazine', the 'Zine Sisters'. We do this because Allah tells them to do the craziest things, and they do it, or attempt to.

On topic...Gibson is an experienced interviewer, he knows what he is doing and does not make 'mistakes'. His questions are thought out ahead of time, probably by his staff.

There is not a whole lot to 'expose' on Palin,
so Gibson, like most commentators without a subject do, probes some unlikely topic hoping to hit paydirt. These people have ratings as a goal, not necessarily truth.

If they are going to probe a candidates religious beliefs, I would rather hear what they believe about Islam...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 12, 2008 8:03 PM

RS,

With all due respect, don't you have a ban stick for people such as v4ri4bl3? His intellectually dishonest pseudo-intellectual writings only serve to derail the thread. Anyone who claims not to see a difference between "I pray [statement]" and "[statement]" is not being honest. Yes, the many posters who have replied to him have clearly shredded his positions, but it is still a distraction from the other excellent posts here.

Posted by: MoonbatBane at September 12, 2008 8:10 PM

MoonbatBane-- I banned V4ri4bl3 around 5:30pm.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 12, 2008 8:13 PM

MarisolJW -- Thank you, sorry I raised the issue. Saw his last post about 1 page up, missed the time stamp, and thought he was still around.

PS Usually just lurk here for the excellent debate and information, rarely post. And I wasted one on that. Sigh. OK, back to lurking...

Posted by: MoonbatBane at September 12, 2008 8:20 PM

No problem, MoonbatBane. It's a pretty tangled thread at this point!

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 12, 2008 8:26 PM

duh_swami: I wish the vast majority in America and the West would fully comprehend the wisdom of your statement that when a Christian "acts up" it's in spite of Christianity, not because of it, and that when a Muslim "acts up" it's because of Islam, not in spite of it. If only this were the case, everything else would start to fall into place so that Islam would be seen for what it is: a rapacious totalitarian ideology that seeks conquest over all and which is unsatisfied until such occurs. No other major religion is like Islam in this regard. Ah, if only most everyone in the West comprehended this.

Posted by: Wellington at September 12, 2008 8:39 PM

Its been a year since I last read any of jihadwatch and it is unsurprising to see that the jihadwatch members along with Robert are exactly where they were a year back.
Its also amusing to watch Robert try and exert some political influence on his flock almost like an evangelical christian. (spare me the Im insulting my host comments)

Oh and Ms palin is asking the people to pray that the soldiers are being sent by their national leaders out on a task from God. i.e. she WANTS the US war against Iraq to be a task from God , since that is what she wants us to pray for.(As such she seems to be more Old Testament than New, eh Joe Schmoe USA ?). And if you believe she is misquoted please ask her if she thinks that the US troops being sent ARE out on a task from God or AREN'T out on a task from god(which will then be a statement thereby pleasing Robert who likes bothering about things like descriptive and prescriptive splitting hairs)

p.s.
Hey awake i still remember you!

Posted by: cerebate at September 12, 2008 10:58 PM

p.s.
Hey awake i still remember you!

Posted by: cerebate at September 12, 2008 10:58 PM

Hey, good to see you! Glad to see your still doing well.

For JW readers, cerebate was a poster here and also at a now defunct blog (Eagles Pearls of Wisdom). from my shoddy memory, I remember him saying that he was an Indian? married to a Catholic? or dating one, at least? Honestly, I am not sure at this point.

Although I generally disagree with all that cerebate says, like I do with the self-proclaimed Muslim, Abdullah Mikhail, who also regularly posts on Robert's articles at FPM, specifically cerebate's obvious disdain for what Robert's mission is here at JW, he was a relatively decent chap, worthy of a fair response to a fair comment.

I am sure that I have accused him of being an Islamist or Islamic apologist in the past. If memeory serves correct, I believe that cerebate declared himself a secular humanist.

That's the best I can recall. It was awhile ago. My claim that it was good to "see" you again, cerebate, was genuine, for my part, at least.

Posted by: awake at September 12, 2008 11:47 PM

"Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." - Cut and pasted from Charlie Gibson's statement.

Pray that "...our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God" - Cut and paste of actual statement.

Looks close enough to an accurate quote to me. Either way it is stated, she would prefer that any military task be planned by God.

Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at September 12, 2008 11:50 PM

MoonbatBane-- I banned V4ri4bl3 around 5:30pm.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 12, 2008 8:13 PM

Thank you Marisol. That was earlier than expected, but expected nonetheless.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:01 AM

MoonbatBane-- I banned V4ri4bl3 around 5:30pm.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 12, 2008 8:13 PM

Thank you Marisol. That was earlier than expected, but expected nonetheless.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:03 AM

v4ri4bl3:

The one thing that I know is that no Christian is going to come and cut your throat because of your belief.

I, like you, am not a believer. That's not the point.
I know that Islam is the problem. Why argue? Let's combine our forces and attack the problem.

Why, must you intensify the problem over interpretation and belief?

Posted by: breezy55 at September 13, 2008 12:03 AM

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:03 AM

My apologies for the double post.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:05 AM

What concerns me is the probability that every word that leaves Palin's mouth is going to analyzed for "radical Christianism" to the nth degree - and her actual messages will get lost in --- translation is too nice of a word.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 12:09 AM

sorry - it should have been " to BE analyzed"

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 12:13 AM

And while I'm on the subject of Palin's actual message, wasn't it a prayer (or call it a "hope" if you don't pray) for our soldiers? Maybe we should be thinking of them instead of arguing the fine points of language and faith interpretation. Her son is being deployed this week, correct? One of my newphews has been there 3 times. He is only 21 years old. HIs best friend died in his arms in an Iraqi roadside bombing. These soldiers deserve our, call it whatever the hell you want, prayers, hopes. Like Palin, I too prefer to believe that there is a plan of a higher power for this madness. And with her son being deployed this week, I really doubt she thinks of it as HER OWN plan.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 12:22 AM

And while I'm on the subject of Palin's actual message, wasn't it a prayer (or call it a "hope" if you don't pray) for our soldiers? Maybe we should be thinking of them instead of arguing the fine points of language and faith interpretation.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 12:22 AM

Agreed.

That was the initial point put forth by Robert. Gibson's paraphrasing was disingenuous, trying to paint Palin as a religious zealot, contrary to her explicit words in context.

All your subsequent points are superb, in my opinion.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 12:27 AM

cerebate: You're too clever by half. And too cute. Where exactly would you prefer JW posters to be from where they were a year ago? Be specific. Bet you can't.

Also, aside from misquoting Palin (to be accurate, something you seem incapable of being, she has prayed that what America is engaging in is hopefully in accord with God's plans, something very different from your characterization of what she said), you also misstated things significantly by asserting that America has waged a war against Iraq. In actuality, what America has done is wage a war for Iraq, something very different. No Arab nation, no Muslim nation, was prepared to help Iraqis from being slaughtered and tortured and brutalized by Saddam Hussein and his thugs. The Left in the West wasn't prepared to do anything either. But America under President Bush decided upon the noble endeavor, though some even here at JW think it misguided because the Muslim world is hopeless, to try and bring democracy, freedom and prosperity to Iraqis for the first time in their history. You, however, can only cynically and superficially assess this while at the same time not condemning at all the Islamic thugs who engage in suicide bombings and deliberately seek civilian casualties to aid their warped cause of establishing a new caliphate over the entire Middle East. In brief, you contribute nothing. I'm done here.

Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 12:33 AM

Comment by awake
That's the best I can recall. It was awhile ago. My claim that it was good to "see" you again, cerebate, was genuine, for my part, at least.

Good to see you too. Your memory is quite accurate and I believe we left off at we agree to disagree, which is where we are currently too.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 1:03 AM

Comment by charlie
>And while I'm on the subject of Palin's actual >message, wasn't it a prayer (or call it a "hope" >if you don't pray) for our soldiers
In which case you would pray that you hope this war end's soon(and not victory! or mission accomplished!) and that you hope no innocents(americans and iraqis) die. And if you truly believed the new testament , you would pray for mercy for the terrorists and that you find the strength to forgive them and that you hope they can become better people. But we all know very few people pray for that, right?

Praying that you hope you are doing God's task in a war is reminscient of the old testament massacres and is certainly not in my opinion, a prayer for your soldiers.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 1:09 AM

comment by wellington
>You're too clever by half. And too cute
Thank you. I wish I could say the feelings mutual , but I'd be lying.

>Where exactly would you prefer JW posters to be from where they were a year ago? Be specific. Bet you can't
What do you bet? Tell me the stakes and I'll respond if the stakes are high enough.

>Also, aside from misquoting Palin
Hmm? When you pray for something, dont you want that(e.g. God I hope I'm doing the right thing)? where's the misquote - i said she wants it that way?
And secondly when you pray that God i hope I'm doing the right thing, and go ahead and do that thing, you do it because you think its the right thing and you think that god thinks it's the right thing correct?(if not then why do it?)

>America has waged a war against Iraq. In actuality, what America has done is wage a war for Iraq
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Are you ann coulter in disguise?

> Islamic thugs who engage in suicide bombings and deliberately seek civilian casualties to aid their warped cause of establishing a new caliphate over the entire Middle East.
I condemn all killing. I condemn the saudi's the pakistani's the iranians, the somalis, the iraqis, the afghanis you name it. I hate the b@st@rds who kill for their religion. But you see when a war also results in killing innocents (justified as 'collateral damage') I cant help but condemn it too. I value all life, unlike you who seem to think it's ok to fight a war for a country.

>I'm done here.
Medium or Rare?

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 1:22 AM

Other than this final post, my answer to you, cerebate, is no answer at all, since you are so transparent I an easily see that you would like to draw me in to an inane argument about the old testament and "God's task." My communication with you ends here.

I will, however, pary for YOU to become a better person.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 1:23 AM

"P-R-A-Y" for you to become a better person, that is

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 1:27 AM

Posted by: charlie
>"P-R-A-Y" for you to become a better person, that is
Id pray for you too, but some things even God can't rectify.

The point isnt an inane discussion about the Old testament, its about Ms Palin. You tried to portray that she was praying for the soldiers , a noble thing. I merely pointed out that if she indeed was praying for the soldiers her prayer would be different. And if she was truly 'christian' she'd have to pray for a lot of things that the conservatives would umm crucify her for.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 1:46 AM

These people criticizing Palin are ridiculous. If a person believes in God, and that person is going to be a person in a high political position involved in decisions of war, is that person supposed to hope that God is AGAINST their decisions and wishes? Of course anybody who believes in God will pray that what they are doing -- whether it's getting a good dental check-up, or going to war, depending on your circumstances -- is in harmony with God!

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 13, 2008 3:33 AM

It is amazing that merely invoking a generic prayer on behalf of our troops can generate such vitriol from the Left. And they wonder why Palin is so popular?

Posted by: Eastview at September 13, 2008 4:30 AM

comment by denverrodeo
>If a person believes in God, and that person is going to be a person in a high political position involved in decisions of war, is that person supposed to hope that God is AGAINST their decisions and wishes

Brilliant answer, very true.
Explain now the difference between said person hoping/praying that God is with them and said person making a statement that God is indeed with them.

If your answer is the person isn't sure then think about it, you are going to war, you are sending soldiers , some of whom will die in this war, you are religious, and you aren't sure God is on your side? really? Find one religious person who supports the war and who doesn't believe God is on America's side. But they'll still say we *pray* we are doing God's task. How would you ever prove to them that they weren't?

If there is no difference, then please explain it to Robert.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 4:33 AM

Eastview
>It is amazing that merely invoking a generic prayer on behalf of our troops can generate such vitriol from the Left. And they wonder why Palin is so popular?
Im flattered that you think Im representative of the left(Im not really, Im anti war which matches a left position. However a conservative i spoke to once told me that *real* conservatives are actually anti war so you can choose)
But you see , readers of Jihadwatch should be acutely aware of people who invoke God when they go to fight wars. Unsurprisingly however you'll find enough apologists and moderates stating 'inspite of', 'descriptive', 'for Iraq' who try to justify the war, when again readers of jihadwatch should be aware of how the moderates encourage the radicals no?
Oh and the outcome of the election doesn't bother me(i cant vote). America will get the government it deserves and Im sure both the left and right will agree with that view.
From my perspective a creationist should be disqualified from holding a government post, it shows they have an absolute disregard for truth. If the creationist is popular , as a lot of them are, well c'est la vie.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 4:42 AM

Cerebrate, I wasn't referring to you specifically. But I do think that Palin's relatively innocuous "prayer" remarks have generated much more overwrought commentary than they deserve. Here I'd agree with Freud, who allegedly said, "sometimes a cigar is only a cigar."

Posted by: Eastview at September 13, 2008 5:23 AM

If my memory serve me correctly, FDR invoked God with regard to our troops during WWII. Abraham Lincoln did it. So why is the media so consumed with the subject regarding Sarah Palin?

I can take a wild guess. The media is supporting Obama and doing anything they can to trip up Sarah Palin. One of their favorite methods to do this would be to try paint a picture of Sarah as being a far right wing Christian idealog who cannot diffrentiate between religion and government.

P.S. MarisolJW, Thanks for removing V4xxxxx (whatever his name). Anyone who cannot accept what the founding fathers of this great country have done is not a person that I wish to converse with.

Posted by: Spot on at September 13, 2008 6:30 AM

From above: cerebate...Its been a year since I last read any of jihadwatch and it is unsurprising to see that the jihadwatch members along with Robert are exactly where they were a year back.

That's may be the case to some extent...Jihad is still happening, people are getting killed over it,
most of the western population is ignorant about Islam and jihad, and its connections with terrorism.
And JW is still trying to steer the ship of truth through choppy waters and dangerous rapids.
Yep, that remains the same...all else is sub category.

And I'm not sure I agree that 'members' are in the same position as a year ago. But then you may be on to something, I have not uncrossed my legs in six months. I'm glad you mentioned it, what a relief.

Posted by: duh_swami at September 13, 2008 8:38 AM

Re Creationism. I don't care whether Palin believes that Zeus created human beings by cross breeding satyrs and harpies, as long as if she should come to power she secures the borders and recognizes the threat of Islam for what it is.

Re qualifications for office. Obama did, in fact, select someone with very thin qualifications - namely himself.

Posted by: RBLA at September 13, 2008 9:30 AM

duh_swami- The JW site is a trememdous site to get the feel of what Islam is all about. At this site you can wrap your mind around Islam and really understand the contemporary version of Islam. Robert's books are the easiest to read on the subject and Robert's in depth knowledge of Islam is for all to see.

I do have a hard time understanding why many avid secularists have a hard time wrapping their mind around Islam, when so very much is at stake for everyone in the West. In simpler terms, why would any secularist want to be required by law under Islam, to say five Islamic prayers a day and to attend a Mosque every Friday under the penalty of death. I would think that this alone would scare the hell out of anyone.

Posted by: Spot on at September 13, 2008 9:45 AM

I do have a hard time understanding why many avid secularists have a hard time wrapping their mind around Islam, when so very much is at stake for everyone in the west....
Posted by: Spot on

I think these people are forming opinions without looking at the evidence. Or they are being influenced by taqiyya artists, or both.

If you really look at the evidence, as presented here, and elsewhere, how can anyone deny Islams dangers to the west, or East for that matter.
And then if you listen to what the spokespeople and Imams say, and watch what they do,...that pretty much wraps it up. The dangers of Islam are self confirming, muslims talk about them every day.

Why some people can't 'see' that is beyond me, but regardless I don't want blind people leading us around...Obama is blind on purpose, McCain is blind in one eye, and has blurry vision out of the other. But at least he 'see's' Islam, even if it is just a blur...he just needs a little 'eye salve', and his vision will improve...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 13, 2008 11:16 AM

...Obama is blind on purpose, McCain is blind in one eye, and has blurry vision out of the other. But at least he 'see's' Islam, even if it is just a blur...he just needs a little 'eye salve', and his vision will improve...
Posted by: duh_swami

LOL, I agree.

Posted by: Spot on at September 13, 2008 11:27 AM

cerebate: You stoop to morally relativistic reasoning when you merely condemn all killing. British and American bombers in WWII killed many German women and children when performing their missions. German bombers killed many British women and children when they performed their missions. Are you prepared, then, to say that the British and American governments were no better for ordering this than Hitler's Nazi regime? Sometimes civilization has to take drastic actions against the barbarians who would destroy civilization. Churchill understood this reality with great sadness as do many others today. You, by contrast, want to preen from afar that you're better than all who would kill. Yours is the path of the pompous, the parasitical and the fool. What an easy way out.

America is in Iraq, wisely or unwisely, to bring freedom, democracy and prosperity to the people of that nation. It is a noble goal and the American Armed Forces have gone out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, almost all of which can be laid at the feet of the Islamic terrorists who don't give a damn about civilian deaths, in fact they welcome them. You know this or should know it.

Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 11:38 AM

While I do believe v4ri4bl3 was annoying in the number of posts he created, this is discussion area. I fail to see how any disagreement in this section is really disruptive. I resent the fact that he was banned.

He did make some good points. I can distil his comments into one important point: secularism is needed to defeat Islamism. Put in this context, Palin's words were not the best choice.

However, I am not as troubled as he is by the words Palin uttered when referring to the US military. Any reader of history (and warfare) could not possibly take offense at her comments.

v4ri4bl3 made the point about Palin being a fanatic. That too concerns me, but I am far from convinced that she is one.

JWers, stop rejoicing over Palin religion. It’s irrelevant. The important point is one Hugh mentioned. (You know I disagree with Hugh wholeheartedly on many issues including the exaltation of the Benes decrees as a roadmap for his favorite project in the ME.) On this point, however, Hugh is right. If McCain does not do what Hugh suggested, that is, separate himself from Iraq-- the 100 years, the we-are-winning-due-to the surge, McCain might lose. And that would be a catastrophe for the US right now. There is only relative calm because Iran allows it to be so. It is not because we are winning anything. But Obama has powerful weapons: 100 years, the stupid "surge" victory and the fact that Iraq has nearly one hundred billion greenbacks in its reserves that it is saving for a rainy day. The hell with Iraq, a ridiculous nation with no "Iraqi" people.

What is clear right now is that the US needs a war president. And therefore, since Obama could not be an effective one with his almost exclusive reliance on soft power, one is not left with many choices. But if McCain doesn’t alter his Iraq position, there will be trouble. Decisions. Decisions.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at September 13, 2008 12:27 PM

Read how ABC edited the Palin interview to make her seem less knowledgeable of the issues and more war-mongering. The bold type is what was edited out.

Galling!

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Posted by: Cornelius at September 13, 2008 12:35 PM

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at September 13, 2008 12:27 PM

v4ri4bl3, and all his previous monikers, never adjusts his behavior here. He derails a thread ASAP, overposts to the point of absurdity, generally presents baseless arguments and is simply looking to pick a fight with Christians. When he is bested in the discussion he resorts to low-brow ad hominem.

His fate is and has been in the past, completely of his own making.

Posted by: awake at September 13, 2008 1:40 PM

It looks to me like it's just turnabout.

Openly and privately, people (and not just American people) have been questioning Obama's possible connections with Islam. He's been accused of being a sympathizer, and whether or not he's a "closet Muslim", I think he's a sympathizer (but that's just my two-cents' worth).

Thus it's possible that certain journalists are trying to aim that particular spotlight on Gov. Palin.

"Hmm... Palin..." they say, scratching their heads and beards, and screwing their faces into contortions meant to indicate deep thought. "How to discredit Palin, and make it look fair..."

Now we know Palin is a frothing Christian! Thank God they told us about that!

Or, could it possibly be that she had tailored her speech to fit the interests of her audience? "Hometown Girl Makes Good, Still a Believer", or something like that, to win the votes of her audience, in this case the members of a church she had attended? Hello!

Posted by: Abscedere at September 13, 2008 2:21 PM

comment by eastview
>But I do think that Palin's relatively innocuous "prayer" remarks have generated much more overwrought commentary
Of course. That's what the media does around here and elsewhere. And on both side's. Lipstick on a pig for e.g. , bristol palin's pregnancy etc.

But now tell me , why a site dedicated to pointing out jihad had an article discussing how Palin was misquoted.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 2:34 PM

comment by duh_swami
>I have not uncrossed my legs in six months.

Perhaps you could ask some JW member's for advice. I think that thats probably a source for some of their(and your) frustration.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 2:37 PM

Comment by RBLA
>Re Creationism. I don't care whether Palin believes that Zeus created human beings
You should. Palin shows that she doesn't respect science which is the best technique us humans have developed to arrive at the truth, it may not be perfect but its the nest we have. She prefers believing in a 2000 year old book rather than accumulated knowledge from science. So tell me, who does that remind you off?
And where does it end? Do you want to make foreign policy decisions based on a religious text book - how do you know she wont?
Like I said creationism is an automatic disqualification for me , but I can't vote anyway. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Comment by wellington
>You stoop to morally relativistic reasoning when you merely condemn all killing. ..... Are you prepared, then, to say that the British and American governments were no better for ordering this than Hitler's Nazi regime
Of course not. However that's not to say that I agree or like the fact that innocent germans did die. It's an inescapable fact of war that innocents suffer an die, which is why Im anti war. Does a situation arise(like hitler or the taliban) where war becomes inevitable. Yes of course. But you can also trace back and see what we could have done so that there would have been no war. We can't change the past but we should learn from it.

Its like this. Islam ~=aids and Christianity ~=herpes. I say I want neither. You prefer herpes and if i point it out to you, you shout moral relativism. You try and setup a strawman that I have said herpes and aids are the same, when actually I have said no such thing. Please read end of faith by Sam Harris if you can't understand the difference.

>. You, by contrast, want to preen from afar that you're better than all who would kill. Yours is the path of the pompous, the parasitical and the fool.
If you are currently in Iraq and posting this from the trenches, I apologise. If however your only contribution is posting to jihadwatch, Please explain how you are different than me?. At no point did I say I am better than the soldiers , obviously I am not. I am however better than the national leaders who send others out to war on insufficent evidence and probably for personal gain.

>America is in Iraq, wisely or unwisely, to bring freedom, democracy and prosperity to the people of that nation
I truly wish i could agree and state how successful this effort has been.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 2:57 PM

comment by Abscedere
>Now we know Palin is a frothing Christian!
Uhh no, the point is that she is a fundamentalist. Thats important to know. People are Christians and still cheerfully accept evolution or contraception. Palin however doesn't. The latter is her business , the former is unpardonable.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 3:01 PM

But now tell me, why a site dedicated to pointing out jihad had an article discussing how Palin was misquoted.

-posted above

Good point. Whenever possible, the site ought to be party neutral. I wish Robert had not posted it. But in any event, Robert did make some good points. It is just that it would have been better placed on a site like Michelle Malkin's (the one that rails on all things Democratic). On that site, nary a thing Bush does is criticized unless it is not "sufficiently conservative".

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at September 13, 2008 3:14 PM

What are the possibilities? Let's look at all the perks we would have if there was no one willing to fight. Through the glorious subsequent spread of islamism we could have forced conversion, stonings, beheadings, underaged and multiple marriages, unfair taxing of non-islamics, no freedom of speech, no art, music, theater, eventually no internet communication, where people can voice ANY opinion or thought. We wouldn't even have to worry about naming our own teddy bears, or choosing our own TV programming.

The irony is that the people who are so anti-war now would probably be first on the chopping block, and they don't even realize it.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 3:19 PM

cerebrate,

"Explain now the difference between said person hoping/praying that God is with them and said person making a statement that God is indeed with them."

Let's put it this way, when there is no difference, it *might* be because the person is a religious fanatic. But that by itself isn't enough. With Palin, we don't even know whether or not there's a difference in the mind of Palin, so we have to seek other ways to consider to figure out if she's a religious fanatic. But simply taking that one concept of the difference between praying and knowing as evidence of religious fanaticsm, that's going too far. The only responsible thing to do is to draft a series of questions that are geared to figuring out of someone is likely a religious fanatic, then ask Palin those questions. Instead, Charlie Gibson seems to have had his mind made up about it and railroaded her with a cleverly inaccurate misquote which she was surprised with and didn't have a chance to verify.

Anyway, my definition of a religious fanatic in this context of going to war and fighting a war is not whether or not the leader thinks or even claims to *know* that God is on their side--if that was the test, then every great President, Congressman, Prime Minister, Judge, writer, and many poets of the past (not even going back that far) would be a "religious fanatic". My definition involves things like forcing people with punishments/violence to do things that go along with your religion, and only a paranoid freak would think Palin would do that.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 13, 2008 3:36 PM

I think the article about misquoting Palin was posted because it seems that, more and more, the line between political correctness and enabling islamic infiltraion is blurred. It seems that the press has censored (or left-ed) itself to the point of stifling any speech that is in any way anti-islamic, even if it's just an affirmation of a person's Christian faith. Whether they are doing it deliberately or not, if they continue this habit they will be helping to hand us over to the islamic cause. Closing some channels of speech and thought will leave the way open for a select few others, in the end.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 3:37 PM

comment by charlie
can you please point out how the war being waged has reduced terrorism?
Do you see a decrease in frequency of the articles posted on JW?
Im also anti war because war doesn't work in most cases. America took down the taliban , an act that even an anti war person like me , has to admit that given the circumstances it was for the best. But has the situation in afghanistan changed much(its a different thing that american media has stopped reporting much about afghanistan)? Are afghani mujahideen still used by Pakistan in their war against India?

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 3:45 PM

comment by DenverRodeo
Like I said when People Pray they are doing the right thing, they do believe they are doing the right thing and they do believe God is on their side. Do you know any exceptions?
So there isn't much difference or nuance between I pray God is on my side, and God is on my side and hence for me at least, no misquote.
As you have pointed out , it would have been easier if she were point blank asked does she believe the war is God's task (like Bush) or led to it. that would have been a statement and would hopefully have satisified Robert and the rest of JW.
And yes a lot of the past's *great* leaders have been fundamentalists. Churchill comes to mind('I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion' - very great indeed).

Offtopic
>My definition involves things like forcing people with punishments/violence to do things that go along with your religion and only a paranoid freak would think Palin would do that.
Ok. A political discussion then. So anti - abortion, anti sex education(except abstinence), anti - contraception,pro intelligent design/creationism, anti stem cell research etc. are Ms Palin's views because of religion or inspite of it? And if they are because of it, does she intend enforcing it on others, if she is in power? And if so, is she then a fundamentalist?

And before you shout moral relativism, these are in way comparable to a thief getting his hand cut, etc...

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 4:02 PM

Last time I checked there is nothing in the Bible or in Christianlity that would encourage Mrs. Palin to die trying to force people to bend under her religious beliefs, whatever they are. I don't think she's aspiring to an early paradise with 72 virgins in it for her efforts either.

Posted by: charlie at September 13, 2008 4:13 PM

comment by charlie
>Mrs. Palin to die trying to force people to bend under her religious beliefs, whatever they are
No I wouldn't expect her to die.
Would she however be OK with letting other people die?.
If your wondering why I ask that, refer to the internet to find out why certain christians would be happy to see a nuclear war involving Israel.
Hint it has to do with a particular way to interpret some incidents the bible.
Oh and you havent answered me
"can you please point out how the war being waged has reduced terrorism? "

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 4:33 PM

cerebrate,

"there isn't much difference or nuance between I pray God is on my side, and God is on my side and hence for me at least, no misquote."

You're looking at this thing way too abstractly. There's a cultural difference between on the one hand, the fanatical certainty that God is on their side that someone like Zarqawi or Osama (or going back to US history, John Brown of Kansas for example) has when they kill people, and nice decent people like Palin who when they pray that God is on their side don't swagger around with fire in their eyes in the same way as the real fanatics. So there is a difference, and it's coded into the "I pray that God is on my side". Just because Christians like Palin don't wrap it in nice relativistic agnostic language for people like you, doesn't mean there isn't a real difference between their modest and level-headed sense of hope that may be like a certainty if you want to quibble semantically, and the lunatic certainty of the Zarqawi, Osamas and John Browns on the other hand.

Useful idiots like you and Gibson don't see that difference -- and that failure of seeing THAT difference is much more dangerous to us now than the fine distinction detected in the lack of difference between Palin's "I pray that God is on my side" / "God is on my side".

Capice?

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 13, 2008 5:09 PM

DenverRodeo
Ha ha. I must admit you have the same intellectual capacity of the rest of the folk at JW.
And there you go introducing people more fundamentalist than Ms Palin so she seems moderate by comparison. What does that remind you of I wonder?
Oh and no I dont capice why the religion of peace (Christianity, according to Robert) needs people to pray to their God, that they are doing God's task when they set out to war.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 6:14 PM

denverrodeo
oh and I should point out , you didnt answer any of the pointed questions that I directed to you. That too is a typical JW poster trait. Welcome to the website of the brainwashed.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 6:16 PM

cerebate: Your approach to the matter of Iraq would mean that Saddam Hussein would still be in power with the mass graves continuing to fill up, the rape rooms existent and functioning at full pace, the torture of many still going on and the sanctions by now a total farce. And, as SH himself acknowledged to interrogators, he had every intention to reconstitute his WMDs once he had bribed enough UN personnel to look the other way.

Oh, and I suspect it's just an incidental fact for you that he was firing on British and American fighter jets flying over the two no-fly zones on a daily basis, not to mention his violations of some dozen and a half UN resolutions (which the resolute and brave countries of the UN,, few though they are, thought should be observed). Yes, your holier-than-thou stance against killing and war would have meant a brutal thug would still be ruling Iraq and Iraqis aplenty would still be living under the whim of a psychopath (and then his sons). Must be wonderful being possessed, as you are, of so much virtue and sapience.

Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 6:48 PM

cerebrate,

I didn't answer all your questions because I was focusing on one point. The questions I didn't yet answer are only two from what I can see:

you said: "So anti - abortion, anti sex education(except abstinence), anti - contraception,pro intelligent design/creationism, anti stem cell research etc. are Ms Palin's views because of religion or inspite of it? "

Why would any religious person have moral views "in spite" of their religion? Your logic if taken to its practical conclusion would lead to having every politician swear an oath that they will never inform the moral dimension of their political work with their religious beliefs. This type of separation is extreme and not necessary to maintain a secular nation and traditional separation of church & state, and frankly would likely lead to the unconstitutional actions of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

"And if they are because of it, does she intend enforcing it on others, if she is in power?"

I doubt it. I don't see a shred of evidence that she would do so. She seems to believe in the normal legal process of trying to make laws through our democratic process and related to that using public speaking & writings etc to persuade people.

"And if so, is she then a fundamentalist?" Yes then she would be, but there's no evidence she is planning on forcing people to follow her religious dictates. That's such a serious allegation it requires a high standard of proof, not just paranoid assumptions.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 13, 2008 7:00 PM

>Your approach to the matter of Iraq would mean that Saddam Hussein still be in power
No such thing. I said war isn't a solution. That doesn't mean there aren't other solutions. The particular logical fallacy you are indulging in is called false dichotomy , look it up.

And please don't try to assign virtue to this war after the fact. Clearly and repeatedly both UK and US said the main reason for the war were WMD's that could be used (in the words of Tony Blair in 45 minutes). Now that that particular claim was proven false, it had to be changed to well he would have done it, he would develop wmd's , he was a dictator , he oppressed his people etc etc and so forth. If spreading democracy throughout the world is a virtuous noble goal to be enforced through war , why is America allied to the Saudi's?

The problem with this war was the false pretenses it was fought on. That it was unplanned , that there were no contingencies thought of, and that both Americans and Iraqis are paying for it. You ignore this at your own peril. Like I said , I might be anti war in principle but if today the Iraqis were happily settled governing themselves , I would have had to admit that the war may have been the correct thing to do. Unfortunately it isn't the case no?

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 7:51 PM

denverrodeo
You dont quite grasp sarcasm do you
>Why would any religious person have moral views "in spite" of their religion?
That is a comment to both Robert and JW posters who love to point out, Muslims have objectionable views because of their religion, and christians inspite of.
Its obvious that Ms Palin's views are because of.
which leads to will she enforce it
>I doubt it. I don't see a shred of evidence that she would do so.
ha ha ha ha. Well if she is elected , I guess you will plead ignorance.

>That's such a serious allegation it requires a high standard of proof, not just paranoid assumptions.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm - Roe Wade will be overturned by appointing appropriate judges (whoops , no public speaking & writings etc to persuade people.? ) And before you ask Im anti abortion.

Here is Ms Palins quote on how to tackle creationism/ID - "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
So do you think if she is VP she wont want ID to be taught in schools?

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 8:01 PM

cerebate: You're full of false assumptions (and other things). First, other solutions to deal with Saddam's Iraq? OK, what were they? Second, Congress in its resolution of November 2002 stated over twenty reasons why Iraq under Saddam Hussein had to come to an end. I'm so tired of those who only bring up the WMD issue, which, by the way, not a single major intelligence agency before March of 2003 disputed. If we need 100% certainty before action occurs to take out a barbarian, perhaps even your mind can grasp the stupidity of such a requirement. Third, alliance with the Saudis, a truly disgusting regime to be sure, is a welcome-to-the-real-world situation. Anyone playing the never-align-with-an-unsavory-regime card must, to be consistent, denounce America and Britain's allinace with Stalin's Russia during WWII. Time to grow up and grasp a little realpolitik for a change (oops, forgot, you're too morally pure for this, aren't you?). Fourth, good things like freedom, democracy and prosperity can many times not be achieved in a time frame which is child-like, as yours is. Again, time to grow up.

Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 8:07 PM

cerebrate,

"Roe Wade will be overturned by appointing appropriate judges (whoops , no public speaking & writings etc to persuade people.? )"

The process of Presidental appointment of judges has to go through the public process -- 1) voting for President (requires lots of public speaking to persuade the people to vote), 2) the President's appointment have to be reviewed and approved by Congress and/or advisory committees thereof (who are voted in by the people).

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:4ly-5kmj4G0J:www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/may07/notes/congressional_restrictions.pdf+presidential+appointment+of+judges+congressional+approval&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 13, 2008 10:24 PM

>First, other solutions to deal with Saddam's Iraq? OK, what were they
How exactly do you deal with umm I dont know Saudi? Pakistan? Iran? Libya? Sudan? Lebabnon? Russia? A combination of money, threats , alliances and other realpolitik, no?.
First and foremost , find an alternative to petrol.everything else follows from here.

>I'm so tired of those who only bring up the WMD issue,
Because thats what was emphasised. The danger that at any time a madman could bring about a nuclear catastrophe. the dictatorship oppression etc are there elsewhere and condoned by America in other cases. This was the differentiator. It isnt the absolute certainity , it is the lack of evidence. The reason your tired is because you have no way to save face for this issue. hence the bluster.

> not a single major intelligence agency before March of 2003 disputed
oh please. Do some research before you open your mouth. You take away all doubt about your stupidity when you say something.
>Third, alliance with the Saudis, a truly disgusting regime to be sure, is a welcome-to-the-real-world situation
And exactly my point. Why can America have an alliance with one disgusting regime and not with another? Is the answer cheap petrol?
> Fourth, good things like freedom, democracy and prosperity can many times not be achieved in a time frame
Undoubtedly. The thing though is that history teaches us is that democracy cant be rammed down someone's throats. The people have to want it first. Im not giving a time frame , I merely point out that the bush administration had no plan. They toppled Saddam and then had no idea what to do do (not that they should have finished the job in 3-6 months). Incidentally a strawman is also a common fallacy employed by JW posters.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 10:25 PM

DenverRodeo
Really? So why does McCain/Palin say he will get it overturned and not if things go well and he persuades the people , they'll appoint the judges who will overturn Roe v/s Wade?
Surely for people who can see nuance in adding I pray to a statement can see the difference?

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 11:40 PM

In any case see you'll next year perhaps.

Posted by: cerebate at September 13, 2008 11:49 PM

cerebate: Your rebuttal is so weak, I was at first startled by it. Find an alternative to petrol? OK, golly gee, and why not at the same find a cure for cancer and AIDS and while we're at it establish world peace too? In two or three years no less. Get real. Second, WMDs were not emphasized as much as folks like you say they were, though making sure Saddam Hussein no longer had them was priority number one, as it should have been. Moreover, it was under Clinton in 1998 that the Iraq Liberation Act was passed. Regime change was American policy even before Bush took office and not just because of WMDs but for a myriad of reasons wrapped up with SH's noncompliance with numerous UN resolutions. Third, name one major intellignece agency that before March of 2003 maintained that Saddam Hussein no longer had WMDs. Yours is the pathetic argument here, one among many. Put up or shut up.

And get off the petrol angle. Yes, petroleum reserves flowing unimpeded to major nations in Europe, Asia and elsewhere is indeed important, but one doesn't spend billions to radically alter the government of a tyranny just for this reason alone. As for forcing democracy on a country, we did a pretty damn good job of that in Germany and Japan. We demanded it. It worked. You got this one wrong too.

Posted by: Wellington at September 14, 2008 12:25 AM

wellington
Im curious, do you major in the Strawman fallacy?

>OK, golly gee, and why not at the same find a cure for cancer and AIDS
yes , why not? Spend the resources you waste on a war (how many trillions and how many man hours?) on these things, it'lll still take time , but you'll arrive at a solution faster.
I didnt say find a replacement for petrol tomorrow didnt I, it's that no one is interested.
That would take care of financial aspects of terror. You'd still need to take care of the emotional aspect and there is no one answer or perhaps even a right answer. War doesnt work. Why do you remember Germany and not Vietnam?
Heres one article for you about the US 'exporting' democracy in Germany.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=599

You are an excellent example of why a right wing hawk is an extremely dangerous person, take a bow.

Posted by: cerebate at September 14, 2008 1:35 AM

wellington
oh and since you are such a fervent advocate of war fixing everything, I hope you are already enlisted , or if not are volunteering sometime in the near future
And if you have no intention of doing the above, ah well ..

Posted by: cerebate at September 14, 2008 1:40 AM

wellington
oh and my last post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
read through the references for which major intelligent agencies did believe that Iraq possessed WMD's( as opposed to capable of developing it in a few years given cooperation).

Posted by: cerebate at September 14, 2008 1:43 AM

If McCain/Palin are elected and somehow RoeVWade is overturned there is still the possibility that in the future it(or any other issue) can be reversed again. If an islamic sympathizer is elected and allows them to infiltrate our government the chances of reversing ANY new laws are much lower, because in islam there are only 2 factions - the racical and the enabling "moderates". In Christianity there are countless factions who would balance any leader who thinks they are the only one privy to "God's task." That is why we still don't require prayer in public schools. That is why creationism is not required in public school - except for in Kansas, and that little problem is getting cleared up now, and that is why Americans can safely count on separation of church and state.
I know that cerebate is going to come back in swinging for an argument. That's fine, but I won't answer. I don't think he is here to learn. I think he thinks he knows everything already, and he is here to "win" arguments that he creates at any cost. Isn't that a little warlike?

Posted by: charlie at September 14, 2008 1:58 AM

Denver Rodeo, your 5:00 PM comment was on the money. Cerebrate seems out of sorts. Let's all light a candle or some incense and beam positive thoughts in his direction that he may feel better soon.

Posted by: Eastview at September 14, 2008 6:21 AM

God strikes fear in the Heart of Demoncrats. The MSM has invested too much money into Obama and the Progressive liberal agenda to simply give her a pass.

Palin, a Woman who proved she can bring home the Bacon and fry it up in a pan, will destroy Obama and all his supporters for the Hypocrites they have always been.

Obama is expected to confront all the Anti-Americanism in the World yet he is hapless in front of a real Woman.

God does work in mysterious ways. Ways that always manage to confound and befuddle Atheists.

Hitlerly had her chance to pull the rug from under Obama at the Demoncratic Convention. But she blinked.

So much for her claim to leadership and the ability to make tough decisions. Carpet bagging doesn't seem to work all that well sometimes.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 14, 2008 10:46 AM

cerebate: Oil as a source of energy will be with us for a long time. Yes, we should explore far more for it here at home, but since America is the great power it has to consider more than just itself. For instance, Japan needs a hell of a lot of oil (or its economy, second largest in the world, would collapse) and it's the American Navy that it is the ultimate guardian here, though it gets little appreciation for this, especially from folks like you. And you assumed wrongly, as you assume a lot of things incorrectly, that I think war can fix everything. What a stupid statement to make, but you did.

As for Germany versus Vietnam, against the first we fought to win, in the latter conflict we did not. That is the real lesson of Vietnam, which, of course, has gone over your head, as so much does. Respecting service in the American Armed Forces, I like the way Mark Levin puts it: If you're a liberal and never served you can be critical of the military or even hate it and that's all right, but if you're a conservative and never served it's illegitimate to respect the military and think that sometimes the military solution is the best option available. Oh, and the Wikipedia article aside, you still haven't been able to name one major nation's intelligence service that before March of 2003 openly asserted that Saddam Hussein had no more WMDs left. You keep dancing around this issue as you do so many others.

Finally, the Payne article you sent me was a fine example of nitpicking and kicking America first. When you have to bring up Morgenthau's agricultural approach (which was almost immediately dismissed) or criticize America for giving more in Marshall aid to Britain than to Germany (and thus the implication being we really didn't help the Germans that much), you're an academic in search of a specious hypothesis. And Payne's statement that Germany before Hitler was a full democracy is incorrect. It was under the Weimar Republic, shaky though that republic was, but hardly a full democracy during the Second Reich. Bismarck's Germany was indeed infinitely more decent than the Third Reich, but it was an authoritarian state with almost all of the cards stacked in the favor of Prussis, one of 26 political entities which made up the German Empire. Getting back to post-war times, most have argued, as I would, that, but for America in the years from 1945 to 1952, West Germany would have been a far more problematical eventuality. You know, I have to wonder if you think America ever did anything right. Done here.

Posted by: Wellington at September 14, 2008 1:36 PM

cerebate: Oil as a source of energy will be with us for a long time. Yes, we should explore far more for it here at home, but since America is the great power it has to consider more than just itself. For instance, Japan needs a hell of a lot of oil (or its economy, second largest in the world, would collapse) and it's the American Navy that it is the ultimate guardian here, though it gets little appreciation for this, especially from folks like you. And you assumed wrongly, as you assume a lot of things incorrectly, that I think war can fix everything. What a stupid statement to make, but you did.

As for Germany versus Vietnam, against the first we fought to win, in the latter conflict we did not. That is the real lesson of Vietnam, which, of course, has gone over your head, as so much does. Respecting service in the American Armed Forces, I like the way Mark Levin puts it: If you're a liberal and never served you can be critical of the military or even hate it and that's all right, but if you're a conservative and never served it's illegitimate to respect the military and think that sometimes the military solution is the best option available. Oh, and the Wikipedia article aside, you still haven't been able to name one major nation's intelligence service that before March of 2003 openly asserted that Saddam Hussein had no more WMDs left. You keep dancing around this issue as you do so many others.

Finally, the Payne article you sent me was a fine example of nitpicking and kicking America first. When you have to bring up Morgenthau's agricultural approach (which was almost immediately dismissed) or criticize America for giving more in Marshall aid to Britain than to Germany (and thus the implication being we really didn't help the Germans that much), you're an academic in search of a specious hypothesis. And Payne's statement that Germany before Hitler was a full democracy is incorrect. It was under the Weimar Republic, shaky though that republic was, but hardly a full democracy during the Second Reich. Bismarck's Germany was indeed infinitely more decent than the Third Reich, but it was an authoritarian state with almost all of the cards stacked in the favor of Prussis, one of 26 political entities which made up the German Empire. Getting back to post-war times, most have argued, as I would, that, but for America in the years from 1945 to 1952, West Germany would have been a far more problematical eventuality. You know, I have to wonder if you think America ever did anything right. Done here.

Posted by: Wellington at September 14, 2008 1:45 PM

charlie
Yes america has checks and balances and that is good , but people do circumvent them no? The point is Ms Palin wil try and get some policies passed because of her beliefs in her religion and not because of whats good for america and what's not (e.g. teach the controversy is clearly wrong)
>That is why creationism is not required in public school - except for in Kansas, and that little problem is getting cleared
You clearly havent been following up on events in texas.

Eastview
>Let's all light a candle or some incense and beam positive thoughts in his direction that he may feel better soon.
Yes, that will be as effective as the rest of the policies you'll advocate.

>And you assumed wrongly, as you assume a lot of things incorrectly, that I think war can fix everything
Nah you believe that war can/could solve the Iraq/Saddam problem. Do you deny that?

>you still haven't been able to name one major nation's intelligence service that before March of 2003 openly asserted that Saddam Hussein had no more WMDs left.
Because of 2 reasons. You cannot prove the absence of anything in science (just as no atheist can prove God does not exist, or just as you cant prove unicorns dont exist). The wikipedia article clearly quotes that Iraq didnt fully cooperate, that Iraq could restart its program , but that they probably(note again you cant prove they dont have it , you would only be able if they did have it , which didnt happen) didnt have WMD's and would take a few years with cooperation to do so. It quotes Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, UNSCOM, the UN etc, the only people in Iraq at that time. Since you seem incapable of doing any research for yourself here it is
"In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program"
Happy now?
But yeah other than that I havent given you any proof.
>As for Germany versus Vietnam, against the first we fought to win, in the latter conflict we did not
Brilliant. So you fought the vietnam war to lose?
And ofcourse America did the right thing in the 2nd world war. (But should it have been allowed to come to that?) . But the democracy in germany isnt as simple as "We demanded it, we got it", which isnt to say America didnt contribute, ofcourse it did

" If you're a liberal and never served you can be critical of the military or even hate it and that's all right, but if you're a conservative and never served it's illegitimate to respect the military "
Oh please, on multiple occasions I said that I respect the army and I wish all of them home , safe and sound with their family. Liberals dont have a problem with the army (and btw Im not liberal) The problem I have is with people who callously send these soldiers for their personal gain. Indeed any soldier i have spoken to says the same, war doesnt solve anything.
Heres the thing , you can either fight Osama and his minions or you can fight their views. if you succeed against the latter , you dont need any war. If you fight a war against the former, you just get different Osama's to fight.

Now you'll believe that JW is a way to fight the views, it isnt. I leave you'll to figure out why.
This is my last post here. Ill let youll have the last words.

Posted by: cerebate at September 14, 2008 3:31 PM

cerebrate,

"Really? So why does McCain/Palin say he will get it overturned and not if things go well and he persuades the people , they'll appoint the judges who will overturn Roe v/s Wade?"

All Presidents, left or right, have a vision of how they want to lead the country. Part of that vision involves appointment of judges. All Presidents want to appoint judges who will best follow their vision, and therefore they will *try* to get those judges appointed. They will not be able to simply appoint those judges without first being elected (that's a public process in a free democracy like the US), and then secondly by submitting those recommendations for appointing judges through a process of Congressional review & approval. And Congressional approval is another way for the influence of the people to filter the appointment, since Congressmen & women are democratically elected.

McCain and Palin, like every other politician in the US, know all of this of course. When they promise "I will appoint judges who reflect my values of X, Y and Z" it's just rhetorical shorthand for "I'm going to try my damndest to make it happen". Voters who share their vision will of course want to vote for them, rather than for Obama who will try to appoint judges that go against the values of those voters (and vice versa for Obama supporters).

But all of this should have been clear to you before I explained it to you, unless you are unusually dense and ill informed.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 14, 2008 3:46 PM

cerebate: Only this comment: War indeed often solves things. It solved the issue of slavery and secession in the American Civil War. It solved the issue of Nazi Germany once and for all. Imperial Japan too. Many times war does not solve things but that doesn't mean it never does. A statement like "war never solves anything" is demonstrably wrong on its face, though it hasn't stopped many, including you, from still asserting this. It's sad, deeply tragic, that it does take war, and only war, to solve some major troubles, but that is the reality. Oh, we didn't fight in Vietnam to lose, but neither did we fight to win. That's another valuable lesson about war. It's all hell, as General Sherman said, but if you find yourself in one, go all out to win it. It's the only way to do it.

Posted by: Wellington at September 14, 2008 4:36 PM

"we didn't fight in Vietnam to lose, but neither did we fight to win. "

The moral of the story is, if you're going to do something half-assed, don't do it at all. That would be the lesson of Vietnam and now Iraq.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 14, 2008 5:34 PM

People go to War when they run out of excuses for others bad behavior.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 14, 2008 6:46 PM

McCain/Palin are getting my vote!

Posted by: champ at September 15, 2008 3:46 PM