This post will likely turn into another mangled blob of words. I apologize. I must say I am DEEPLY disturbed by Palin's statement that US troops are on a 'mission from God'. Last time I checked, that's kinda what Bin Laden is claiming. I just finished watching a video of (allegedly 90) Afgan civilians lying in pools of blood after one of our attacks. The US military reported 5-9 injured. I won't condemn the troops involved... I'm sure they were provoked & followed thier judgment.
The thing weighing on my mind is this: We live in a world where a presidential contender can NOT say he wants to end the war in Iraq without adding immediately after 'and bring the troops to Afganistan'. No one can say he wants to end the killing. We'll just re-direct the forces and kill a different group... Don't wanna look weak... Seriously, I cannot understand this thought process. I know I'm on the opposite side of many others on this issue, so please explain this to me...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Nathan, you have a lot of strange ideas.
Are you a Gurneyite? I've been reading about them on the internet, and this pacifistic post makes me wonder if you are a member.
Kevin Gurney
I'll have to look that one up... I've recently come to the realization that we only need a big military because we have a big military. I'll assume you guys see where I'm coming from, but if not I can explain...
Nathan,
Check your instant messenger.
mom
I agree! Anyone who says that they are on a "mission from God" immediately draws my suspicion. Unless you are Mother Theresa, and really even then, speak words like that with great care!
*I* am the one on a mission from God.
Note how that immediately gives me a ton of credibility. Admit it: You now want to follow wherever I lead, just because I told you that my actions are guided by a deity.
What's that? It DOESN'T make me more credible? It actually creeps you out a bit and makes you wonder if I might not have all of my marbles? In fact, it makes me sound dangerously delusional?
Oh.
Sadly it depends on who you're talking to... It sure seems to excite the conservative base as we're currently seeing.
Dear Canadians: Don't fall for this one.
The American Left always mines Republican videotape for God-quotes. They did it to Reagan, and of course, they did it to George W. In fact, ALL American candidates invoke God. There were more references to God in Bill Clinton's speeches than in George W's. It's standard here. Clinton (a Southern Baptist) was careful to be photographed - - frequently - - going to Church with a big black Bible. After the Monica scandal, he called several prominent Evangelical preachers to the White House for counselling. This was never reported in a way to make him appear wierd or extreme, but a Republican candidate's religious proclivities are commonly reported that way.
It must be jarring for Canadian ears to hear a politician offer a prayer, but Palin's remarks, if you listen to them closely, are hardly delusional. She _prays_ that the government is doing God's will. The word for that is humility, not delusion.
Dad
Despite what Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh may say, Canadian politicians generally present themselves as Christians. They often use religious imagery, although not in the way some American politicians do.
I have indeed been listening to Palin. In fact, it appears that I am paying more attention to her statements than most Americans are. This is pretty disheartening.
Ya, I've heard the statements time & again. They say those things to excite the 'radical' base, then backstep just a little in interviews to take a more moderate view: "I don't pray God is on OUR side, I pray we are on GOD's side". Who hasn't heard THAT one a million times?
I do notice each side turns to 'God'. The problem isn't that they do it, it's that they HAVE to do it to be a serious candidate. I was a fan of Huckabee, but found it truly pathetic that he could not directly say he didn't believe the world was literally created as it says in the bible, 6000 years ago. I can't believe we let these people lead the country.
The religious dimension of these races interests me, for obvious reasons.
All candidates must profess belief in God. That's a given. However, with Democratic candidates the profession is assumed to be insincere. This is the reason the (Democratic) press was so interested in Huckabee's interpretation of Genesis: they are mystified (and horrified) by actual religious belief.
John Kerry was a Roman Catholic, but no reporter ever confronted him on the tenets of Roman Catholicism (say, the infallibility of the Pope), because they just assume he doesn't really believe them. Bill Clinton belonged to the same denomination as Huckabee, but Clinton, being a Democrat, was never asked to give his explanation of Creation.
Jimmy Carter might be an exception to this pattern.
The Good Reverend
As an aside, Nathan: the Bible nowhere states that the world was created 6,000 years ago. Nor is this the teaching of the Southern Baptist Church. So, some of the discomfort you might have seen on Huckabee's face was the discomfort you feel when a person asks a question containing false assumptions, which cannot be truly answered in the form it was asked.
Dad
They figured out the 6000-year thing by tracing back the generations, I know it is not actually stated, nor is it believed by many people who call themselves Christians (although the actual statistics are pretty surprising). I just think he should be able to say he doesn't actually believe it himself, but he knows he's relying on the vote of the ill-informed. And that, I think, is sad.
Someone's being overly specific, hoping that we won't call him on it. Very political of you, Dad.
No, the Bible does not state that the world was created 6000 years ago. It gives a timeframe for the creation of the world and then introduces characters. Those characters are part of a genealogy that's pretty specific. Between the interesting stories, there are several lists of begats, all very detailed.
The lists aren't presented as literature, they're presented as historical records, likely compiled from public records of the time. (I'm sure the authors weren't just making up names; they clearly thought they were recording facts.) Perhaps I missed the literary part of those particular passages: I just tried to read them again and my eyes glazed over.
I have no doubt that people at that time honestly believed those genealogies were complete. That doesn't mean that intelligent people of today have to pretend that the earth is 6000 years old. I think they do their own religion a disservice.
"Someone's being overly specific, hoping that we won't call him on it. Very political of you, Dad."
?
"The lists aren't presented as literature, they're presented as historical records..."
The distinction between history and literature did not exist in the ancient world.
The Bible was not written to make claims about the age of the earth. Later generations, working from a different world-view, studied the Bible to answer questions that did not interest the writers of the Bible. Archbishop Usher did this in the 16th century, adding up the ages of the people listed in Genesis, and came up with the date of creation as 4004 BC. So far as I know, there is no mainline Christian Church which accepts this procedure. I am quite certain that the Southern Baptist Convention, the denomination of Mike Huckabee, does not accept this approach to the question. Mike Huckabee does not believe the world is 6,000 years old, neither does he believe that the Bible teaches that the world is 6,000 years old. The question he was asked was misinformed, so the answer he gave was equivocal.
Dad
But it's a yes or no question, like 'do you believe the grass is green'. Why could he not just answer the question? Megan is right that they do thier own religion a disservice.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Answer yes or no!
Oh, come off it! The question wasn't "have you stopped believing the world was created 6000 years ago". So, you question should be "Do you beat your wife". Answer: NO... See, that was easy!
Post a Comment