Posted on 08/30/2008 7:09:59 AM PDT by chessplayer
Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed "inexperience." Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her "inexperience" while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he's been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn't get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin "faked" the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down's Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter's child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Yes, I would have thought so too. Especially now, given his initial support for the Iraq war, one (lesser but still obvious) reason for which was the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Infants with Down Syndrome have compromised immune systems. They catch infections very easily, especially respiratory infections which can kill them. Exposing that baby to thousands of howling politicos so she can look like the evangelicals’ idea of a good mother was abominable behavior. Clearly, her ego and lust for power has out weighed whatever maternal instincts she might have toward that baby. That the “First Dude” (God help us!) stood by as a partner in endangering that little fellow doesn’t help matters any.
I fail to see how you could know anything about her "lust" for power, you don't know the woman. She didn't run, she was chosen. And, if the pediatrician said it was unsafe to bring Trig to the convention then I'm sure he wouldn't have been there. You don't have to like Palin, but she didn't get where she is by being stupid. If it was plainly wrong to bring him, the liberals would have leaped on that immediately. I have heard nothing about it. If you had evidence that the Palin doctor advised against bringing Trig to St. Paul, that would be one thing. Otherwise, you accuse her of not following YOUR medical advice in place of her own doctor's.
Oh so profound/s, and yet so self-righteous. Who knows it may apply to you too. :)
Given that Kolo has a 20-year old with Downs' syndrome, maybe it is not his medical advice but what he was given by his doctor. And, given that he has managed to take care of him until now, makes him a lot more experienced than Sarah Palin. Or does experience count only when it is hers?
That's a good point. Those whose agendas are to discredit her would love to see her spend a lot of time chasing their rabbits down illogical holes. She should give one answer and leave it at that. The Daily KOS crowd will always rant, but the American people will see through it.
So far as sitting down with the "Hate Sarah" press, I'd simply refuse to sit down with any news organization that had unfairly mentioned slander, innuendo, or other attack UNTIL they publicly acknowledged their slander.
I go back and forth on this. I agree with the sentiment, but then no one will see her. Given that she is now a comparative unknown, she probably needs the exposure more than they need the Republican VP (whom they hate). In her shoes, I might give every network one shot and see how it goes. If she just starts out refusing then all the people will hear the networks say is "We asked, but she refused. What's she hiding?".
I remember that too. I couldn't have cared less that Alito and Roberts were Catholics. I cared about their judicial philosophies. I suppose that if all Apostolics carried the views of some around here that our government would be exclusively packed with liberals. The many left-leaning Apostolics would continue to vote for pro-death liberals, and the more conservative Apostolics would only consider fellow Apostolics.
Big time. I am sure some religious views would be for you too. It was a deal breaker to so many of your folks in the "fly over" because of rumors that Obama is a Muslim.
Fly over conservatives already knew Obama was bad news before even knowing his religion. The point is that by and large Bible believing Christians don't exclude OTHER CHRISTIANS from consideration because they are of a different Christian faith. You appear to be arguing that it is proper, and that is your free choice. I just think that leads to destruction vis-a-vis getting the values I think all of us would want in elected officials.
Faiths outside of Christianity are another matter, and it would depend on the circumstances.
Would you vote for someone who is a Muslim, who believed he was on a mission from Allah?
Probably not, but it would depend on who the person was, what the context of the statement was, and what the office was.
Apparently you did vote for someone who believes Christ and Satan are brothers and God the Father is a creature who used to be a man before He became God!
I did, what can I say? :) I thought that for the job at hand and the contestants available he would be the best for the country. I was convinced that his Mormonism would not significantly pollute the American culture (more than it is) or way of life. I was stuck because I really didn't like any of them, so I made a decision.
I am willing to wager that you would have second thoughts about an otherwise qualified candidate if he/she were an outspoken atheist with an anti-religion agenda.
No, because (to use Rick Warren's phrase) "world view" is definitely in the mix as to qualifications. If you described (blindly to me) the qualifications of justices Roberts and Alito I would have been pleased without caring what their religion was. I am saying that an atheist who is anti-religion COULD NOT hold those views. I have NEVER known or heard of a person with whom I agree on most things who is also an atheist with an anti-religion agenda. You can't separate it like that, IMO. IOW, I'm saying that there can be no "otherwise qualified" in this case you lay out.
To me anyone who says "I am on a mission from God" or "God told me so" etc., is a certifiable nut, and should be considered dangerous.
Let's see what the Bible says:
Josh 22:3 : For a long time now — to this very day — you have not deserted your brothers but have carried out the mission the Lord your God gave you.
1 Sam 15:18-20 : 18 And he sent you on a mission , saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.' 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?" 20 "But I did obey the Lord," Saul said. "I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.
Today, of course, we don't normally have contact with the Lord like this. However, we are clearly given a mission in God's word. We can start with Christ's Commandments, the Great Commission, and then Paul explains:
2 Cor 5:14-21 : 14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I know Apostolics think this message was only for a tiny, small insignificant number of people, but we think it was for all believers. Our mission is to love and worship God, and that includes proclaiming His word to others. If that makes those of us who do this certifiable nuts in the minds of some, then we can live with that. :)
And we also have mission-aries who are out doing the work of the Lord. But some of these Apostolics don’t like missionaries either. Sigh.
You didn't answer her question. She said, "duly elected."
You said something about believing he is to lead the country according to the dictates of the Orthodox Church. I assume you mean by that that he believes his job is to turn everyone into an Orthodox or at least make them look like one.
That wasn't the question.
The question was simply "Duly elected, God-ordained Orthodox President."
In short, nothing's out of order about the way in which he was elected, AND God scripted his rise to the presidency.
“...AND God scripted his rise to the presidency.”
Not you too, Padre! God scripting the rise of politicians to the presidency of this country? Please.
I think I answered the question truthfully. I don’t believe God scripts who gets elected president. I don’t believe God told Palin His plans for the Alaska pipeline or to require the teaching of any religious based theories of science or that He approves of the war in Iraq (especially that) or anything else for that matter. I think the fact that she thinks God has “ordained” these things and she has been given the power to see that is extremely dangerous.
Her question was: “Duly elected and God ordained.”
I paraphrased what she said: God-ordained = God scripted.
So, if there were a duly-elected, God ordained Orthodox president, would you have problems with that?
The first you can know, the 2nd you (as an Orthodox) would have to logic out on your own. That was what she asked.
Moving on to your other points:
“religious based theories of science.” That’s been shown in error. She said that if kids are seeing such discussions in the media or in the broader culture, then they should be able to discuss them in school. It’s “pro-discussion.” I see no problem with that.
Palin did not use the word “ordained,” Dr.Eckleburg did.
God and the pipeline: I haven’t heard that Palin made a public statement that God was behind her pipeline.
God and the war in Iraq: I haven’t heard that Palin made a public statement that God approves of the war in Iraq.
God and the war in Iraq is an interesting question to me, a chaplain and father/f-i-l of soldiers fighting/who have fought in Iraq. The real question is this: are we on the side of the angels?
I’d say that we are. My analysis of the just war theory at the time of this war beginning was that everything was in order for this to be a just war.
“God and the pipeline: I haven’t heard that Palin made a public statement that God was behind her pipeline.
God and the war in Iraq: I haven’t heard that Palin made a public statement that God approves of the war in Iraq.”
Speeches she made in an AOG church. The Alaska papers made a big deal of it. I think they still are.
“God and the war in Iraq is an interesting question to me, a chaplain and father/f-i-l of soldiers fighting/who have fought in Iraq. The real question is this: are we on the side of the angels?
I’d say that we are. My analysis of the just war theory at the time of this war beginning was that everything was in order for this to be a just war.”
Eastern Christianity, as you know, does not now and never has ascribed to the Western/Augustinian “just war theory”. I think its a safe bet that the now decimated Eastern Christian community in Iraq might argue with you about the justness of the war. Certainly our empowerment of Mohammedanism in Iraq hasn’t worked out well at all for them. In fact, Padre, our empowerment of Mohammedanism just about everywhere else seems to work to the disadvantage of Eastern Christianity. Is the devastation of Eastern Christian communities an acceptable cost of your “just war”, or of American foreign policy Padre? I don’t know what Palin would say. Maybe someone will ask her to ask God if the Iraq war would be so “just” if it were evangelical Christians whose communities were being attacked under the not so benign gaze of Washington.
Oh, and as I said, I don’t believe for one minute that God ordains who will be president of the US anymore than He does who the president of Iran or Russia is. There will never be a “God ordained” Orthodox President of the U.S. and if someone shows up who thinks he/she is that person, I pray he/she will be found mad and placed on permanent sick leave.
In short, nothing's out of order about the way in which he was elected, AND God scripted his rise to the presidency.
Thanks, x. Isn't it unsettling when even Christians cannot declare a simple preference to have a Christian sit in the White House over some deist or non-believer?
A Christian citizen knows the answer: Jesus Christ. But if this really is the true answer, grounded firmly on the Bible, then why is it that so few Christians are willing to proclaim this fact publicly, and why is it that no Christian political candidate dare mention it? There is a reason: the theology of political pluralism, the dominant public theology in our day. Political pluralism is not simply a political philosophy: it is a theology. it is American's civil religion. This theology teaches that there must never be a nation that identifies itself with any religion. Well, not quite. The nation of Israel is grudgingly allowed to do so, as are the Islamic nations. But no nation is ever supposed to identify itself as Christian. "A Christian nation is self-contradictory!" So we are told. But who tells us? Secular humanists who are dedicated to wiping out all political opposition. Also, Christian teachers who teach in tax-supported schools. Also, professors in Christian colleges who attended either state universities or secular humanist private universities, which are the only accredited universities in the United States that grant the Ph.D. degree. Also, the U.S. Constitution. This is the problem. God-fearing Christian Americans have been told that the Constitution teaches the absolute separation of Church and State. They have been told correctly. But what they have not been told is precisely where it says this. It does not say this in the First amendment. The First amendment says only that Congress shall make no law regarding religion or the free exercise thereof. So, where does the Constitution prohibit a Christian America? In a section that has been ignored by scholars for so long that it is virtually never discussed-the key provision that transformed American into a secular humanist nation. But it took 173 years to do this: from 1788 until 1961. Political Polytheism discusses this crucial provision in detail-the first Christian book to do so in over two centuries. But if Christ is Lord over the United States, yet the citizens of the United States either publicly deny this or are afraid to affirm it publicly, and if the elected politicians and appointed officers of the nation are legally prohibited from pursuing the implications of this fact, then what does this mean for the nation? It means that God intends to bring American under judgment. Why? Because this nation was originally founded as a Christian nation, covenanted with God, and then it broke the covenant. The results are predictable: "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish, As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 8:19-20) This book presents a new vision of politics and a new vision of America, a vision of self-consciously tied to the Bible. It challenges the political myth of humanism: many laws, many gods...Who Is Lord Over The United States?
I just heard a FoxNews report from Alaska about Palin’s comments. They said that the consensus is that Alaskans knew Palin was a conservative Christian but that she just didn’t do/say anything publicly about it one way or the other.
About the “God favors the Iraq War” comment. The reporter said he tracked that down, and it actually was part of Palin’s comments to students at an Assembly of God church along the order of “our troops are doing a great job in Iraq, doing God’s work...” That was an obvious colloquial use of the expression “God’s work.” It means “doing a necessary or good thing.” I’m sure you’ve run across it before.
Whether Orthodoxy uses the Just War theory or not, it’s basic principles are taught in many ethics classes, to include the military’s, because it informs international diplomacy. In fact, it is echoed in Hague/Geneva conventions. Therefore, it is applicable.
The US had been attacked and 3000 of our citizens murdered. Those attackers and any nation or group that had any kind of ties to them whatsoever were equally guilty according to the Congressional Resolution of Sep 18, 2001.
We attacked them and any entity that aided/abetted/harbored/provided comfort, etc., per that resolution. We did it in accordance with the principles of JW, imho.
When in Germany, I had occasion to speak to a number of Turkish Christians. The oppression they suffered was amazing. They were by law relegated to 3rd class citizen status. They were fair game for torment.
I don’t think there is ANY Godly Islamic nation, Kolo. The best hope of Christians in those lands is emigration or the return of Christ. The only one who’d wish Islam on a Christian people would be some kind of blind person or some kind of anti-christ-like character.
Our values are not the same. I don't want a president who is a theocrat, no matter what faith he or she professes. I don't want some religious nut telling me the country is going to war because God told him so. Holy wars? No thanks! But I can see how an evangelical lke Sarah Palin could use that as a "legitimate" reason because it's "real" to her.
I know that becuase she has already made the pipeline a God-issue and blessed Iraq as a holy war which is in God's "plan." That is Christian jihad, a "crusade." God had nothing to do with it because there was way too much lying and deceit that went into the reasons for going to war that it couldn't have been from God, well not a Christian God at least.
I think I answered the question truthfully. I don't believe God scripts who gets elected president...
No? Things just happen in life without God's hand? He's just a spectator like the rest of us, wondering how it all turns out?
How far we've come. How appallingly sophisticated we are. Untethered by God Jehovah, creator and sustainer of the universe, we are captains of our own ship, somehow managing to sail without the God-breathed wind.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:9-10
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
"All things." We either believe that or we don't.
No wonder some people work overtime to diminish Paul. He had a proper perspective of gratitude and a right sense of man's place within God's creation. He understood we think God's thoughts after Him. And for that, Paul rejoiced, knowing His salvation had been won by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The attacks were made by Saudi citizens (the majority of them) and Saudi Arabia continues to support all sorts of enemies of ours. Why didn't we do a regime change in Saudi Arabia? You know very well that even the Administration had to reluctantly admit that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11.
If we sent as many troops to Afghanistan as we did to Iraq, I don't think there would be any Taliban/Al Qaeda left, and Osama bin Ladin would most probably have been captured or killed--unless we have him and are planning a November surprise three days before the elections (wouldn't put it past the Washington spin doctors).
“Isn’t it unsettling when even Christians cannot declare a simple preference to have a Christian sit in the White House over some deist or non-believer?”
Why is that unsettling to you? I can assure you that the prospect of continued even increased evangelical protestant influence in the White House unsettles me in the extreme.
“No?”
No. But as we know, you, dear Dr., do not believe in Free Will, while the overwhelming majority of Christians most certainly do...even here in America.
“He’s just a spectator like the rest of us, wondering how it all turns out?”
He knows exactly how things will turn out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.