The worst assertion I have heard in the modern culture is the belief that 1) religious expression is immune to scrutiny 2) to question those of religious alligience as unethical or intolerant. We don't applies this notions to any field of human study except for religion but for good reason...they know they can't win. Let us not forget the lessons of the Enlightenment Era, the time of our founding fathers, the largest athiest coming out party in human history and when religion (the very idea of it) was examined and left wanting.
As is the case most of the times, when I write I am ussually inspired by some injustice I have witnessed. Last, night I saw Mr. Charlie Gibson, of ABC news attack Mrs. Palin for her faith. I was reviewing the web news pages for some notes on my video blog when I ran across a link to an ABC ineterview between Gibson and Palin. Mr. Gibson actually had the nerve to demand Mrs. Palin justify her statements that she had previously made in her church. I say demand because even the question is offensive.
The two issues that are bugging me here are "freedom of speech" and "right of religious epxpression". These are rights protected under the American Constitution. No one should be requirred by liberal news people, with no god, or any one else to justify their faith.
The Constitution does not protect religions or philosophys from scrutiny and you would do well to stop asserting it. There is a word for that...its called censorship. Britain has a Blasphemy Law which makes it a crimes (and thus deemed enthical under the law) to question or defame the Anglican Church and he/she that is head of that Church (the Queen in this case). This law is hardly enforced and damnably good reasons.
Further more, ANYONE who believes in an unalterable truth, mandated by a personal intuition, which inturn is interperrated by bias spin doctors such as priests/rabbis/imams for them, MUST be questioned. Human
I'm curious...I smell bias and prejudice in your posts; you must deem yourself as intelligent so presume you know the origins of the word 'Liberal' right? Of course you do
Now, the news people want to imply that because Mrs. Palin said that the mission in Iraq is a call from God that she is a religious radical who wants to govern according to her theology. When these wars began, I too sensed some divinity in the American soldier's actions. Any time you stand up to evil in defense of the good you are working for God whether you are a willing participant or not. Saying that life has a plan and everything that happens is a detail of this plan is just expressing your opinion according to your faith. Last, time I checked every one in America has the right to their opinion and their religion.
Except the right to scrutinize religion right? We can exmaine other philosophies and political ideologies, as well as those who prescribe to them, but we must coddle or make exceptions for the religious? How unwise...if your arguement was sincere then I must logically assert that you do not believe in equality (btw, equality under an unbias law is a notion invented by Liberals, but you knew that )
Futhermore, if the American liberal news wants to paint Mrs. Palin as a religious radical let them present the evidence. I challenge any one to present credible proof that Mrs. Palin has governed according to her theology. Now, I know people have accused Mr.s palin of a lot, but where is real proof, not inuendo and/or suposition.
I can very easily speparate the statements made to a congregation by one of its members as that person expressing her religious beliefs. After all she was at her church. She was not a political event, talking about politics.
You don't need to paint Palin as a delusional panderer, the educated amongst us knew that already. Also, to defend her so baselessly implies prejudice, making you just as guilty as those you acuse of attacking her baselessly. The wise course of action was
The reality is tha people who have never had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ will never undersand people who have had this encounter. However, just because of a lot of knee- jerk- reactionaries cannot stand to hear the name of God does not mean that in America people do not have the right of free speech and religious expression. Furhtermore, a person of the Christain faith is not automatically a religious finatic.
God is a loving God who educated his people on how to be humble and serve with dignity and grace. Outsiders cannot take a person's religious speech and use it as a blanket generalization about a person's personality. Palin is a Christian. She is also a politician. Neither of these two facts interfer with the other. Only in the perverse minds of people who value nothing and believe in less does a person's religious speech equate for a person's complete value system. Again, I challenge any one to show real proof that Mrs. Palin has tried to legislate in a religiously intolerant manner.
And here it is...the ugliest monster of religion; the assertion they the godly have the copy-right to truth and all others are philosophically incomplete unless they add that final piece of the puzzle, which just so happens to be the name of their deity.
Oh...btw, your god is not loving nor did he make his whorshippers humble and quite undignified. Anyone who defines this notion has lost of explaining to do. Richard Dawkins said it best in his decription of god:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Dare me to quote biblical passages that further demonstrates your god as immoral and shelfish?