Thread: In defense of Sarah Palin

Originally Posted by maplemaker

Does this not equate also to the "left" and its God, or pantheon rather, of socialized medicine, abortions on demand for reason, the extremes of NAMBLA and other affiliated groups, percieved destruction of the nuclear family, the ability of the state to dictate from on high and at a distance even the most miniscule of trade, etc. etc. etc. One's religion may not contain a "God", per se, but even the unbelievers rabidly worship at the alter of unbelief. I do agree with you that Christ probably wouldn't have much to do with either party as a party. "Render unto Caeser", as it were. Also, the question I posed is not a gauntlet thrown to anyone, simply an observation that what the extreme Right does, so does the Left. And when viewed from a distance, seems to be for the same reason. ("I'm right and I'm going legislate you into heaven!" "I'm right and I'm going to remove those silly blinders of an archaic belief system from your eyes and make you see that mankind is the the zenith of wisdom!" In other words, "I'M RIGHT!")

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

Originally Posted by De Layne

Hi All,

[Snip}

So yeah, I know when a thread's about to explode (and be closed), and would hope to head that off if possible. As I said in a previous post, the members here have impressed me with being able to handle political subjects in a gentlemanly way. That's tough enough, but religion is a whole other can of worms. I don't wanna even touch that booby trapped can.

Thanks for reading,
Martin

Oh Jim? Hehe, I just saw what you'd posted right above this one.........thanks.

Yeah, religion gets pretty flammable pretty fast. It's not something that we Unitarians understand -- we seem able to discuss faith in very civil terms, no matter what is said -- but I've seen this enough to share your worry that this will blow up.

Thanks for your watching of this thread.

j

Originally Posted by Mike7120

Not only has he turned this thread into a distasteful attempt to bash conservatives, but he is also insulting Christianity. If I were to defend my religious beliefs and my conservative viewpoints, or to state my opposition to liberalism, not only would it be inappropriate for this thread, but it would likely be seen as retaliation and I would be banned from SRP.

Being a Christian, his statements are offensive, that’s all I’m saying and I will leave it at that.

I am an Orthodox Christian and did not find his comments insulting at all...one, becasue you can only be insulted if you allow yourself to be. I think his point is that people who are extremely un-Christian in their behavior have co-opted the desires and faith of devout Protestant Christians and let them down the garden path with promises to get their votes. I do not find anything Christian (regardless of denomination) about the behavior of either party on any topic, be it the war in Iraq, healthcare, individual rights, etc. Anyone who has a plank in their platform to force their religious views onto another via legislation is not adhering to Christian ideals.

Christ was a consumate debater - more often than not, he left the opposition speechless. He debated with Satan even. If Christ had not argued and defended his views, choosing instead to take offense and end the discussion, Christianity would not exist today.

The ONLY response to speech you find offensive is more speech. There is an ocean-wide divide between discussing/debating one's views and responding to personal atacks. I have not seen any personal attacks in this thread (not yet...we do have members who immediately begin to attack the person when anyone even slightly disagrees with them....that is why I love the ignore button!). Every person's views are sacred to them...but not to everyone else.

As one poster here noted, everyone wants to be right...not only for themselves, but for everyone else...which to me smacks of vanity and ego. My views are right for me, not for anyone else. Your views are right for you, but may not be right for me, and you have no right, authority, or justification for forcing your views on me.

I do not think you would be banned for defending your point of view, as long as it did not deteriorate into personal attacks.

A friend for a different country asked me what I thought was one of the traits all true Americans should aspire to. I told him that one of our greatest qualities is the Freedom of Ideas; that many Americans stand ready to defend the rights of someone whose points of view makes their blood boil, but that as Americans, they have the right to their opinions and that the attempt to force them to accept another opinion, either by legislation or force, is more heinous than their views. He asked "Well, what if their views were to be be able to do just that - force their views on others." I said that there is the difference - holding a view is different than acting on it. Your rights stop at my nose.

To bring this back to Palin, she has shown by her behavior that she will attempt to force her views on others via legislation or decree, as in her asking about what could be done to ban books and her removal (while mayor) of anyone who did not agree with her, regardless of their experience. Hardly a non-partisan behavior and contrary to her sound-bites during the debate.

"Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired."

R.F. Kennedy

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jefferson

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

Ulysses S. Grant

"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."

Barry Goldwater

Originally Posted by Hutch

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

I was wondering what the NAMBLA reference was for.....in recent memory, the only politicians involved any anything close to that are Florida State Rep. Bob Allen and Congressman Mark Foley.

Originally Posted by Hutch

What about the pedophilia that has taken place by those great men of the cloth and were protected by the church? There are enough on all sides that do disservice to the traditional family and moral values, I don't think it has anything to do with party or religious affiliation.

I don't think I would equate either religion nor being liberal with NAMBLA. Those people are just sick perverts, I don't believe that either party affiliates themselves with such sick individuals. If you have some reliable evidence to the contrary please share.

What about it? It's horrible. Inexcusable. My point wasn't to defend Christianity or any other belief system, and certainly not to show any support of pedophilia or any other crime. My point was to say that the divisions come primarily due to ego. Of course there is blame enough to go around, but to say that any group of believers that profess faith in some unseen being is a group bigoted and backward, is, to me, as absurd as saying that a group that is just as passionate in its fury against such a belief is where truth and knowledge are to be found. To wit, so what if Sara Palin believes in the Rapture? Is she any more underscritinized for that belief than say, Jocylen Elders, for her secular support of late-term abortion? What is left is an adult game of, "MOM! David won't stop poking me!" "I didn't poke you!" "YES, YOU DID" "NO, I DIDN'T"... ad nauseum. "They are stupid for a belief." "They are stupid for a lack of faith." It is undeniable that those who would fight against a religious system's code are just as adamant and faithful to what they believe in as those against whose belief they fight. I think the whole thing is stupid, because I still hold to my own opinion that good people are too busy trying to earn a living and raise a family to go into politics, no matter what they believe in. WOW... Here, I'll give it to myself:

Originally Posted by WireBeard

I was wondering what the NAMBLA reference was for.....in recent memory, the only politicians involved any anything close to that are Florida State Rep. Bob Allen and Congressman Mark Foley.

Let us not forget Barney Frank and his all male prostitution ring!

Originally Posted by JMS

Let us not forget Barney Frank and his all male prostitution ring!

Wasn't that because of his boyfriend running an escort agency out of Frank's home while he was away? In reading the Congressional report, Mr. Frank turned himself into the Ethics Committee as soon as he found out. While he was reprimanded for dating a male prostitute (a mind-boggling gaffe in and of itself), he was exonerated of any wrongdoing as far as being involved with the business, esp. after the ex-boyfriend was found to be lying on numerous instances. Ironically, the campaign to have him expelled was led by Larry Craig!

As far as Mr. Frank, his committee was responsible for the oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...but then when it al went to hell, he started criticizing the SEC and Wall Street...and the bailout.

Instead of all those attorneys in Congress, maybe we need some CPAs? ("No, no...2+2 does not equal 5!")

A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

Me and gugi pm'ed back and forth after my last post. in an effort to be more clear I am copying the pms and pasting them here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

gugi: Now, why would you say this, Mark? Look up 'apologist for' in your dictionary.

JMS: I used the word I intended![/I]

gugi: You misused it, or you do not understand its meaning, or you do not understand his post.
In any case, again, why would you post such post? The only thing I can see in it is an implication that coming in defense to somebody is bad.
If that's the level of discussion you're happy with, don't be surprised if somebody responds to you the same way and the thread goes south.[/I]

JMS: He offered a weak excuse for Barney Frank while leaving the other two names that he mentioned just dangling there!
I only mentioned Frank to show that these things go on on both sides of the isle!
After his weak excuse for Frank I only asked if he was an apologist! He can now clarify his intent.[/I]

gugi: With that reasoning, you may want to consider being direct. What is wrong with asking direct questions? Now you know that at least one person (me) could not derive from your post what you want it to be.
Not that I'm an expert on linguistics, or American English is my native language, but that's true for many others on the forums as well.

Originally Posted by JMS

A bit of an apologist for Barney frank are you?

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? I was merely citing the contents of the Congressional Report...I'd be happy to cite similar info for former Rep. Foley and former State Rep. Allen....or for Rep. Craig for that matter. The only one involved with underaged males was Foley.

As far as being an apologist, I offered no justification or defense for Rep. Frank, only facts as they were publish by Congress. I also criticized REp. Frank for his apparent "short term memory loss" when it came to the mortgage crisis, as it is his committee that was involved in oversight.

Unless you meant "apologist" as a defender of Christian doctrine, in which case I am flattered that you consider my arguments so compelling, but am at a loss as to what that has to do with Rep. Frank.