She would be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ before she would be the Vice President

The more things I see and read, the more scared I get. I guess freedom of religion is not the norm, nor is separation of church and state. This is really scary. Banning the evil sciences is next. Too bad though because then they will never get new shades of Mary Kay eyeshadow or new polyester suits to wear to church.

See here:

http://www.atheistcartoons.com/

6th from the bottom pretty much sums it up.

Oh boy, check this out: When you try to view this video about Palin from the last Countdown, you will instead be met by a message "due to usage restrictions, we are unable to provide this video." I doubt its just me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26681127#26681127 WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

I must say I resent being called an "appeaser" (I assume that is evangelical atheist speak for "agnostic"). I loathed the religious right before I was old enough to vote (back when they still called themselves the Moral Majority). I also know of not only mildly religious people, but even some relatively devout ones who disagree with Palin's demented views. When you assume that atheists have some sort of self-righteous monopoly on being disturbed by the thought of Palin (or someone like her) in the White House, you only alienate potential allies. And when you label anyone who isn't sufficiently zealous in their atheism an "appeaser" you start to sound like an atheist version of Kevin James http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/say_no_more.php (how quickly they forget!)

Way to read in, Doyle. What have you done that you think you're an appeaser?

I have done nothing to make me think I am an appeaser, which is why I resent the implication. If I have misread the tone, please correct me: does the statement "Mildly religious people or appeasers, it is time for you to either move aside or get with the program" NOT imply that anyone who is mildly religious must somehow be trying to straddle a fence regarding Palin & the religious right? Combined with the fact that others on this blog have used the term "appeaser" in the past to describe anyone unwilling to vociferously denounce all religious beliefs, I think my inference is pretty reasonable. If you would like to explain why my inference is wrong, and clarify exactly who these "appeasers" are, I welcome your insight.

Doyle, the argument has always been that the No True Christian argument doesn't work around here in the absence of other evidence. Moderate Christians must step up beside the atheists and liberal Christians and those with other religious views to say that this is not a Christian nation, that separation of church and state is exactly what we want and will fight for. Silence is not an option. Whether or not the moderates like it, dominionists have publicly claimed the mantle of all Christianity for their cause. In the public view, a Christian who doesn't scream loudly about this is a dominionist and will be counted as one when the next politician decides which group to pander to.

This isn't about your religious beliefs, assuming you're not a dominionist yourself. This is about politics and the future shape of this country.

No kidding. Stephanie, you are not paying attention to what I wrote. My objection was specifically to the implication that anyone who is "mildly religious" needs to "get with the program." I pointed out that, in fact, there are already mildly religious people who object to Palin's views. How is that not evidence? Do I need to give you their phone numbers? Did I even mention Christians, moderate or otherwise? The phrase Greg used was "mildly religious," as though moderate members of ANY religion are reluctant to criticize Palin (I'll bet I could find enough liberal Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. to blow that hypothesis out of the water). And where, exactly, in what I wrote do you read that I think silence is an option? I gleefully rant about the evils of Sarah Palin to anyone who will listen. Part of my point was that it is possible to object to Palin on purely political grounds, regardless of one's personal religious views. The statement which I criticized, however, seemed to suggest that the only people objecting are atheists, that all devoutly religious people support her, and that everyone else is trying to stay neutral. In other words, I objected to making it about one's personal religious views rather than about politics. (And if you do not know of anyone "mildly religious" who has criticized Palin, then you need to get out more)

Doyle, I hope you're enjoying being offended by the evil atheists. You're certainly working hard enough at getting there.

I gleefully rant about the evils of Sarah Palin to anyone who will listen.

Then you're not one of the people Greg was aiming at, so chill. I believe he was aiming at the people who will stand by Palin because she's "a person of faith" (regardless of the content of that faith) rather than stand anywhere near an atheist.

And if you do not know of anyone "mildly religious" who has criticized Palin, then you need to get out more

Nobody's saying that none of the "mildly religious" are willing to criticise her. The point is that those who aren't (who I presume you're willing to admit do exist), aren't on our side. Which, apparently, is also your side.

Doyle, an appeaser is definitely not an agnostic. In fact, in describing what you are saying that I'm saying an appeaser is not, you are partly describing .... oh wait, that is getting too confusing.

What I mean by appeaser is someone who appeases the religious right. It sounds like that would not be you, that you would not be a good example at all of what I mean.

To me "mildly relious or appeaesr" means

1) People who are mildly religious: the whole idea of being religious is being ruined by these crazy nutjobs. Do do something about it; and/or

2) appeasers are people who believe, perhaps as they have been trained, that any religious outpouring that is not labeled as a 'cult' or 'terrorist religion' gets to do whatever it wants. I would doubt there are many agnostics/atheists in that group, but maybe you are right about that.

These two categories are probably overlapping but do not map one on to the other, thus the word "or". I could have said "and/or" but that is not normal English.

We are fighting over nothing here. Can we get back to dumping on Palin please?

1. Is dumping on Palin exactly what the McCain campaign wants us to do? It gives them the opportunity to claim "Sexism" in order to deflect attention from the very real fact that McCain is a horrible choice to be the leader of the Capitalist World? A Capitalist world led by the Military-Industrial Complex no less.

2. Palin is clearly uniquely unqualified to be president. She is scary. Done. Get back to hammering on McCain.

3. There are very strong and religious Baptists who are fighting for the protections of secularization as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. I welcome them, Doyle, and you if you are with them (it sounds like you are.) My frustration is that they are not getting their due from the media in opposition to the fundagelicals who get so much face time on "Faux News."

Atheists do seem like we are the only ones who are fighting the insanity of the religious right, because groups like the Sojourners further muddy the issue by insisting that their progressive values are biblically mandated and that the fundamentalists are "nae true Scots."

I agree with Greg, in that I think that the issue is related to using religion to justify positions that personally appeal to individuals and then insisting that everyone should act according to those particular beliefs.

Go Quetzalcoatl!

I am relieved to know that I am not an appeaser, and I apologize for any misrepresentation of Greg�s words on my part. Perhaps I am getting paranoid, or perhaps the fact that I tend to agree with most of what Greg writes is bringing out my contrarian tendencies. (I do find it somewhat ironic that Stephanie accuses me of �reading in,� then proceeds to pull a �no true Christian� non sequitor out of her butt to use as a strawman in place of what I actually wrote, but I will try to let that go. Serenity now!) My point is that I think the �Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian� card can be overplayed. As I see it, atheists, agnostics and liberal theists who actually support separation of church and state are already against Palin, while the so-called conservative base actually thinks her religion is a reason to support her. Those who are not religious fundamentalists themselves, but are not particularly hostile to religious fundamentalism (presumably the appeasers and mildly religious people GHreg referred to) may not be swayed by the argument that she is a religious wingnut, because many of them regard atheism with just as much trepidation as religious fundamentalism. And from what I can determine, many of those who like her are not too concerned with her religious views, because they like the folksy, small-town, hockey mom-cum-Annie Oakley persona she has so successfully projected. I think a more effective way to puncture that would be to concentrate on the fact that she and McCain lie. A lot. Is that a small-town value? Last time I checked, lying was on the Judeo-Christian Top Ten List of No-no�s. Shouldn�t that make even devout Christians (at least the non-hypocritical ones) uncomfortable with the Republican ticket?

Doyle, that wasn't a representation of what you'd said. It was a summary of previous statements about appeasers that have been made around here. Sorry that didn't come through.

Doyle, you may not be an appeaser, but I think your comment is possessed.