Palin's Faith

The Wall Street Journal reports about Gov. Palin’s church.

At the Pentecostal church where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin worshipped for more than two decades, congregants speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its “end times” — the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus.

The Rev. Ed Kalnins, pastor of the Pentecostal church, Wasilla Assembly of God, says he has told church members that God put President George W. Bush in office and that America is locked in a “holy war” with terrorists.

At Mr. Kalnins’s invitation, Gov. Palin appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural-gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers.

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country,” Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church’s Web site. Pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we’re praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

It also turns out she was at church when the leader of Jews for Jesus stated that  “terrorist attacks on Israelis as God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who haven’t embraced Christianity.”

How is the Rove Swat Team going to keep her from answering questions about these views? Do they really think they can avoid having a press conference?

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Censorship, Journalism, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Palin's Faith

  1. Morgan Warstler says:

    “Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, Governor Sarah Palin, and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (left to right) join Pastor Ed Kalnins and a congregation made up of nearly 20 different churches and denominations at One Lord Sunday in the Mat-Su Valley.”

    20 different churches. All the politcal leaders. All standing on a stage.

    Warning: You are about to make Rev. Wright another serious big issue.

    She asked them to pray for a natual gas pipeline… Energy Czarina!

  2. Daniel says:

    My grandfather is a devout Pentecostal and I can honestly say that when he speaks from this point of view he sounds delusional at best. No other denomination is “Christian” enough, according to him, because they don’t speak in tongues (a sign that God has chosen to reveal Himself to/through you and that your soul is saved).

    At least if the Republicans get elected, SNL will be guaranteed funny for another four years!

  3. Alex Bowles says:

    Careful. Obama has already made the case that sitting in a pew does not mean accepting everything that’s said from the pulpit. Real risk of looking hypocritical here. Press conferences seem like a great chance for the kind of right-back-atcha mockery that other posters have pointed out the GOP base loves.

    One thing we saw tonight – she can absolutely handle other people’s scripting. If she’s got clever writers feeding her good material, she’ll own it, and deliver accordingly.

    Far better for the media to continue doing the vetting McCain never did, and simply raise the social-outlook questions that can sway the wavering Dems and the undecided Independents. And it may not even be a hard tack that works best – really just a helpful effort to separate fact from fiction.

    She’s not one you want to corner. Far better to give her plenty of rope, and, well, you know…

  4. zestypete says:

    Alex, when push came to shove, Obama pretty much disowned Rev Wright because of what said and did. Think Sarah Palin is likely to do the same?

    Also, the press has made a lot of that “a task that is from God” quote, but I watched the clip of her saying it and it doesn’t feel quite as “creepy religious” as the media wants it to be. She obviously believes that God has a hand in everything and so it makes sense for her to phrase it the way she did. And remember: George W said he was doing God’s work by invading Iraq and that didn’t scare people off, so I don’t think this is going to make much difference.

    Now, if someone had a clip of her speaking in tongues, that’d be a whole different ballgame…

  5. len bullard says:

    The term is Glossolalia. The Pentecostals impacted the Jesus Freak movement post 60s and this was common.

    Nutty speech off camera won’t have the same vectoring effect as hate speech on camera even if Obama disavows it. He was too slow to do so.

    Palin checkmates Obama’s strengths as an orator. She will play much better to the crowd that both need in the older middle class. He will play much better to the millenials.

    At this point, I’d stop trying to use negative emotional vectoring and go after the issues. She is strong on energy and her speech played well with Pickens’ Plan. The talking heads looked red-faced last night and that is a sign of losing control. This election will come down to small numbers. The parties are advised to emphasize the strength and credibility of their plans.

  6. markharrell says:

    Questions easy to answer… if you believe the Bible to be true (and I do, and can show much internal and external evidence of this). We are in the end-times, God is bringing Israel back to Him, and we need strong spiritual leaders in this age of crappy relativism.

    I am not a tongues speaker, nor do I believe in the shakanery of “miracle” healing. But… her record is what is important. Let people believe how they like; that’s what makes our country great. A Satanist can worhip Satan… as long as they abide by the laws of the land. When Sarah Palin disobeys the law of the land… then you can take a swipe at her faith (if it is her faith that influenced the decision.)


  7. Ken Ballweg says:

    This is a case where “We report, you decide.” will likely have more negative effect on McCain’s choice than several of you seem to believe. Obama’s campaign doesn’t have to, and shouldn’t touch it. Let the folks who want to sell papers trot it out, and it will effect those in the independent group who are weary of examples of Bush’s direct line from god determining policy, and want to see more separation of church and state. I think the emphasis on the evangelical’s being a mass controlling block of votes is oversimplified. In sheer numbers, there are more people concerned about evangelicals taking making themselves the state religion than there are evangelicals. The plurality of heathens like me, Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, White bread Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and New Agers are a larger voting plurality than anything the rabid evangelicals can float. And all those groups would oppose being dictated to by the politicized evangelical base. A lot of the miscount of their power comes from including all Christians in their camp, when actually they only include about a fifth of the total population.

    Add to that the fair chunk of evangelicals who are saying this has gone to far and not resulted in that much good, (e.g. we didn’t sign on for torture) and the number of people who are going to looking at the extreme that represents (without any input from Obama) are going to have a reaction to it.

    The best strategy with Palin is for the Obama camp to keep being respectful (only snigger in the back room with the door shut), and disassociate themselves from the muck racker’s field day. Then at some point have an independent coalition PAC of Republicans and Democrats run adds independent from Obama’s, asking a fairly simple question: “Really, if Sarah Palin were running for President, separate from John McCain, would you vote for her?”

  8. Jon Taplin says:

    Ken- That is the right strategy. Move-on could ask that question in October.

  9. markharrell says:

    I tend to disagree with Ken. The facts ( are that there are 77,000,000 professing Christians in America. It is estimated that 80,000,000 people will vote in this election. You do the math.


  10. Ken Ballweg says:

    Again, break out the hard line evangelicals from the rest of the Christians, to get the real voting bloc they represent.

  11. Ken Ballweg says:

    Went looking for percentages and stumbled across this that says it well, though the %ages are probably changed somewhat.

  12. JeffW says:

    Given my recent reading
    of “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer, much of my current
    view of the state of the state is tinged by this feeling that
    fundamentalist religion – which will always exist as long as there
    is religion – is wrecking this country, slowly but surely. So, with
    that grain of salt …

    The thing that strikes me about Palin’s religiousity is her sense
    that she’s on some sort of divine mission (further supported and
    suggested by her former pastor at the Wasilla Assembly of God
    church). Being a devout believer (whatever one’s religious
    affliations/convictions) who carries on in life in line with the
    tenets of the faith without wearing it on his/her shirtsleeve is
    alright with me, but when delusions about one’s importance in the
    eyes of God start guiding everything a person does or says,
    especially if those delusions have serious consequences for others,
    that’s when the line is crossed. (We’ve seen the results of that for the last 5
    years.) Couple that with her perception, like W’s, that our mission in Iraq
    is sanctioned by God and … well, to me it’s just more of the same black/white,
    right/wrong, we’re good/they’re evil fervor that’s held this country
    in its grip for far too long, that’s stifling the kind of progressive
    thought/policies/programs that will help us to cope in a world that
    is no longer our oyster, and that has eroded our stature and
    reputation amongst the other nations of the world. Throw in
    Creationist thinking, the idea that God gives a shit about whether
    or not a pipeline gets built, or that her moral values should be
    of such weight that she might dictate what should and shouldn’t be
    in a library, and I’d say she’d be one very scary person to have
    sitting next in line for the presidency.

    Unfortunately, as zestypete has already pointed out, being the chosen one
    to carry out God’s work doesn’t necessarily preclude one from being
    elected to high office. Not in this country,
    anyway. Our collective
    subconscience is so saturated by religiously-
    fueled visions of manifest
    destiny, that for one candidate to even bring up the possibility that the other
    is unsuitable by virtue of extreme religious values is to risk political suicide.
    In fact, this will be our undoing – rational discourse along these lines will
    continue to disappear as we dig ourselves into ever-deeper holes on so many
    fronts and the “End of Times” prophesy, if it’s not divine, will certainly become

  13. Alex Bowles says:

    Ken, I think you make a great point about religion in private life – for people living private lives. And I think it extends to people in public lives who treat their faith as a private matter.

    But people can, and do take notice when folks in public life starting wearing their hearts on their sleeves, and suggesting their decisions will be guided by particular tenants of their faith which are also unique to their faith, unlike the general ‘respect God and neighbor / don’t steal / do unto others’ ethical frameworks that cross denominations, and can generally be understood by everybody.

    So I think JeffW has the better point – when somebody’s religion is this active, and, frankly, this polarizing, you really should pay attention. And I think you’ve identified the way to do it: by asking policy questions that can allow folks at home to see for themselves how, and to what extent, a candidate’s belief serves to frame their answers. Does it dictate? Does it guide? Does it inform? Does it inspire? Is it even real?

    It’s not all bad, or critical. My support for Obama actually began in earnest when I saw a video of his ‘Call to Renewal’ keynote address, delivered in 2006.

    From it, I was able to understand how he saw the relation between belief in God, membership in a particular Chruch, and the needs of governing a secular republic in which religion really matters. I was truly impressed, and, for the first time, saw the caliber of his thought and outlook as Presidential.

    When he brought the same mindset to his speech on race, (which seemed to use the Call to Renewal as a template), then, in a condensed form, to the section of his Denver speech that dealt with specific agenda issues, I understood how his thought could work across these issues, felt that I could really understand how he’d govern.

    The thing about Palin is that folks with her outlook have, historically, had an inclination towards some VERY aggressive social policy that, in practice, turns into some really dark, nasty, violent stuff. I’m not referring simply to the legacy back-alley abortions, and raising families that are products of incest. I’m also talking about the devastating effects on science and culture from people who go around banning books, outlawing inquiry, and crippling education. In a larger sense, we’ve seen how badly wrong state-enforced fundamentalism can go, in Judeo-Christian traditions (the Spanish Inquisition) and the Islamic faith (suicide bombing).

    This gets back to the post that Morgan made, about responsibility. Fundamentalists are quick to tell you what you should or should not do, but they make few allowances, if any, for the social problems created by following their strictures, and don’t seem to devote much energy at all to mitigating these effects. In the worst cases, they seem to feed off the misery to reinforce larger narratives about waiting for ‘the next life’.

    So yeah, would you want Palin as President?

  14. BobbyG says:

    Religion, in three words:

    Let Us Prey.

  15. Seth says:

    The Republican party has moved from Theodore Roosevelt’s Bully Pulpit to Sarah Palin’s Bullying Pulpit.

    I’m so sick of these nasty, cynical, cruel people posing as “Christians” and getting away with it. Sanctimonious frauds and liars.

  16. Alex Bowles says:

    I know Seth, that damn doublespeak…

    (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

  17. Seth says:

    well, FWIW, my ‘doublespeak’ was accidental 😉

  18. Morgan Warstler says:

    For Zak,

    some really interesting basic polling on abortion:

    The devil is in the cross tabs I think.

  19. Patrick says:


    You da man! Succinct, and spot-on, as usual.

  20. len bullard says:

    Unless she does it herself on a talk show, it won’t be easy for anyone else to use those issues. There is plenty of printed material where she makes the intelligent design talking point that teaching both sides is the right thing to do. Unfortunately for the students, that skips around the ‘there isn’t two sides to every question’ retort. Creationism is junk, pure and simple. Science does not admit systems of belief (first cause systems) because it is a method based on testing and there is no test that can be applied to a first cause system.

    That said, the stuff in the Black Liberation Theology writings are pure hate and putting hate up against bad science is a loser for the side that has to support the hateful. If you ignore that, you’ll get your heads handed to you in an election where emotional vectoring is used over issue-vectoring.

    If she continues to talk energy policy, she will be hard to beat. Regardless or what you support, both of these candidates have trunks o’ junk that their opponents can pull out at will and in a small numbers election, it will come down to identity. Barack was right about this: he comes off as scary to a certain demographic and she comes off as the sexy Mom next door.

    So Jon and Ken are right that there are some issues he is better off staying away from, but relying on the MSM to get it done for you has the danger that they are not collectively cohesive. Campbell Brown was willing to take the risks, but Gloria Borger was pulling back and so were some other media pundits. They realize that at the end of this election, if they continue to be in the tank and lose, they take three steps back in their careers.

    IMO, I can’t find any certainty from either candidate so it seems best to keep punching on both sides to get them to modify their positions until they are close enough to what I want that it won’t make as much difference which win. IOW, this isn’t a battle of good vs evil: it is an Overton Maneuver with a bit of operant conditioning thrown in. Keep pushing on the energy issue, and like Clinton and Obama, eventually they converge on the same solution.

    I don’t care about the winning party. I care about the agenda set in January and the schedule.

    “Goes to show, you don’t ever know
    Watch each card you play and play it slow
    Wait until that deal come round
    Don’t you let that deal go down, no, no” Hunter/Garcia

  21. Shevaberakhot says:


    You say:

    “At the Pentecostal church where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin worshipped for more than two decades, congregants speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its “end times” — the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus”.


    The Holy Spirit is all that stands between holy order and cataclysm.

    I’d be very careful before criticising Jon.

  22. Fear of God says:

    Mark. After one writes, “I believe the bible is true,” it doesn’t matter what is written after that because the author has proven himself to be delusional. Belief that these collections of stories written and rewritten by various men over the course of several thousand years are somehow the actual word of god demonstrates a character flaw in humankind that has been successfully exploited by religious leaders throughout history. You are in very good company by the way, but i would suggest doing some additional critical thinking and perhaps embarking on some scholarly study about the origins of the bible before “believing that the bible is true.”

  23. DrCurt Schmidt says:

    As a former Jesuit I am always mystified at the
    vitriol that is directed at Pentecostals. After all,
    unlike the Jesuits, they were not suppressed by the
    Pope for more than a biblical forty years [1773 to
    1815], nor have they had an adjective derived from their name [‘jesuitical’] that means “dissembling or

    My point, for this post, is that everyone would do
    well not to sit in any form of judgment over Sarah
    Palin, nor over her choice of a house of worship.

    If we really want the best people to run this nation 
    in a time of great and imminent dangers, it would
    be far better to make our judgments according to the criteria Christ gave us: “By the fruit you shall know the tree.”

    That measurement speaks volumes about the past
    stewardship of our current president and many in
    the Republican party. It also ‘speaks bookshelves’
    about the current rants of the Left and Right, who seem to think they have accomplished their
    mission on earth if they have thoroughly trashed
    their opposites, and refused to allow that their opponents might have some solutions for the
    problems the nation faces.

    On the day I see someone — anyone — come up with effective solutions for the problems we face in healthcare, immigration, education, global competitiveness, energy independence, and Iran’s nuclear threat, I will care less what church they go to, for they will surely have been touched by the Spirit of God.

    It certainly won’t be the result of various kinds of
    machinations, such as ‘giving people enough rope’
    to destroy themselves.

  24. Rick Turner says:

    By the fruit of her womb do we know the tree. We know that she preaches against sex education, and that she is of a religion that is against sex outside of marriage. So what does she have? A knocked up daughter whose boyfriend is on record as saying he doesn’t want kids. So much for that…

    If it was a 17 year old daughter of Biden, the right wing would be howling.

    The problem with so many of Palin’s ilk is that they talk the talk and don’t walk the walk. The hypocrisy is sickening.

  25. DrCurt Schmidt says:

    Well of course if it happened to Biden, the right
    wing would be howling. That’s really my point.
    Both wings do far too much howling and far too little problem solving.

    They also seem to adopt the stance that one must think as they do, which gives rise to the illusion that anyone can govern from either of these extremes. They cannot.

    I agree that there has been far too much preaching,
    on the part of both sides, as to how individuals
    should live their lives. In the meantime, no one’s
    ‘living of life’ is going too well at the moment, as
    energy shortages/rising costs have brought retail to
    almost a complete halt — complete enough to cost
    a lot of jobs and worsen the mortgage crisis.

    There are solutions to the energy crisis that are
    completely independent of whatever stance one
    takes regarding sex education, teen pregnancy,
    birth control or abortion. One of those is going
    to a four day work week, which will likely be accepted by most people when gas is $5/gal or
    $10/gal — the latter being the likely price should
    Iran carry out its oft promised threat to close the
    Strait of Hormuz and block 40% of the world’s
    oil supply.

    Instead of worrying about teen pregnancy, and
    whether the monomaniacal Right or Left will be
    howling (since they seem to find a way to do that
    no matter what the issue of the day), why don’t we
    come up with a solution to the Iranian threat. After
    all, they report that they have just increased their
    number of centrifuges that process nuclear fuel
    from 3000 to 4200. That’s a lot of centrifuges —
    and a pretty steep increase in the number thereof —
    for a program they claim is solely “for peaceful purposes.”

  26. Alex Bowles says:

    Dr. Schmidt,

    We *have* seen the fruit, and by it, we have come to know the tree.

    To wit, we have a ‘Christian’ president who has presided over an administrated that has ravaged the Geneva Conventions.

    Instead of allowing themselves to be governed by the law, and deciding that their chosen course of action needs to be re-evaluated when it collides with the universally accecpted definition of ‘torture’, they choose to do legal backflips, attempting to redefine the word itself, making a mockery of the law that betrays a total lack of moral restraint, and an absolutly profound manifestation of hypocracy.

    When Sarah Palin gave her speech, she didn’t stand up for the ideals of the law, her country, and her faith. Quite the opposite – she mocked the people who did. And she did it to deafeningly loud cheers.

    She trashed herself, sir. And the crowd in that room discredited themselves along with her.

    The larger point is that people who observe her with a well-founded sense of moral recoil don’t need to dirty their own hands engaging in the type of baseless smear campaigns that have given an appropriately bad name to extremes on the left and right alike. They simply need to hold her to account for what she has actually done and said.

    Unfortunately, this will not be easy, given that her handlers have refused to grant any interviews with the press. The official line is that this is ‘unnecessary’, and the the public can ‘learn everything they need to know from her prepared (and ghostwritten) speeches’.

    This is appealing in its own right, but it marks an entirely new low in cynical manipulation when it comes not 24 hours after the Presidential candidate who selected here addressed the nation with a promise of ‘the most transparent and accountable government ever’.

    There were no Democratic machinations that got that line inserted in McCain’s speech. They’re doing this to themselves. And it’s evangelical voters, in particular, who seem the happiest to let them.

    Which is my point too; let them. And when November comes, vote them into political oblivion.

    McCain was right about one thing. It’s time the GOP got reacquainted with basics. Sarah Palin was right about one thing too – the Oval Office is no place to conduct a journey of personal discovery.

  27. Alex Bowles says:

    Dr. Schmidt,

    I don’t want you to think that the ‘solution’ is simply ‘get rid of the GOP’.

    My point is that the GOP has become entirely corrupt, and that this corruption is hindering their fundamental ability to govern.

    Consider an alcoholic man. He may be loosing his job, alienating his family, and destroying his health. These are all serious, even life threatening problems. However, none of them can be addressed while the alcoholism still rages.

    A party in power that has lost sight of its own way presents a nation with a similar problem. It’s not the only problem, or even the biggest problem. It’s simply the first problem. We need to get rid of these guys, and we need to do it a.s.a.p.

    Vote the bums into the wilderness, where they can sober up, detox, and come to their senses.

    And they better do it quick. There are some pretty iffy characters among the Democratic leadership as well. This country needs a viable, coherent opposition party, and it can’t wait a decade or two for the conservatives to get back on their feet.

    In the meantime, I’m just thankful we have a candidate with enough clarity, decency and good sense to put together a document like this:

    My big hope is that he has the political skill and the personal fortitude to survive the challenges he’ll face, from outside his party and within.

  28. DrCurt Schmidt says:

    Well, I certainly agree that the behavior of Bush,
    Cheney, and most of the Republicans in Congress
    has been dispicable, for all the reasons that readers have alluded to. They can’t leave office fast enough, most of us would agree.

    And it would not surprise me that Sarah Palin’s handlers have put her off limits for the usual news interviews. Yet, given that the media are largely owned by 5 or 6 wealthy individuals or corporations [think Sam Zell, Newhouse, and Rupert Murdoch, just as examples], one can be truly cynical and wonder whether any news interview will do any good for the ordinary person who has not sold his soul to ideology.

    I would add one more thing: that the Republicans in general found an icon in the behavior of the late Henry Hyde: a staunch supporter of various moral/ethnic/family values, who nonetheless found a way to break up the marriage of two people by having an adulterous relationship with one of them.

    Why is he an icon? Because when he was confronted with it by the media, he brushed it off
    as merely “a youthful indiscretion” — despite the fact that he was 47 years old when it happened!

    In another instance, when the issues surrounding
    gay marriage were being vigorously debated, there
    were people of both parties who would wring their hands over the presumed damage that gay marriage would do to the institution of marriage. To which Chris Rock, in his inimitable style, responded, “Harm the institution of marriage?! What about Britney Spears? [who had just been married in Las Vegas, and then had it nullified in a matter of hours]. And as the laughter of the audience subsided, Rock added, “And Michael Jackson!!”

    I would argue that there is more than enough of
    this hypocrisy around to sicken anyone for decades
    [and we haven’t even gotten to the abuse of small
    children by Catholic priests, and the indefatigable efforts by Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals to cover it up [except of course those Bishops who
    themselves were found to be guilty of the same
    apalling behavior, and were quickly removed to some ‘retreat’ or other ensconcement behind the gilded draperies of the institutional Church.

    My original point, however, is that we can go on forever about this stuff, and still there is an energy
    crisis to be solved, and a state sponsor of terrorism
    about to complete its nuclear weapon, and an India/
    China middle class that in a few years will exceed ours by six to one, while able to offer goods and services at half the cost. Check out an attempt to
    analyze and solve some of these issues in the
    recently published ‘Seven Deadly Threats to America,’ subtitled ‘Campaign 2008: Approaching the Point of No Return.’

    We think the country is in bad shape now. Wait
    until we see what it is like when the problems I
    have touched on — energy, immigration, Iran’s
    nuclear threat — are allowed to remain unresolved.

    To paraphrase the scriptures, the hypocrites we shall have always with us. Nor should anyone feel he is without sin and able to cast the first stone.

    That said, we have major crises brewing that will need to be solved in the next four years by whomever gets elected, and there are only so many names that will appear on the ballot 60 days from now. It’s long past time for the media, the candidates, and the people to focus on the real problems. If they are not solved, they will lead
    to our decline as a nation just as surely as the sun sets in the western skies.

  29. len says:

    “My point, for this post, is that everyone would do well not to sit in any form of judgment over Sarah Palin, nor over her choice of a house of worship.”

    With this I agree. This is fundamental.

    However, a political candidate should answer questions of how her faith, her values will inform her governance, and most directly, the issues of concern.

    Hillary and Barack have both done this.

    Otherwise we are of the same mind. There are only 60 days left and the American voters can vote the identity politics or character politics or religious politics for the values by which they choose are theirs to choose. This is fundamental freedom: choice of choices.

    But we really should be looking at The Deal. We’ve only 60 days.

    And to know that, we must know where Sarah Palin stands on abortion and creationism, as well as energy, environment, foreign relations and the civil right to be educated, because these are decisions she may be called to govern.

    These are not difficult questions to ask without personal attacks from the journalist so this question is as much about the questioner as the questioned.

    Truthfully, though, from the purely professional political view: the less we see the more we want to see. Her rare value is access. When spinning news cycles, it pays to know where and when to put the hot air.

  30. Alex Bowles says:

    (Dr. Schmidt) “My point, for this post, is that everyone would do well not to sit in any form of judgment over Sarah Palin, nor over her choice of a house of worship.”

    (Len) “With this I agree. This is fundamental.”

    With all due respect to both of you, it IS important that we make judgments about the candidates. That’s the entire point of a public campaign.

    If somebody has the nerve to stand up in front of us and tell a flat-out lie which is as bold as it is transparent, judgment is easy to pass: they’re either extremely arrogant, or they’re rank amateurs. Or perhaps they’re an especially dangerous combination of both.

    In any case, we seed to be able to recognize – and by that, I mean judge for ourselves – what is going on. And then we need to vote accordingly.

    It’s not a moral judgment, either. It’s simply a question of basic self-preservation.

  31. len says:

    I get that point, Alex, but she has the right to her religious beliefs. That is fundamental. What is also fundamental is that when she asks for our vote we ask her how her religious beliefs will influence her positions on public policy.

    Shouting at each other won’t help get those answers and how that influence changes public policy that directly affects us, that is survival.

    The difference isn’t subtle. It is stylistic but style can hide a multitude of bad decisions just as a pretty face, Superfly or Supergirl, can fog our will to ask.

Leave a Reply