Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is from a speech that Sarah Palin gave to a bunch of high school kids at her church a few months ago:
"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 them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Just what we need while trying to convince the Muslim world that the invasion of Iraq was not a Christian crusade against Islam, a Vice President who thinks that our leaders should be following "God's plan" when going to war. What exactly is the difference between a Christian who thinks God tells them to go to war against Iraq and, say, Osama Bin Laden, who believes that God tells him to go to war against America? People who think God tells them to kill people are insane; they certainly shouldn't be electable.
Politics
Comments
Wouldn't it have just been a whole lot easier if God didn't put our oil underneath their sand?
Posted by: carlsonjok | September 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Hmmm... I wonder how this will play on the airwaves after the convention.
Will this be pitted against Obama's perceived anti-religion/anti-gun/anti-rural statement of clinging to guns and religion?
Posted by: Umlud | September 4, 2008 9:43 AM
is this country just too stupid, collectively, to fix itself? i'm not trying to be funny or condescending (certain people are just not very intelligent. it's true. also, there are many, many people who are far more intelligent than i am so i don't think that i know it all). i'm seriously worried about our future and i'm losing hope.
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 9:43 AM
well, i'm going to answer my own question. after further consideration i think the answer is "No". I don't think intelligence is the problem. it's more like contented ignorance. i still don't know what we can do about it though. if people are totally satisfied with their ignorance why incentive do they have to change?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 9:52 AM
"...what incentive..."
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 9:54 AM
Going after speeches when the speaker does not have teleprompter is not a good strategy, especially with Biden as the other VP candidate. I am not a fan of the religious right but I can see where she could been praying that our actions are righteous and not evil; which given Bush/Cheney, is a prayer that is sorely needed.
Posted by: Bill | September 4, 2008 9:57 AM
The difference is that some of Osama's views on geo-politics are actually based in reality... Y'know, like that fact that the US actually did have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, whereas Saddam Hussein did not have any WMD.
Posted by: Dunc | September 4, 2008 10:02 AM
Web Site With Speeches and Sermons From Palin's Former Church Shuts Down as Religious Views of Candidate Face Scrutiny
Supposedly due to traffic overload, not censorship. We'll see if it comes back up.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 4, 2008 10:14 AM
Toss me another softball, Ed.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 4, 2008 10:22 AM
"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 them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
You all are such a crackup. Just like picking on a 17 year old girl, you are trying to make scandals out of nothing. What is so shocking for a Christian to pray that our actions as a nation are just and from God? She told the listeners to pray that our leaders and soldiers would act within God's will and that the plan of the nation would be God's plan. She did not proclaim that the Iraq War was automatically God's will. She is asking that God's will be done, whatever that may be. But then, you all are such experts on Christianity and probably understand that already, right?
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 10:25 AM
@mroberts - thanks for taking the time to clear that up. i see now that palin is totally rational.
so what's the answer? is the war in fact part of god's will? would it have been more prudent to wait for an answer before starting the war?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 10:31 AM
Anybody remember Mark Twain's War Prayer:
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
Posted by: John | September 4, 2008 10:33 AM
I agree with mroberts. Pretty standard fare in a church environment. It would be a bit over the top in churches I have attended, but not altogether unfamiliar. I am always amused that new atheists thing they scare Christians, when in fact we (well, the churches I have belonged to) never talk about them at all, in church, ever. The don't even show up on the radar. But every week we will pray for the military in ways not much different from the way Palin did.
Keep trying to portray her as a religious wingnut. Let me know how that works out for you.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Palin did state this was on a "task that is from God." Therefore, these people are praying that the troops act in accordance to god's plan, and that plan is a war in Iraq. So no, heddle and mr roberts you are incorrect.
Posted by: MC Pickard | September 4, 2008 10:54 AM
As usual, mroberts and heddle argue that 'everybody's doin' it so it can't be crazy'. Naturally, everybody doesn't do it, but even if they did, it wouldn't be any less crazy.
Nonetheless ... mroberts and heddle have made the case that dangerous beliefs, such as the notion that war is 'task that is from God' are depressingly common among Christians.
Posted by: llewelly | September 4, 2008 10:56 AM
I read this earlier on a couple of newsfeeds and the first thought that popped into my head was - just get her in a dark suit and sunglasses and she could costar in "Blues Brothers III - Liberate the Holy Land", subtitled "We're on a mission from God!"
Then she could add actress to her resume. Oh, wait...she is a politician....
Posted by: Pineyman | September 4, 2008 10:57 AM
God's will will be done regardless of you praying about it which pretty much renders that activity redundant and pointless no?
Why would they? Church is about preaching to the choir and social activities. Given many churches don't even like their members reading dissent it's not suprising. Oh and they do talk about athiests plenty usually to demean them, call them lost or misguided and even irrational(if that isn't amusing).
So scare the Christians who would think it? It seems to me a war of attrition and by the numbers they have been pretty successful.
Is she a wingnut if everyone around her is a wingnut? Is she any less so if that is the case? Is truth determined by numbers?
McCain and her will lose and lose big.
Posted by: Che-Taylor | September 4, 2008 10:59 AM
@heddle: She supports teaching Creationism in school, that makes her either a) willing to make policy without knowing any facts at all or b) a religious wingnut. Which one is it?
Posted by: Rev Matt | September 4, 2008 11:02 AM
As I've said before, unless you live in a big city, Sarah Palin could be one of your neighbors. One who, if your kid falls off his bike near her, will put band-aids on his scrapes and drive him back home in her SUV. She may have some nutty/ignorant ideas, but she'll water your plants and feed your cat while you're out of town. For some people, that may be all she needs to get their votes. I hope not, but I guess I'm going to find out once and for all what kind of a country I'm in.
I especially liked the comments above by Carlsonjok and Sdj - just sayin'.
Whereas I spend part of almost every day mentally reviewing the arguments for and against theism, and wishing I could have a discussion with my religious friends and relatives without upsetting them. Something seems to make them react with hostility and/or avoidance. Probably not fear, more likely some form of the territorialism that evolution has blessed us with.
Posted by: JimV | September 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Heddle,
You may be correct in your assessment of how common/ordinary this sort of language is, albeit at one end of a continuum. But doesn't that reinforce the point? I mean, just because a substantial fraction of middle eastern muslims beleive Allah wants them to do anything they can to destroy the US by any means (including terrorism) doesn't make their view any less of a concern for us.
A charitable interpretation of her comments are that they are just standard religious rhetoric that has lost its literal force for most US christians, but that doesn't change the fact that the plain meaning of those words: 1) can still inspire some in the US who still take them literally, and 2) are documentable instances of the utterances of our leaders that foreigners can point to as evidence of our evil (and infidel) intentions.
It's not a good thing to shroud our actions in the rightousness of our particular religion, most particularly when it concerns a war against a country of a different religion. It's very easy to say, but very hard to prove, that your actions are sanctioned by your God, and is virtually certain to elicit a similar but opposing stance from the other side.
Posted by: Divalent | September 4, 2008 11:14 AM
MC Pickard,
Sorry, you are incorrect. A basic theme from evangelical Christianity is the absolute sovereignty of God. Look at the Westminster confession (you'll find the same thing in many other confessions):
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
So to many evangelical Christians it is quite natural, and independent of whether or not you approve of it, to concede that the war was God's will. You could then argue further that it is quite possible that intent of God's will in this case might not be what we hope for, but nevertheless Palin arguing that the war (or McCain's election, or Obama's election) is God's plan is more or less orthodox.
No to mention that she is speaking, extemporaneously, in a church.
Rev. Matt,
I don't need to tell the people here that many evangelical Christians in fact do support teaching creationism or ID at schools. (I think most know I am not one of them.) So if wingnut == mainstream (or not far from it), then you can call her that. Again, let me know how that works out for you.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 11:24 AM
Since the age of about 12, I was told that "everyone else is doing it", is not a defense, it's an excuse. And a bad one at that.
Now you want to actually defend the notion of divinely "planned" warfare, or as it's more commonly known in regards to christianity and islam, crusade and jihad? Let's hear the arguments for militant fanaticism.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 4, 2008 11:29 AM
Mrroberts & Heddle- I think you kind of missed the point.
It isn't relevant how Mr & Mrs Moron perceive the sermon in their church in Dumbsville USA, the point is how angry, disaffected and dispossessed Muslim youths in the shattered ruins of communities in Baghdad see the potential VP of the US preaching on the world's airwaves. How do you think that would go down with THEM? (put yourself in THEIR shoes for a second)-DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2008 11:37 AM
Coriolis
I don't really want to defend anything. I just want to poke some sides and say, in effect, good luck in calling her a wingnut--because you'll include a lot of American evangelicals in the assessment, which probably is how you feel. But let's see how that strategy works. The "the other side is a wingnut" approach can lead, on the the day after the election, to the classic "I can't believe Nixon won, everyone I know voted for McGovern" surprise.
Or another example--not sure if it was here or another blog posting about the video. But some commenter said something to the effect that when Palin said she was saved in that church, it made him sick.
Let's see how the meme of induced nausea at a Christian testimony plays on Main Street.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 11:39 AM
Sarah Palin could be one of your neighbors. One who, if your kid falls off his bike near her, will put band-aids on his scrapes and drive him back home in her SUV.
Hitler loved his dog.
Posted by: Graculus | September 4, 2008 11:40 AM
DJ
Maybe I missed the point. But you didn't miss mine, you made it.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted by: Taz | September 4, 2008 11:56 AM
Heddle, if we are discussing the absolute sovereignty of God (he can kill you at any time and banish your arse to hell or to heaven) then what's the difference? Iraq is in his back yard.
Seems to me your hair-splitting here.
Posted by: MC Pickard | September 4, 2008 11:58 AM
It's playing better and better every day. Like most things you reach a saturation point and people just want to hear less of it and others to keep it to themselves. Then the pendulum swings the other way.
McCain and Palin will likely lose and lose big as mentioned above. That Palin has some nutty views doesn't disqualify her from being a politician but it should give pause to thinking rational voters. As it may make her unelectable in places like Europe. We need a similiar thought process here.
Posted by: GH | September 4, 2008 12:07 PM
MC Pickard,
I'm not, but we certainly do not want to hijack this thread into a God's sovereign will vice free will vice secondary causes theological quagmire.
Similarly for Taz,
Let's just leave it at, well, you surely realize are not the first person to raise the "if it is all God's will, why pray?" objection. Again, I'll pass on the theology discussion to avoid thread hijack, but if you want to take it offline, that's cool.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 12:11 PM
heddle:
"I am always amused that new atheists thing they scare Christians"
I am always amazed at how condescending Christians can be when pride is considered a sin. Also you seem to have a rather dim understanding of what atheists are actually thinking; in fact you have it backwards... Christians scare atheists; that much should be obvious. We fear the irrational, because it can't be predicted nor reasoned with.
Posted by: markp | September 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Well fine, if you want to claim that there are a bunch of people who are that stupid and crazy, I believe you. If enough people in this country are fine with pushing us into a religious based war with islam, with the generous help of their islamic counterparts, than that's life. Or rather, death.
Obama's candidacy is in part based on a bet that these people are still something of a minority, vocal as they are. If he's wrong and there are enough people who will still vote for who looks good and is part of their tribe, even after the disaster of the last eight years, he'll fail. That's one good thing about a democracy - the people get the government they deserve.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 4, 2008 12:12 PM
umm Heddle - perhaps you should re-read my WHOLE post slowly, sounding out ALL the words. (maybe you could get an adult to help you).
Palin thinks that her god is responsible for war, Osama bin Laden thinks the same. This kind of simplistic 12th century thought process is not compatible with the the 20th century let alone the 21st. These idiots should not be in charge of a tiny city in a penny-ante state, let alone a heart beat from the the presidency of the world's only (alleged) super power -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2008 12:17 PM
markp,
Do we? Well I didn't say otherwise. I mentioned new atheists as a segue, and in fact I have on many occasions on PZ's blog heard mention of the fact that new atheists strike fear in the hearts of Christians. As I pointed out that it is rather amusing, because we (my experience, say maybe 2000 sermons since the ill defined advent of new atheism) never talk about them at all. Ever. Zero out of thousands of sermons have mentioned Dawkins, or Harris, or you pick 'em.
For some example of atheistic rationalism, of hard-cold evidence based just-the-facts-ma'am atheistic logical deductive analysis, I present the comments on Ed's "Palin's (Grand)baby" thread.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 12:23 PM
DJ,
No it is you missing the boat. My point is not that Palin's view is correct or reasonable, but that if you attack it by painting her as a wingnut (and by association people like her, of whom there are a lot, you referred to them as Mr. and Mrs. Moron)--well go ahead and try--let's see how that does beyond preaching to the choir.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 12:29 PM
I think mroberts and heddle are missing the point I was trying to make. Given how many wars have been started and justified on the basis of being god's will, it concerns me a great deal when a potential leader thinks that they should be trying to discern god's will in making such decisions. I know you don't agree with that because you do, in fact, believe that we should always act in accordance to god's will. Since we do not share that premise, we aren't going to reach the same conclusion. I'll only note that Bin Laden thinks he acts in accordance to god's will as well and you have no objective way of distinguishing why he's wrong and anyone else is right. So your disagreement notwithstanding, I still think it's a matter of concern.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Ed,
That's fair enough, but I think you are taking the most unfavorable interpretation of Palin's extemporaneous remarks. That is, you are assuming that she means that the Iraq war was the decretive will of God, The Crusades-like.
I don't think so. She's in a church. When we speak in church, when we pray, when we talk, when we are in church-speak mode, we inject "God's will" modifiers almost, well, willy-nilly. We won't say: Sally didn't get into Harvard. We'll say: it was God's will that Sally didn't get into Harvard, she's so happy at State U. That's what I think s happening here. Church-speak that, interpreted at face value, might send a message that wasn't intended.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 12:45 PM
heddle - 60 in a church, 350 Million in the US, 6.7 billion in the world (many Muslims) - you do the maths.
The world as a whole hardly needs even four more years of psychopaths in the Whitehouse -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2008 12:55 PM
I think mroberts and heddle are missing the point I was trying to make. Given how many wars have been started and justified on the basis of being god's will, it concerns me a great deal when a potential leader thinks that they should be trying to discern god's will in making such decisions.
Considering how few wars have been started by the US in God's name and the large number that have been started in the name of empire over the last 100 years, I think we should be concerned more about the latter. Our problem is not that we have holy warmongers, but that the United States has changed from a modest republic that largely minded its own business to a global empire that seeks to meddle in the affairs of and impose its will on other nations.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 12:56 PM
DJ,
If the numbers are stacked against us, what are you worried about?
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 12:59 PM
Heddle, I'm not going to look for your argument for or against Rev. Wright's use of "Church-speak" when he said, "God bless America? I say God damn America" (or something to that extent). Are you saying that he was treated unfairly?
If you are asking for a "free pass" on "Church speak" from an executive, then you should also concede a "free pass" on "Iranian governmental propaganda speak's" "Death to Americans" and "Wipe Israel off the map." After all, isn't Achmedinejad (or however you want to spell his name) merely speaking in his own context? (As an Islamic state, the podium of the President is de facto part of trappings of religion, and his state's version of said religion.)
If you are asking for a "free pass" on "Church speak" from an executive, then do you also concede that Kim Jong Il's speeches within his cult of personality that is North Korea should get similar "free passes"? As a country based upon a cult of personality with the force and purpose of religion behind it, his calls for continued struggle and self determination against the imperialist West should merely be taken in its context (and not as a threat of nuclear war).
Or is it only okay in the context of speaking in "Church speak" to Evangelicals, Protestants more generally, or Christianity? Should it be allowable when a leader speaks to his or her fellows within the context of any religion? If so, then what constitutes a "religion"? If you would define a religion, then are you putting bound on something to which atheists are not allowed to be included - and therefore continue to be judged by a different standard?
I agree with you to the extent that what people say should be judged in the context of when and to whom they say it. (You would not, for example, judge the morality of a 12th century English knight by the morality of the 21st century soldier.) However, I would hold that this cuts both ways - when you both agree and disagree with someone. If you are allowing a "free pass" to Palin on this one (because she is talking within the context of a church setting), then you must allow for a "free pass" to the president of religious countries when they talk of holy war, or to dictators of cult-of-personality countries when they talk of nuclear warfare and personal struggle against a tyrannical imperial "other."
Therefore, my question to you is whether you feel that Kim Jong Il and Achemdinnejad (or however you spell his name) should get a similar "free pass" because they were merely giving "Church speak" (or the equivalent) when they talk (perhaps less extemporaneously) to members within their religion (or cult); the audience merely happening to be an entire country and whomever else happens to listen in on the broadcast - or not?
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 4, 2008 1:05 PM
Let's put this another way.
1. This speech by Governor Palin is on Youtube.
2. Youtube is accessible from the Internet.
3. Muslims in the Arab world and elsewhere have access to the Internet and hence Youtube.
Mr. mroberts and Prof. Heddle can believe that this type of crap is just your garden variety pap delivered in born again churches and should not be taken seriously. However, I can guarantee the readers of this blog that these same Muslims will take it very seriously indeed and will consider it to be a call for a new set of Crusades against the Islamic world. Osama bin Laden and his sockpuppets will thrive on videos like this to stir up folks in the Islamic world against the "Crusaders" (they have long memories and well recall the war against the Muslim world waged by Christian gangs in the Middle Ages).
Posted by: SLC | September 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Yeah and you should see the twisted logic in that mangled discussion. He either will change his plan because you pray, not do so, or just let you in on it. You can have varying ideas about God based on any of the above.
Needless to say theology on this issue(and most others) is rather pointless.
No one is rational or irrational all the time which is why religions as a whole produce scant results in terms of actual behaviour. It's primarily window dressing unless it becomes an us/them idea which then of course can cause real world problems.
Posted by: GH | September 4, 2008 1:08 PM
I just stumbled upon the fact that "Wasilla" is (as best I can tell from the relevant wiki pages) the name of a pagan god of the ancient people (Sarmatians) whose descendants currently populate parts of Ossetia(!) and who originally were from Iran! I think that pretty much explains it all.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | September 4, 2008 1:10 PM
Amazingly, I think I agree with mroberts and heddle. What else is a Christian supposed to say in front of a bunch of people in a church when commenting on the soldiers of that nation, young men and women who are far away, possibly scared, possibly in harm's way, but that she hopes they are doing God's will, and that their being there is part of God's plan?
I've been in church several times since 9/11, in several different churches, and every single time the troops have been mentioned, the pastor (or whoever was speaking) asked God to bless them, and assured the congregation that it was all part of God's plan. Those are comforting words. Those troops constitute members of the families of the people being addressed. Who wants to think that cousin Jimmy being over in Iraq, where he might well die, is contrary to God's plan? That doesn't mean Jimmy is a soldier in a holy war. It means that we want him to come out safe, and failing that we at least want to take solace in knowing that it's all part of God's plan.
Even I can understand this, as an atheist. It's a good general policy not to take what you view to be the logical consequences of what people believe and then assume that they agree with you, and that that's what they're thinking of. That's an amazingly quick way to demonize good-hearted people.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 1:21 PM
"[In] a democracy - the people get the government they deserve."
Ditto - currently, perhaps, conclusive proof of divine intervention.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | September 4, 2008 1:23 PM
mercurianferret,
Yes, he was (Rev. Wright) treated unfairly, but for a different reason. Your argument is weak. There is a difference between a prepared speech, a crafted sermon, and more or less off the cuff remarks. Had Palin said, even extemporaneously, the Coulteresque "let's invade their countries and convert their leaders" you'd have a valid point. As it stands, you don't.
I'm not asking a free pass for anyone. I'm asking you to use your friggin' brain instead of a YEC-like hyper-literal interpretation cast in the worst possible light. Should I conclude Obama is an ignoramus because he misspoke about "57 states"? No, he misspoke. That's not a free pass.
SLC,
The only thing guaranteed is that you using an "all Muslims are morons" fallacy. True, some might use it as propaganda. (I guess I'd be more worried if nothing a vice president said could ever be used as propaganda.) Your guarantee not withstanding, when I go over to the lab tomorrow, where I have several Muslim colleagues (physicists) I'll ask them if they view this video as a call for a new Crusade against the Islamic world. I think they'll say "of course not." I think Muslims are much smarter than, apparently, you do.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 1:24 PM
mroberts wrote:
Every single one of those wars was sold on the basis of allegedly being God's will though. Both sides in the Civil War claimed they were doing God's will. Every war of empire, like the conquering of the Phillipines and Hawaii, were sold on the basis of Manifest Destiny - righteous Christian warriors civilizing the heathen. The entire cold war was sold on the basis of being a war against "godless atheism." We use religion to sell wars all the time. It is dangerous and unseemly to use God to justify killing people.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 4, 2008 1:25 PM
Well done Charles. Her foreign policy credentials just keep growing, don't they?
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 4, 2008 1:26 PM
Sorry, my post was supposed to start with this.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 4, 2008 1:29 PM
If a war is necessary and just, why should God not approve of it?
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 1:30 PM
Heddle,
If calling Palin a nutjob only offends conservative Christians, what's the downside for Obama?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 4, 2008 1:33 PM
The entire cold war was sold on the basis of being a war against "godless atheism." We use religion to sell wars all the time. It is dangerous and unseemly to use God to justify killing people.
It doesn't matter what it was "sold on". People come up with whatever justification they can for their desires and actions. If it wasn't religion, it would have been something else - like nuclear weapons, for instance. The root of the problem was a desire for empire. The actions that resulted from that desire were justified with a number of things, including religion. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were all wars that had various shades of imperialism to them. Whatever the justification - spread of Communism, WMDs, Saddam was evil, etc. - the roots of the conflicts were in imperialism, NOT religion.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 1:34 PM
NO NO NO. Heddle you just don't get it do you?
This women is going to be VP of the US. This "crusader" attitude just does not fly with the other 6.4 (odd) billion of the population. If she can't put her self in the position of the other person, how are the the rest of us (the non-US population) going to view your country, other than being a dangerous psychopath in need of medication and isolation? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2008 1:40 PM
If a war is necessary and just, why should God not approve of it?
Gretchen raises a great point I think. A war is just if the intent of it is to defend the people against the violation of their rights to life, liberty, and property. If we truly are in such a situation, national leaders will have no problem getting and keeping support for the conflict. It is when the justification for war is not apparent that leaders have a hard time getting and keeping the support of the people. It is because of this that I believe wars like Iraq and Vietnam - which ended up being unsupported by the people - to have been unjust. There were no threats to our nation, so what business did we have invading foreign countries?
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 1:40 PM
@mroberts - so you just said that you think the war in iraq is unjust. i presume that you think that god's will would never include an unjust war (if i'm wrong here than what other unjust activities are also supported by or included in god's will?). so we know that the iraq war is not part of god's will. why is palin hoping that it is and why are you defending her doing that as reasonable?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 1:47 PM
"...That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
What this prayer seems to be saying is: "We don't see what this war is supposed to accomplish; but instead of questioning our leaders about it, we're just going to pray and have faith that this is indeed part of some plan after all." It may not be extreme, but it sure is pathetic, sheepish, stupid and irresponsible. Essentially, they're giving up, abdicating their duty to think about what's going on, and trying to pretend it's God's will, rather than try to hold other humans responsible for it.
It sure as Hell isn't the kind of attitude I want my leaders to have.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 4, 2008 1:47 PM
James Hanley,
If it offends only conservative Christians (an assumption) then there is no downside if either (a) it's the case that they'll all vote for McCain/Palin anyway or (b) the number of Obama conservative Christians that might take offense is negligible compared to the number of non-conservative Christians and non-Christians you might attract by that strategy.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 1:48 PM
"Achemdinnejad (or however you spell his name)"
Having tried via on-line searches and exchanges with Farsi speakers to get the spelling and the pronunciation right (to what end, let no man say - I'm a monolinguist from TX who doesn't even do all that well with English), I think an anglicized spelling that is relatively accurate and might help in remembering it (divide and conquer, you know) is that the name means roughly "Ahmadi, son of Nejad"; hence, AhmadiNejad (and it occasionally is spelled with the capital "N").
With the additional insights that the "h" is aspirated (as in "hello"), the "a"s are like in "apple", and the accent is either on the "Ne" or the "jad" (not sure which, though I think it's the latter), not on the "di" as is consistently done in the US media, you get a pretty good approximation to the pronunciation as well.
Alternatively, just wait till next year and it probably will become irrelevant.
Aren't you sorry you brought it up?
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | September 4, 2008 1:59 PM
@mroberts - so you just said that you think the war in iraq is unjust. i presume that you think that god's will would never include an unjust war (if i'm wrong here than what other unjust activities are also supported by or included in god's will?). so we know that the iraq war is not part of god's will. why is palin hoping that it is and why are you defending her doing that as reasonable?
sdg, you and everybody else on this particular post are completely misreading Palin's comments. Either that is being done intentionally to bash her, or maybe just from ignorance of Christianity. She is not stating conclusively and emphatically that the Iraq War is God's plan. She is doing what Jesus did in the Lord's Prayer when he said "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". That statement doesn't mean that everything that happens on earth is God's will, it just expresses a prayerful spirit that God's will will prevail. The key statement by Palin is this - and I hope you all can at least be open-minded and honest about it:
"That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
This is not a statement affirming the justice of the Iraq War, but a prayerful expression that God's will and plan will prevail in the Iraq War. To me, her statement actually expresses an uncertainty about whether the war is in agreement with God's plan.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 4, 2008 2:04 PM
heddle - Being accused of not using my "friggin' brain" and acting "YEC-like" and "hyper-literal" is, I think, a gross mis-characterization of myself. Thank you (?), though, for the unprovoked attack against my character. Very high-handed. You really proved your point. I, however, was hoping that you would understand a patently obvious rhetorical argument when you saw one, and would therefore answer its underlying proposition (I understand now, however, that (A) parodying a hyper-literal YEC-like argument is difficult to pull off with people understanding that it is a parody and (B) subtlety doesn't transmit very well). However, you completely failed to prove that you recognized my argument - long and drawn-out as it admittedly was - as rhetorical.
Therefore, let me as the questions that your answer (and tone) only showed that you didn't understand (or chose not to respond to) was behind my previous entire post as straight and to-the-point as possible: "Why should a remark made by a governor of a state of the United States in an Evangelical church get a 'free pass' in the light of every other person's viewing of the video around the world? Just because it was an extemporaneous statement she was making in 'Church speak'?" If that is your argument then it is a weak one, since you know full well that very few people do this, and that off-the-cuff remarks about holy justifications of war against the United States speaking in the context of their own religion should get a similar 'free pass.'
(If you have answered this question between the time I started writing a reply to your hyper-literal reading of my blatantly rhetorical question, then I apologize for the mis-match on the timing on my end. Do not take this as a 'YEC-like' attack against you.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 4, 2008 2:15 PM
Re Heddle
"The only thing guaranteed is that you using an "all Muslims are morons" fallacy. True, some might use it as propaganda. (I guess I'd be more worried if nothing a vice president said could ever be used as propaganda.) Your guarantee not withstanding, when I go over to the lab tomorrow, where I have several Muslim colleagues (physicists) I'll ask them if they view this video as a call for a new Crusade against the Islamic world. I think they'll say "of course not." I think Muslims are much smarter than, apparently, you do."
Well, I once thought better of Prof. Heddle but with this post, he has proved himself to be an asshole of monumental proportions. I have a flash for Prof. Heddle, Muslim PhD physicists don't represent the Muslim street any more then Christian PhD physicists like him or my former thesis adviser represent the Christian street.
I would remind Prof. Heddle that all 19 of the airplane hijackers who caused 9/11 were educated, many of them having college degrees. I would also remind Prof. Heddle that, in the Muslim street, many consider them heroes for the 9/11 attack against the Crusaders.
As for the notion that I think that most Muslims are morons, I don't know about that but most born again Christians certainly are, including Prof. Heddle and his pal, Mr. Mroberts.
Posted by: SLC | September 4, 2008 2:19 PM
@mroberts - you have misread my comments. i never said that palin was "stating conclusively and emphatically that the Iraq War is God's plan." note the word "hoping" in my previous comment.
don't christians believe that god's will always prevails? also, isn't praying for something different than a "prayerful expression" (perhaps i do not know what that means)?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 2:27 PM
The only thing clear from this video, whether through her explicit or implicit comments, is that this woman is a raging nut job.
She believes in the saving power of Jesus Christ and the financial power of off shore drilling. Two giant fantasies constructed to control the way people think.
Posted by: JStein | September 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Like gretchen I am amazed that for perhaps the first time I also agree with mroberts and heddle on this one.
Although I am an atheist, as anyone who has read my posts already knows, I see nothing inconsistent or arrogant in Palin's prayer. She never says the war is just, she only asks that God guide our leaders to do His will.
Why that would piss off a Muslim, other than maybe she is praying to the wrong god, is beyond me.
Ed, and others, seem to be misreading her remarks as saying that God is on our side. She is just asking people to pray to God to tell us what to do, to follow His "plan".
Now as an atheist I think asking a deity for guidance in an international armed conflict is lunacy, but if you already believe in that deity it is totally consistent behavior to ask Him for guidance.
Posted by: Lance | September 4, 2008 2:35 PM
sdg said:
Yes, and they also believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent, yet that they still need to pray for things. Praying that God's will be done regarding a stressful, uncertain, and dangerous matter is kind of like saying "Is this your will, God? Well, I'm kind of nervous about things and I really hope it's going to come out all right. Please keep an eye on things. I'd like some reassurance that you are."
This might come as a shocker, but most Christians aren't theologians. They're normal people whose faith is not always perfect and whose beliefs are not always consistent. It's hard for a human to fathom the idea that there is in fact an everything-God, an omni-God, so they pray and speak as if God is a person. I don't see anything particularly surprising or offensive about that.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 2:44 PM
MROBERTS SAID: the roots of the conflicts were in imperialism, NOT religion.
Religion is imperialism. By definition.
Posted by: WBPNYC | September 4, 2008 2:46 PM
Yeah that was hilarious SLC, indeed I'm sure muslim physics Ph.D.'s are a typical example of muslims, just like christian physics PhDs are. What a joke.
Heddle, since you make such a fuss over the context of the church, consider the context of a evangelical christian president who always make a big fuss over his faith, and went to war strongly implying that he was doing god's will. Consider that we've invaded 2 muslim countries and killed probably at least half a million muslims in the past 8 years. Consider the context of the various right-wing preachers who have come out in favor of killing the heathens. Consider the context of the various groups who are trying to evangelize our army, which was featured on this blog many times in the past.
In that context, do you really think that most people who aren't evangelical christian would read her comments as anything other then support for a holy war?
Posted by: Coriolis | September 4, 2008 2:48 PM
don't christians believe that god's will always prevails? also, isn't praying for something different than a "prayerful expression" (perhaps i do not know what that means)?
Again, sdg, you don't understand Christianity. Yes, God's will prevails in the end but not necessarily on a daily basis. It makes no sense to say that the atrocities of history were God's will because the last thing God wants is for evil to happen. The Bible does not say that God makes evil things happen for the sake of his will - that would contradict his nature. However, the Bible does say that God often makes the best of evil events by making some good come out of them despite their evil.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 2:52 PM
did i say i was offended?
gretchen, i don't understand what point you're trying to make. i get that people hold inconsistent and silly beliefs. why should we not try to point out that they are silly and inconsistent?
i get that palin's comments are not surprising. comments do not have to be surprising to be stupid. why can't we point out that appealing to gods for military guidance is stupid even if common and expected?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 2:57 PM
@mroberts - who or what causes evil to happen?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 2:58 PM
That is some of the most blond dumb shit I have ever read on a blog. God as the bible plainly states can cause evil. God at the very least allows it to occur. All of it is still part of God's plan the good and the bad.
To say God doens't like evil and yet commands genocide, death of the first born, plagues, sacrifices, and global floods is to be so abjectly indoctrinated no rational conversation is possible.
Posted by: JimC | September 4, 2008 3:00 PM
@mroberts - who or what causes evil to happen?
Rebellion against God that started with Satan. I am sure that is not an unfamiliar idea. What intrigues me more is what you think evil comes from. It sounds like you are an atheist, so where do you think evil comes from?
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:00 PM
where did satan come from?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 3:02 PM
sdg said:
I wasn't arguing that they are intelligent or rational. I was arguing that it's a mistake to construe them as a call for or endorsement of a holy war.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 3:05 PM
@gretchen - fair enough
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 3:06 PM
To say God doens't like evil and yet commands genocide, death of the first born, plagues, sacrifices, and global floods is to be so abjectly indoctrinated no rational conversation is possible.
JimC, not sure if it is even worth responding to you - it doesn't seem like you are that reasonable - but here goes. You are confusing evil with justice. The Bible says that we all are going to physically die someday simply because we have rebelled against God. You might call that evil, but to God that is justice for disobeying his laws. Destroying ancient cultures that sacrificed their own children might seem evil to you, but to God it is justice for horrendous evil and corruption.
So do you also think it is evil to put to death a violent murderer as penalty for his crimes?
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:06 PM
where did satan come from?
The bible says he is a being created at some point in the past that rebelled from God.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:08 PM
created by whom?
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 3:09 PM
created by whom?
God.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:10 PM
no further questions
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 3:12 PM
But God created evil, did he not?
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Posted by: John | September 4, 2008 3:14 PM
Oh dear. Let's not get into a discussion about whether God's wrath as described in the Bible constitutes evil or justice, or there will be no escape.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 3:14 PM
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
There's some loss of meaning here, which can happen when translating from one language to another. The context sheds some light on it. A good explanation is below, from gotquestions.org:
Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word that means "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery." Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: "disaster" (NIV, HCSB), "calamity" (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and "woe" (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that "I create evil" in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence. he context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than "bringing moral evil into existence" is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. "Woe to him who quarrels with his Master" (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings "evil" and "disaster." So, rather than saying that God created "moral evil," Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture - that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:18 PM
Thus violating God's absolute sovereignty. Whoops.
Posted by: octopod | September 4, 2008 3:20 PM
Thus violating God's absolute sovereignty. Whoops.
God has sovereign authority, but he also gives us all free will over our lives.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 3:31 PM
sarah palin doesn't seem quite so bad anymore. she's probably a better leader than god. he couldn't keep his staff in order and that alone is the reason that there is evil in the world.
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 3:33 PM
In Exodus, god killed the first born of every Egyptian, from Pharaoh to his lowliest servant, if I remember the story correctly. There is no way that's justice, and no amount of apologetics is going to convince me it is. Not even when I was a theist could I buy the Bible stories as true depictions of god's actions. If they were true, then such a god SHOULD be rebelled against. Go Satan! (Sorry Gretchen, I couldn't help myself.)
Posted by: Taz | September 4, 2008 3:50 PM
don't christians believe that god's will always prevails?
just to jump in here quickly, I think that the prevailing moderate Christian view is that in a perfect world God's will prevails. In an imperfect one (like the one we live in) people were given free will and can choose to follow what they percieve as God's plan for them or not as they see fit. If people choose not to follow God's plan then they are circumventing his will and it does not prevail.
That's how it's been explained to me at least. But the people who did the explaining would pray only for the safe return of troops, not that their actions be justified by some grand scheme. Untimely violent death isn't part of God's plan for anyone (hence untimely), it doesn't matter which side of the arbitrary conflict lines you are on.
Posted by: kodiak | September 4, 2008 3:51 PM
mroberts- That you think me unreasonable is almost a badge of honor. Gretchen is correct though this discussion is a rathole.
Again this is abjectly stupid, really, really stupid. Sacrificing your children is wrong so one must wonder why Jesus needed to be sacrificed to correct this wrong? It's exactly the same thing your alleging the people needed to be destroyed for in the above.
Likewise sacrificing the 1st borns is just killing more babies as you mention above is evil.
Yes to some degree I think it might be, but again we not talking about that scenario. We're talking about all the children that are killed in plagues, genocides, and floods.
It's a rathole that I have no idea what makes a sincere person defend.
Posted by: JimC | September 4, 2008 3:57 PM
I'll see what I can do Gretchen.
Whenever I hear about God showering blessings on people, one of two things always springs to mind:
Tevya saying, "I know we're the chosen people, but once in a while could you choose someone else?"
or
Eric Cartman singing, "I want to get down on my knees and start pleasing Jesus. I want to feel his salvation all over my face."
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 4, 2008 4:04 PM
This is nonsense. Any divine or othewise creates another action. The bad may create a good. Hence God being all knowing knows exactly how his plan will be foiled and knows the way these steps would influence his plan. So in essense the circumventing of his will MUST be part of and integral to any divine plan.
Otherwise it would have been in shambles ages ago or simply nonexistent.
Posted by: JimC | September 4, 2008 4:06 PM
SLC,
Review your original post. It said Muslims in the Arab world and elsewhere and later these same Muslims. Thats the antecedent. That, to me, does not sound like "street Muslims" as you now attest. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you simply spoke imprecisely, granting to you what you refuse to grant to Sarah Palin
Coriolis,
Absolutely, demonstrably yes. Is Gretchen an evangelical Christian? If not, there is one example. Add Lance, who specifically claimed atheism. Neither one seems to suggest that Palin is calling for a new Crusade against world Islam. Both have the ability to say, I'm paraphrasing, "I don't like Palin, but lets not make dumb arguments against her, let's be substantive."
Mercurianferret
I have answered it. To rephrase: most people are not stupid. If you are hell bent to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is advocating a Crusade, then you'll insist that the entire world is comprised of idiots who will view it that way. But it is not. Reasonable people would not view that as an impassioned call to a Holy War. She doesn't need a free pass. A free pass is for a faux pas. Forgiving Gerry Ford for his "no Soviet domination" is a free pass.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 4:12 PM
It would seem then that the circumvention of God's will is also God's will.
Posted by: Spartan | September 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 4:21 PM
Re Heddle
Prof. Heddle really is a becoming tiresome prick. The fact is that all too many in the Muslim world will interpret Governor Palins' remarks as calling for a Crusade. It doesn't matter a hill of beans what I think she means or what Prof Heddle thinks she means or what fucktard mroberts think she means or what Ed Brayton thinks she means. Given the history of the interference of the Christian West in the Muslim world, one could hardly blame them. The current activity in Iraq, which is solely for the purpose of stealing Iraqi oil, is just another example (does Prof Heddle really think that US troops would be in Iraq if it had no oil; Syria is a worse offender then Iraq ever was but there was no invasion of Syria which has little oil and virtually none for export). And by the way, I make these comments as one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the blogosphere.
Posted by: SLC | September 4, 2008 7:03 PM
SLC,
Are you losing it? I have said nothing regarding why we are fighting in Iraq. And if it is about oil, then it's not a Holy War. You can't have it both ways. All I said was that Sarah Palin's church talk is only seen as calling for a Crusade by those who want to see it as calling for a Crusade. That's it. That's all. Get a grip.
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 7:13 PM
Re Heddle
sigh! Prof. Heddle has a reading comprehension problem which carries over to some comments he has posted on Jason Rosenhouses' blog. I think that the Iraq adventure is about oil. Some far left bloggers like Juan Cole think its about Israel. Many Muslims in the Middle East think its a holy war against Islam because of a Western prejudice about Muslim countries controlling much of the worlds' oil supply. What I think and what Juan Cole thinks is irrelevant. It's what the folks on the ground in the Middle East think.
Posted by: SLC | September 4, 2008 7:53 PM
SLC:
All too many in the Muslim world took the Danish cartoons of Muhammad as a deliberate and personal insult to all Muslims. They were wrong then, and they would be wrong now-- and there is no reason why we should take their interpretation as authoritative, or regulate our behavior based upon it.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 4, 2008 8:04 PM
sarah palin doesn't seem quite so bad anymore. she's probably a better leader than god. he couldn't keep his staff in order and that alone is the reason that there is evil in the world.
sdg, your attempt at ridicule just makes you look ignorant. You have no clue about what I just said. If God kept his "staff under control", as you put it, then they wouldn't exactly have free will, would they? I know it is difficult to understand, but reread it until you get it.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 8:21 PM
I said: So do you also think it is evil to put to death a violent murderer as penalty for his crimes?
You said Yes to some degree I think it might be, but again we not talking about that scenario. We're talking about all the children that are killed in plagues, genocides, and floods.
I think your answer says a lot. You don't know what evil looks like, therefore you don't take it very seriously. I doubt there are many people who have relatives who were violently murdered that would agree with what you said. Evil is awfully ugly, and you are looking at God's punishments through a lens that diminishes that ugliness.
Posted by: mroberts | September 4, 2008 8:32 PM
SLC,
Then why did you ask in your previous post: does Prof Heddle really think that US troops would be in Iraq if it had no oil
And if it is irrelvant, wht tell us what you think? And what make you so certain about what "folks on the ground" in the Middle East think?
Posted by: heddle | September 4, 2008 8:36 PM
OK, so if God did not create evil, where did evil come from? Or is there some very real thing that exists, but wasn't created by God?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 4, 2008 8:51 PM
I think your answer says a lot. You don't know what evil looks like, therefore you don't take it very seriously. I doubt there are many people who have relatives who were violently murdered that would agree with what you said. Evil is awfully ugly, and you are looking at God's punishments through a lens that diminishes that ugliness.
He was talking all the children that are killed in plagues, genocides, and floods. Not only do people get the plagues, genocides, and floods treatment... they also get sent straight to hell for eternity. And you don't think that's ugly at all. You're in 100% agreement with the plan! You think it's a "love plan"! Talk about a lens that diminishes ugliness. Doh!
Posted by: 386sx | September 4, 2008 8:58 PM
Evil is awfully ugly, and you are looking at God's punishments through a lens that diminishes that ugliness.
mroberts, he was talking about a bunch of really ugly stuff. And you're trying to tell him why all that ugly stuff isn't really quite so ugly. What the heck dude! Pot kettle black, lol.
Posted by: 386sx | September 4, 2008 9:07 PM
based on what you wrote above, how can you possibly suggest that god is not responsible for evil? be honest with yourself. it will feel scary at first, but then it will be rather pleasant.
Posted by: sdg | September 4, 2008 9:39 PM
Have you noticed how God never likes to get his hands dirty? It's always humans who end up doing his dirty work. Why is that? Do you suppose that it's because there is no God?! It's a good thing, too. We get ourselves into trouble aplenty without taking on work that some cowardly god is afraid or unable to do.
Posted by: Ian | September 5, 2008 8:10 AM
There's some loss of meaning here, which can happen when translating from one language to another. The context sheds some light on it...
Gee, mroberts, when WE treat the Bible that way, we get accused of trying to sidestep, ignore and avoid God's law. So much for winning arguments by flatly shouting "THE BIBLE TELLS US SO!" eh?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 5, 2008 2:29 PM
Yeah, as an atheist I really don't see the big deal here. She talked about God in a church. "God's will" is a content-free modifier that Christians can attach to anything, because everything that happens is allegedly God's will. Yes, it's philosophically nutty to try to get an omniscient and omnipotent deity to change his mind, but it's a nuttiness that is shared by a large majority of the American public.
I'm much more interested in whether she intends to use government power to enforce her religious beliefs, and as far as I can tell she's shown little interest in turning Alaska into a theocracy. The alleged library censorship is the worst I've heard, and there's zero detail on that.
And I have no doubt that some Muslims might be offended by her. They're also the ones who are offended by Playboy, homosexuality, and women driving cars. The correct answer in all cases is: tough.
Posted by: Brian 2 | September 5, 2008 4:38 PM
Sarah Palin said:
I parse that as follows:
Or something like that. Who knows HOW the Muslim world will parse Palin's remarks. The only way to even come close to winning against fundamentalists Muslims is to engage, offer assistance, improve the lives of the majority of moderates, not employ a fundamentalist Christian with little interest in trying to understand how others think.
To defeat the enemy*, one should UNDERSTAND the enemy*. -DJ
*If indeed they are an 'enemy'
Posted by: DingoJack | September 7, 2008 1:15 PM