Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Sarah Palin

She's awful. She is just downright awful.

Ok, I have no problem with the bible. It is a collection of sacred texts that has guided and informed six thousand years of humans trying to makes sense of the world. At the same time, I know what the bible is. The bible is several different books written by several different authors at several different times who were influenced by several different issues.

As such, to try to use the bible as the "inspired, inerrant word of God" is to fail miserably.

Now, the collected books of the bible are sacred. Indeed, if one believes them to be holy, who am I to disagree? However, they are contradictory, and simply impossible to use as a holistic approach to life. You simply have to look at each book and each passage individually and within the context of the author's life experience to get any reasonable use out the words.

Sarah Palin and her church doesn't do that. They take the whole bible, a political creation formed over hundreds of years, as divinely inspired. Any moron that knows one-tenth of the history of the early church would never make that mistake.

Jesus Christ did not walk with dinosaurs. The world is older than six thousand years. Sarah Palin is the most frightening American public figure I have ever had the displeasure to witness.

And yet... the other guys aren't much better. Holy crap.

8 comments:

Drunken Chud said...

her religion aside, what's so bad about her?

her politics match with yours. well, what yours used to be.

i can remember a time not too long ago you were pretty religious. almost bordering on zealotry.

just sayin.

Scooter said...

Uh... ok, seeing as you have five hundred and ten posts to show exactly where my politics have ever aligned with Sarah Palin, I will simply ask you to cite your sources on that allegation.

As for my personal religious journey... "almost", "bordering"... why not add one more qualifying adjective in there to make your assertion even more meaningless?

Drunken Chud said...

well, when we would talk in person you were all about libertarian politics. smaller government, fewer taxes, financial independence from the private sector.

how about answering a goddamn question instead of trying to go all biden speak and backtrack on what is WRITTEN RECORD on your religious alignment in the past.

Scooter said...

See, the difference between you and me, Chud, is you think "Biden Speak" is a pejorative term.

You have five hundred ten individual posts that you can data mine on my journey from libertarian thought to flirting with the Republican party to being aghast at the Libertarian party to finally settling down with small "l" libertarianism.

I am still for minimal government influence over the personal and financial lives of citizens, however, I know that such an ethos would take generations to refine and apply equitably. As such, I sometimes vote for Democrats, I sometimes vote for Republicans, I am going to vote for a Libertarian this November.

Finally... as you have said, it is my written record. Why not cite it?

cassdawn said...

i am deeply disturbed that you are voting for barr. deeply. i require no response to this just issuing my horror.

i am suspicious of his complete 180 of position in no more than 5 years. even mccain hasn't flopped as much.

and yes, i acknowledge the personal aspect. the one thing he hasn't apologized or reversed is his bigoted comments and proposed banning of military practive of witchcraft, my religion.

now don't mistake that for me saying that his attacks on my religion are the only reason. i'm just pointing out a bias.

frankly my problems with him are too many to innumerate. they are based on his previous actions which i understand that most of them he has reversed his opinion on but you can really only judge by people's actions.

if we pretend that he really has changed COMPLETELY - first, i would like to know why and unless it is some damned fine story . . . the reversal is the most disturbing thing of all. talk about a lack of integrity.

my only solace is . .. there ain't no way / no day.

otoh, i think that a lot more people would be interested in third party options if they weren't populated by nutjobs.

Drunken Chud said...

i told you your political record is not of written record. that it was of conversations held at chatters. if i wanted to dig through your archives and come up with the political alignment survey you did and then your synopsis i would. i don't. as for your near zealotry it spread far beyond this simple blog and into the comments of others. were i to devote any amount of time to cite them, i would. but i shant. why? i don't care enough. anyone who has been reading this blog long enough has seen the old scooter and the new. plus, again, i just don't care enough to troll through old posts to find "she has re-affirmed my faith in christ" and "the lord says 'this'" posts. i was making a point. and you have yet to answer the original simple question.

Scooter said...

What's so bad about her, aside from her religion?

That's the question. It's also irrelevant. She has stated that her faith informs her decisions as a public servant.

Truthfully, you asked a question as relevant as, "besides directing people to murder for him, what's so bad about Charles Manson?".

Drunken Chud said...

yeah, her faith informs her decisions. as far as i know that goes for about 90% of all public servants that have a faith.

fact: she ran her state out of debt and into a surplus.

fact: she took that surplus and gave it back to the people in a profit share check.

fact: she shrank the size and scope of the government.

fact: a partisan panel was put together to try to hurt her chances at the white house by coming up with this trooper scandal.

fact: she's pro life. move along. i'm pro choice. i'm also smart enough to know that the prez or vp cannot overturn supreme court precedent. besides in the 35 years since it has been ruled on we have had only 12 years of democrat presidents. so... it probably would have been overturned by now. just sayin.