The Palin church

Interesting that it's taken the NYT just one week to look into Sarah Palin's church -- after first looking into her pants and also her daughter's -- while it took them well over a year even to acknowledge Barack Obama's church for what it is, and even then only quickly to look the other way after making half-hearted and half-assed excuses for "Reverend" Wright.

Or maybe it's not that interesting, given that it's only what one would expect.

Rod, what scares me is the manner in which Palin, her church & a large part of the right wing of the evangelical movement conflate God's will with the action of their government. For those in power - Palin, the oil companies, media companies - this may be comforting, even hopeful.

You & so many right wingers criticized what you see as the celebrity of Obama and the hope people find in it. Fair - and probably valid. But the Palin swoon suggests it was envy, that at the first chance, you are more than ready to elevate the Gov into some talisman for all things crunchy con or orthodox Christian or GOP. lost a great of respect for you in this swoon, Rod - it shows a sense of what lies behind the catchy slogans & pithy insights.

I take some wisdom from the insights of Scot McKnight on this election & hope (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=4276):

Now one more way of saying this: my eschatology, or my hope, is not in who will be the next President. I hope in the power of the gospel that flows from God’s good graces toward us humans. I hope in the God who designs that gospel; I hope in the Christ who embodies that gospel; and I hope in the Spirit who empowers that gospel. And I hope also in the Church whose task it is daily to live out the gospel and draw all into its saving graces. I don’t hope in the next President. I think that is idolatrous. In fact, hoping in the next President is the first step toward idolizing empire.

Who's Your Messiah Now?

Sarah Palin’s rapid elevation from small town mayor to candidate for national office to revered deity, has got me asking if conservatives aren’t taking a bit too much of the savior in mass (or smoking crack). The hyperbole exceeds satire.

She is the true Paris Hilton of politicians. She’s famous for being famous. Especially among conservatives. But the inside-the-beltway hysteria of GOP coastal elites and wealthy Christian Conservatives - as expressed by the staffs of the Weekly Standard, National Review, and Fox News (in New York!), among others - is a soirée in a samovar.

Outside of their gay and prosperous precincts, Americans are still wondering who the heck this woman is. The GOP is gravely misreading the national mood and the general appeal of their VP candidate. No one who wasn’t already going to vote for her will now do so because she eats mooseburger and gives a snarky speech. Better enjoy that celebration because prognostications aside - she’s the 2012 nominee (they assume either a loss or McCain’s death, whichever comes first), she’s the future of the party, she’s come to save us from imminent defeat - Sarah Palin has a long, tough road ahead of her.

Who’s your messiah now? Sarah Palin. And you better pray she’s studying hard and paying off the townies back home, or she just might be a false prophet.

Excerpt from Nah, Nope, Not Quite

Rod,

It's what the Jews For Jesus speaker said that is so offensive: Terrorism against Jews and Israel is God's punishment for unbelief. I think I have a fairly high threshold before crying antisemitism, but this crosses the line.

We certainly had a right to know what Obama thought of his pastor's sermons. Palin has some explaining to do as well.

When the Rev.Wright controversy occurred, I suggested that it was wrong to assume that a congregant totally agrees with what a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc., says. You need to let the congregant speak for themselves. There might be any number of reasons that a congregant might remain in a church or whatever, even if they disagree with either the leader or other congregants.

I then also criticized Sen. Obama for not being more outspoken about where he differed with his pastor, on the grounds that he is a leader and needs to be heard on important issues in his church.

I don't know exactly what Gov.Palin believes, but I'd like to hear it from her directly.

However, I have also said that Sen. Obama's being a relative newcomer justified his being asked tough questions on these issues and that he should address them. I believe that the same goes for Gov. Palin, who is even less well known. That is simply fair.

I'm not sure it's fair to either Gov. Palin or the country to have only two months to get to know her. If Sen. McCain wanted Sen. Lieberman, then he should have picked him.

I now intend to vote for Sen. Obama, since I find that Sen. McCain has veered far off course from the man I used to support so strongly. But I still have great personal admiration for him.

As an Italian Jew, I can only tell my Christian brothers that I view attempts at conversion through a historical lens, in which tremendous pressure was put on my ancestors to convert to Christianity, and some of them did. It might not be fair to be so bothered by this, but that's how I feel.

Because I love books, I'd like to suggest the following book even though it's off the main topic and deals with Jews and conversion. The book is called "The Kidnapping Of Edgardo Mortara" by David Kertzer.

PLEASE tell me how you get "Clearly this woman is a dangerous Christianist lunatic." from the Times article? PLEASE! Its an even handed piece that reports on the church to which she belongs, the people who attend, and some of the minor controversies that are associated with it. I find nothing condescending about the article. If the NYTimes writes an article about fundamentalist Christians is it by definition condescending in your world, Rod? Your comment STRONGLY suggests that its a hit piece by the liberal media elite. I call BS on you, Rod.

ES: just because YOU had never heard of Sarah Palin before, does not mean she mean she is just "famous for being famous". Plenty of other people have. Her name has been out there for at least a year, and many have been impressed with her accomplishments.

As a practicing Catholic, I can identify with her much more strongly than I do with atheists, and anti-religionists, many of whom love to post here on CrunchyCons, for some obscure reason.

Joe,

Google "Bernadine Dohrn" and "Charles Manson" and read what the woman herself had to say -- a woman who is among the most notable FOB's or Friends of Barack -- to paraphrase an acronym from an era when the Democratic Party was (comparatively) more sane than it seems to be now.

If your regard the prospect of a President who's friends with such a person as a "change you can believe in," one that swells your heart with "hope," then heaven help your soul.

"We certainly had a right to know what Obama thought of his pastor's sermons. Palin has some explaining to do as well."

True, and if this was her pastor instead of a guest speaker, I'd be more concerned. Based on the sermons posted on the church website, I don't think we'll find any "God D@mn America" moments...

If Sen. McCain wanted Sen. Lieberman, then he should have picked him.

This nonsense keeps being repeated as "fact" by mainstream media anchors. Jim Lehrer said it Thursday night. I can already hear it jelling into DC conventional wisdom.

As far as I know, there is NO credible source for the claim that McCain wanted Lieberman as his running mate or ever seriously considered him. The only sources appear to be the exact same clueless pundits and Bush Republican hacks who told us just last week that McCain's short list was down to Romney or Pawlenty.

Anyway, nobody doubts now that McCain and his people are thrilled beyond belief with Palin and wouldn't trade her for anyone else in the country.

"If you're scared of Bible church people and those folks from that part of the Christian world, then you're scared of a huge number of your fellow Americans."

I'm scared of Bible church people intent on imposing their doctrines as public policy. So were the Founders. The "religious test" prosciption in the Constitution works both ways.

Am I the only one tired of reading about candidate's churches? Aren't their more important issues we should be concerned with?

Or not, I guess. Yeah for identity politics! Or something.

I don't consider myself a member of any particular denomination, but do try to abide by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

From that perspective, I don't find it odd at all that Palin would consider major philosophical questions - like whether to invade Iraq - in the context of God's will, and pray for guidance and God's blessing on such efforts.

She loses me, though, when she claims that a specific infrastructure proposal is part of a divine plan. Personally I don't believe God cares much about minutiae such as what precise route a gas pipeline is going to take and how it's going to be financed, and I wonder about her sincerity.

If she is serious, she worries me. It's understandable for an executive to ground their basic governing philosophy and broad policy positions in faith. But consideration of the will of God as revealed in a particular interpretation of scripture, for every detail of governance, is a road I don't think the Framers intended to go down.

[quote]Rufus sez - "Bernadine Dohrn".....a woman who is among the most notable FOB's or Friends of Barack[/quote]What is your basis for this statement? My understanding is that Obama and Dohrn met a couple of times at Chicago political events, and the googling you suggest offers no reliable evidence for any relationship.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if more controversial and objectionable stuff emerged out of this church. If it does, we'll deal with it here

Man, are you paying attention? Have you read the stuff from the Huffington Post? Stuff about going to hell for voting wrong or criticizing George W. Bush or the pastor?!

From the same article:

"As for his former congregant and current vice presidential candidate, Kalnins has asserted that Palin's election as governor was the result of a 'prophetic call' by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory. '[He made] a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know.'

Even Palin expressed surprise at that pastor's advocacy for her candidacy. 'He was praying over me,' she said in June. 'He's praying, "Lord make a way, Lord make a way..." And I'm thinking, this guy's really bold, he doesn't even know what I'm gonna do, he doesn't know what my plans are, and he's praying not, "Oh Lord, if it be your will may she become governor," or whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, "Lord, make a way, and let her do this next step." And that's exactly what happened. So, again, very very powerful coming from this church.'"

Does anyone else get creeped out by this? Yes, there's a pro-forma "if it by Thy will," but doesn't this sound like she's attributing her selection to what a pastor prayed?

As I said in a lengthy post a few threads ago, I think that Palin seems very unreflective about her religion (unlike Obama, a seeker who didn't join a church until adulthood), and my experience with unreflective believers is that they don't filter out the wackiness from the solid stuff in what they are taught.

And Rod, you're from the South. You ought to know what Pentecostals and hard-shell Evangelicals think about Catholics (and would think about Orthodox, too, if they were aware of them). They're just too polite to say it as much these days.

"If you're scared of Bible church people and those folks from that part of the Christian world, then you're scared of a huge number of your fellow Americans."

Yes, I am. Your point?

***

There's a wonderful column by Georgie Anne Geyer that the Dallas Morning News printed this morning, in which she discusses anti-elitism, the idea that our leaders should be "regular people", and how damaging this is to the country. Personally, I don't want my leaders to be just like me -- I want leaders who are smarter, better educated, more knowledgeable, more accomplished, more well-travelled, more well-read, more disciplined, more accomplished, and more thoughtful and reflective than I am.

I don't want a leader who's just "regular folks." If I want to meet someone I'd like to have coffee with, I'll head over to Starbucks. Not the Oval Office. I disagree with the late William F. Buckley: I'd much rather live in the society run by 100 Harvard professors than the society run by 100 people from the Boston phone book.

"Regular people" are the ones who keep American Idol and Survivor on the air. Heaven save us from leaders who are just like "regular people".

***

As a practicing Catholic, I can identify with her much more strongly than I do with atheists, and anti-religionists, many of whom love to post here on CrunchyCons, for some obscure reason.

I'm a practicing Catholic, too, but I also work in academia. I identify a lot more with some of the atheists, at least those who are willing to give careful consideration to their positions and the positions of their opponents. People who are absolutely sure that they are right -- whether they are Christians, or atheists, or tenured professors -- and who cannot conceive the possibility that their opponents might actually be right about something, or at least have something to contribute to the discussion, are the people who scare me.

Again, it's the anti-intellectualism that really bothers me. I often think of something I saw on a poster in a Methodist Church where a chorus in which I used to sing held its rehearsals: "Jesus came to take away your sins, not your mind."

Rod: "If you're scared of Bible church people and those folks from that part of the Christian world, then you're scared of a huge number of your fellow Americans."

Me: "If you're scared of black church people and those folks from that part of the Christian world, then you're scared of a huge number of your fellow Americans."

Rod, I really do hope that you address at length some of the issues I and others have raised about your seeming double standard regarding Obama’s church and Palin’s. In all seriousness, I think you’re leaving yourself open to a fair accusation of a racial double standard, if not trafficking in outright racism by talking about a theologically fringe black church as “scary” (Who knows what might come next. They could get uppity!) and mocking those who find a theologically fringe white church “scary”.

You know, the more I think about the famous Wright videos (which we all know are hardly indicative of the much more boring, week in week out sermons he gave) the more I think that what freaked people out was his mannerisms and voice, not his words. He sounded – OMG! – BLACK! Look at the weird, scary, big loud black man waving his arms around and talking about God damning America!

If I recall, and I can find the quotes, what Rod said was terrible about Wright’s theology was that it set up God as choosing sides in blacks vs. whites.

Now, we have a mellow white preacher whose theology sets up God as choosing sides in Democrats vs. Republicans, and the comfortable white middle class conservative commentariat just can’t imagine that anyone other than some leftist culture of death postmodern commie would raise an eyebrow.

Compare and contrast:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Rev. Ed Kalnins: “I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry … If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”

This offensive double standard among my fellow educated white conservatives is enough to make me take another look at this other quote from Rev. Wright:

"We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

Bless,
Doug

Actually, I like this one even better. This moves my heart, as I expect the Palin baby sling picture does Rod's. How anyone can describe the Obamas as cold-hearted people able to promote the agenda of the "culture of death" because of their own disdain for "touchable", real people leaves me, ahem, gobsmacked.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/obamaMOS0202_468x365.jpg

This picture looks more like America to me, both what she is and what she can be, than any Alaskan family shots with snowmobiles, guns and large dead animals.

Bless,
Doug

You're wrong here, Doug. There is no double standard. The argument from Rev. Kalnins (which I strenuously disagree with, by the way) is based on morality and is irrespective of race. Wright's statements link morality TO race, and that is a huge difference.

While I reject Kalnins statements and what they imply, they are more in line with the rhetoric of the abolitionists than with the Black Liberationists.

This picture looks more like America to me, both what she is and what she can be, than any Alaskan family shots with snowmobiles, guns and large dead animals.

That's a portrait not a snapshot, Doug. It's a very nice one, but if you look at the Obama's family photos they take of each other, I'm sure they're nothing like this. They're probably, like 99% of what we have in our family album, well, normal mundane stuff that they as a family do in their normal mundane time. It won't be the same as other families, but it's still normal. But that's in a technical sense, not what the image evokes.

**How anyone can describe the Obamas as cold-hearted people able to promote the agenda of the "culture of death" because of their own disdain for "touchable", real people leaves me, ahem, gobsmacked.**

Fine: the Obamas love their babies. It's just the fact that they don't have a problem with other people killing theirs that some of us find problematic. And newsflash: that's got jacks--t to do with race.

"Wright is basing his judgement on morality - the morality of whites in their treatment of blacks."

Other way round, I'm afraid. Wright thinks whites treat blacks badly because they're evil. He thus demonizes the white race, and is no less a racist than any two-bit neo-Nazi.

David White wrote: "I identify a lot more with some of the atheists, at least those who are willing to give careful consideration to their positions and the positions of their opponents. People who are absolutely sure that they are right -- whether they are Christians, or atheists, or tenured professors -- and who cannot conceive the possibility that their opponents might actually be right about something, or at least have something to contribute to the discussion, are the people who scare me."

Amen, brother!

Doug

Rob: "Wright thinks whites treat blacks badly because they're evil."

Wow. This is one of the worst bits of slander I've read in awhile. It must be news to Wright that he thinks so many of his parishoners are evil because of their skin color alone. I just can't imagine what could lead you, or anyone else, to reach this kind of conclusion about a man you've probably never even met. I pray that I never feel as certain about another man's heart as you seem to feel about Rev. Wright's.

Then again, I'm still learning 21st century online social etiquette. What I learned this week is that on thoughtful conservative forums it is foul to even ask questions about the pregnancy of a 17 year old woman, but it is hunky dory to slander old black men. It's going to take me awhile to figure all this stuff out; it's so confusing. ;-)

"The human person is a profound mystery. ... We humans are formed in God's image. ... So if God is beyond understanding, then the human person formed in God's image is likewise beyond understanding. Precisely because God is a mystery, I too am a mystery." + Bp. Kallistos Ware

Bless,
Doug

Joe posted the letter from Anne Kilkenny above; I find it interesting that he left of the detail that Mrs. Kilkenny and her husband are both Democrats, which might affect her perspective of Gov. Palin.

David J. White, I respect your writing here, but I'm at a loss to express the dismay I feel that you'd rather be governed by 100 Harvard professors than by ordinary people. Academics are very good at what they do, but the practical work of governance does require a certain ability to relate to the average person, not to see him as a combination curiosity/consumer of reality TV.

Consider that Obama himself recognizes this political reality, that he stresses his middle-class upbringing and work as a community organizer far more than he does his Harvard degree, that things have been written about his handlers desperately telling the man to put down the arugula and pick up a corn dog, for heaven's sake, at various community rallies and mix-with-the-public campaign events, and you'll see that presenting themselves as "just plain folks" is something all our political candidates do, and have done for some time.

Why? I don't think it's because Americans hate people who are more intelligent and more educated than they are, or that our democratic notions about equality make it impossible for a candidate to say, in effect, "Elect me because I'm better than you." If anything, I think this reality speaks to the deep suspicion the people of our country have for those who think that education and elite upbringing are a substitute for the kind of practical wisdom that is gained by living a life that involves some struggle and sacrifice, the perspective those things give one, and the importance of relating on a deeply personal level, to the extent possible, to the concerns and hardships of one's constituents.

My grandfather never graduated from high school, let alone college, but as a talented engineer and inventor for the Brach's candy company he had the respect of everyone he worked for and with, including the owners of the company; my grandfather's door had a lock on his side and even the company president had to knock to be admitted. I recall him shaking his head about the college-educated engineers who would come to work there thinking they understood everything about the work from their years of study, and inclined to humor the older, less educated man, until they realized that compared to him they knew nothing, and that in that kind of environment their insufficient grasp of the practical realities of engineering could actually be dangerous to them and to everyone in the vicinity.

If my grandfather were alive today, he'd probably see Obama as being rather like those college engineers--a nice enough young man, but still wet behind the ears and lacking sorely in real world experience. He'd probably see Palin as being a bit less so based on her background, but he wouldn't have voted for her for President, I'll bet, given that she's young (he would have appreciated her hunting creds, though; my grandfather did a bit of prospecting in his youth). But he would see John McCain as a man who had more than words to offer, who was grounded and experienced, and worthy of his support.

Though my grandfather isn't alive, there are a lot of people in America like him. Some of them may find Obama sincerely likable, but the question "What has he really done in his life?" is on their minds. And it's not on their minds the same way about Palin, first because she *has* done things outside of politics, and second because she's not at the top of the ticket.

Doug C., you realize that the source for your story is a self-styled political activist and lifelong Democrat ex-pat living in Toronto, Canada, right?

You people need to get your talking points straight: is Sarah Palin a dumb-as-toast working Mom with too many kids and not enough creds, or is she Dick Cheney in a skirt?

Right now, those two images cancel each other out, rather.

And for all these Alaskans coming forth now to trash Palin, one simple fact keeps flashing in my memory: 80% approval rating. You don't get an 80% approval rating from your constituents by being either the floozie tool of the GOP or a racist bully who scares everyone into voting for you, now, do you?

MJ Rosenberg wrote a great piece Issues and Non-Issues about the attacks on Sarah Palin over Jews for Jesus appearing at her church.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/issues-and-non-issues_b_124308.html

He says, "It's almost laughable." and "It's hard to believe that anybody cares about that stuff."

There are a quarter of a million Messianic Jewish believers in Jesus in the United States and around 15,000 in Israel. Clearly not all Jews hate "Jews for Jesus," which is the name of an organization not an umbrella name for all Jewish believers in Jesus.

I'm not going to discuss this because it will derail this thread, but I will clarify.

Jews who believe in JC are not Jews - that much is clear, they are excommunicated. They're Xians. Why don't people get that?

And yes, it's pretty much of a certainty that Jews will not like other Jews who have converted to Xianity. It's the ultimate betrayal. I know because I was baptized a Catholic and stayed in the church for several years. My entire family stopped speaking to me until I renounced (which I eventually did).

There are a quarter of a million Messianic Jewish believers in Jesus in the United States and around 15,000 in Israel. Clearly not all Jews hate "Jews for Jesus,"

There are no Jews who believe in Jesus, just like there are no Christians who believe in Anubis. There are Jews who have converted to Christianity, and there are Christians who imitate some of the cultural trappings of Judaism to facilitate the final elimination of Judaism as a religion. "Jews For Jesus" = Christians Against Judaism.

Rod,

When a Jew leaves Judaism, not only is he lost to his people, but so are his children, his grandchildren, and so on. It's not only his soul that is imperiled, it's the survival of the Jewish people.

There are 1 1/2 billion Xians and 15 million Jews. The loss of one to a Xian is much less than the loss of one to a Jew. The strongest of measures must be taken to see that we survive. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but we've almost been exterminated more than once. We need to police ourselves.

"Wow. This is one of the worst bits of slander I've read in awhile. It must be news to Wright that he thinks so many of his parishoners are evil because of their skin color alone. I just can't imagine what could lead you, or anyone else, to reach this kind of conclusion about a man you've probably never even met. I pray that I never feel as certain about another man's heart as you seem to feel about Rev. Wright's."

Doug, viewing the white race as "evil" is a basic tenet of black liberation theology, which is what Rev. Wright and TUCC proudly espouse.

Don't believe me - believe James Cone, Rev. Wright's spiritual mentor, and one of the founders of the black liberation theology movement:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

Now, care to point to any comparable passage from Sarah Palin's pastor or from the hierarchy of the Assemblies of God churches?

Sir,

You are right that every Christian church calls for conversion. The theology of this church, however, is by no means normative or mainstream.
The sermon by the Mr. Brickman of Jews for Jesus (at which the governor is clearly shown to be present) was not simply about conversion to Christianity. The sermon expressed, in language reminiscent of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson and Pastor Hagee, that the violence in Jerusalem wrought by Palestinians is the expression of the clear judgment of God on non-believers, as "prophesied" by Jesus in Matthew 23. As others called 9/11 and Katrina God’s judgment , this man said the same of terrorism…in her presence.
I do not know your beliefs about such things but a politician, as Obama learned, cannot passively observe or condone through silence such extreme views. Barak was challenged to defend himself for sermons he was NOT present at – Palin was definitely at this sermon, as her Pastor affirmed. Must she not explain why she did not walk out? Barak was asked continually by the conservative press: how could you listen to Pastor Wright all those years? Personally, I favor Pastors Wrights theology. But I recognize it is not in the mainstream of Christian thought today. It warranted a response. Even so, I ask you pointedly: will you join the chorus of voices asking for Gov. Palin to explain her beliefs vis a vis her parish? She attended for over 25 years – is it not a fair question to ask? Should she not come forward and defend her association with a Pastor who expressed such views as Pastor Kroon?
I await in hope to see you express your Christian character by being fair and just to all.

Rod,

Until you hear Sarah Palin deny the Pentecostal Church with the fervor of Peter denying Jesus Christ, this issue should be a deal breaker (for everyone outside of the Pentecostal coven). Regardless of whether Sarah Palin actually believes the Pentecostal take on Israel and prophecy, her history will give rise to massive suspicion from the Islamic world (and for good reason). As for other religions, you are all going to hell. If the current Pope isn't the Anti-Christ, then the next one will be. Please educate yourselves!

In and of itself, the bizarreness of a Pentecostal worship service speaks volumes about the psyche of anybody accepts such a religion. Pentecostalism strikes me as being a form of white witchcraft. You need to see it to believe it, so here is a list of video's I've compiled, enjoy:

http://www.tinyurl.com/5rrktz

There are no Jews who believe in Jesus, just like there are no Christians who believe in Anubis.

I don't mean to be offensive, but do Jews really have to profess faith or beliefs in a way analogous to Christians?

Aren't Jews who are atheist or agnostic, or adopt Buddhist beliefs, still considered Jews, in virtue of their heritage?

The Jews are with the band.

OK, my latest opus just got caught in comment limbo, so I'm going to break it in half and take out the links. You'll have to take out the space before the .org to make them work.

Part I:

Egad, I should have just dropped off the board in disgust two days ago instead of hanging around and posting out of some prideful need to argue. I'm glad Rod deleted that link. As I said in the post, I have absolutely no idea if it is true. Here, in a nutshell, is my point:

I have very little idea who Sarah Palin is or what she believes, and that bothers me very much. I've gone to the trouble to learn a great deal about John McCain, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Joe Biden, and at least I can say truthfully that my conclusions about them, and their fitness for national leadership, is based on a thorough examination of their words (written and spoken, planned and off the cuff), their biographies, their ideas, and the key influences on their thinking. I very much want to apply the same standard to Palin, and have attempted to begin doing so in a very compressed timeframe. I've spent 10 or 20 hours a week for over a year reading and thinking about this election, because I don't want to be HASTY. (Hoom hom, Treebeard would agree.)
So, I figure I owe it to Palin to work through my thinking on her over the course of weeks, rather than months. I've been reading the positive, the negative, the well-sourced, the gossip, for a week. Little Green Football, The Corner, Instapundit, Ambinder, Sullivan, Fallows, New Republic, Slate, Larison, Obsidian Wings, HuffPo, Pajamas. I'm reading everyone's best case, I hope.

Yet, I don't have an answer to one simple question: "Why should I support Sarah Palin?" CS Lewis wrote about evangelizing as a team effort, where one speaker goes for the head and one for the heart, because some folks are swayed more by one than the other. I'm a head guy, mostly. Such is life. That's how I came to Christianity. That's how I came to a generally conservative political and economic outlook. That's how I came to conservationism. I need a head answer on Palin. And I feel like when I ask for one, I get appeals to her character. OK, that's a piece of a head answer, but hardly a full case. It would be like describing my upcoming blind date by telling me she's got great eyes. OK, cool. What else you got?

Before I belatedly followed Sullivan and Rod's turn against the war, I was very much a Guiliani supporter. I gave him money, and would still probably vote for him over Hillary, as I expected this election to go so many long months ago. I’ve still got a soft spot for the guy. Even then, what I most liked was that Rudy seemed like a “change agent,” to use today’s buzzword. I also felt like Rudy would be someone who would spend his administration focusing on effective policy, diplomacy, and legislation, and not take precious political capital and waste it on fruitless culture war pi$$ing matches that don’t have any positive impact on real children of God and their real lives in our fallen, real world, like the federal debate over Terri Schiavo. I am very, very concerned about abortion, marriage, childrearing, education, the survival of religious and cultural traditions, and the rest of the litany of items some folks on this board would probably like me to check off on some Palinesque (sorry, couldn’t resist) written loyalty oath. However, I don’t believe that the federal government is the place to fight these battles. That’s why I’m a crunchy con, ferpetessake!

It’s the community, stupid!

You want to know my views on the deep issues driving my worldview, and my civic priorities? I try to keep an understated profile here, but I’ve actually written about them at length. For example:

“Bishop Kallistos Ware, a well-loved Orthodox teacher, says, “The human person is created for relationship.” There is a Greek word that broadly contains the essence of this truth: koinonia. It means, in its most basic sense, “community.” But in Orthodox belief there is also a profound depth behind this simple word. Most important is its implication that because human beings are created in God’s image, and because God exists in community—as Trinity—then humans too are created for communion with God and with each other. We understand that God Himself is not in isolation. “God is love,” we read in 1 John 4:8. God is love because he exists in a communion of love, the Holy Trinity. Bishop Kallistos goes on to say, “God is not a unit, but a union. God is love in the sense of shared love, the mutual love of three Persons in one.” We can only truly understand ourselves, we can only lay claim to the image of God within us, when we recognize that, like God, the truth of our own identity is found in the face of others, in community. The truth of our very nature demands that we fully embrace our relationships with others, despite the fact that, in this world, we are surrounded by a tendency toward the opposite: disfigured relationships, fractured relationships, individualism, and isolation.” (Full essay: http://www.antiochian .org/node/17952)

(Here’s my primary professional residence these days: http://www.antiochian .org/author/cramer. My comments here, just to state the obvious, in no way reflect the official teachings of the Antiochian Archdiocese.)

to be continued...

As you might expect from this confessed Jersey expat with a guilty love for Rudy and Derbyshire, I've often agreed with Frum in the past. He seems spot on here to me:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg5NzEzNGUyNmNlMGZhMjI0YmJmOWJhYzE0NWE0ZmU=

"I don't think academic credentials matter at all in the presidency. (Unlike eg the Supreme Court or the Federal Reserve.) I even believe that there is rapidly diminishing marginal utility for IQ. Clinton was surely smarter than FDR, Nixon smarter than Reagan, Adams smarter than Washington. We are talking about a particular set of decision-making skills - and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Palin possesses them. Worse, from my point of view, is the assumption that because she is a conservative Christian that she therefore has intelligent conservative views on every other subject, from what to do with Fannie Mae to what to do about Iran. That's a greater leap of faith than I can make."

Can anyone give me a single reason to think that any of these Palin rumors swirling around - about her language, about her ethics - might not turn out to be true? What do we know about her?

What is Rod's response to Frum's concerns?

Doug

sorry, that previous post about Pentecostalism/worship/prophecy is mine. It didn't take the first time, and the second time I failed to re-enter a username.

I find it interesting that Palin's church removed all the sermons from their website. At least I can't reach it thru the HuffPo link.

TTT: There are no Jews who believe in Jesus, just like there are no Christians who believe in Anubis.

Christians for Anubis...there's a thought.... ;)

"Until you hear Sarah Palin deny the Pentecostal Church with the fervor of Peter denying Jesus Christ, this issue should be a deal breaker (for everyone outside of the Pentecostal coven)."

Strange we had a man as attorney general for 4 years who attends an Assembly of God church, who was also a US Senator and governor of Missouri before that - and yet, the Union survived!

Your statement is probably one of the most bigoted I have seen in quite a while.

Yes, there are many Jews who believe in Jesus - they are called Messianic Jews.

What people believe in their own church has no concern to me. However it does concern me when priests, pasteurs, or Rabbi's preach hatred, and insensitivity in their sermons, whether it's in Palin's church or Obama's. Don't tell me what my religious beliefs should be, and don't incite people to bigatry. Religious leaders are there to promote peace, tolerance, and social justice. Thats it. Stop telling your parishoners to convert my children or Jesus wound come back. That promotes hatred of Jews. Stop preaching politics from the pulpit.

Thank you very much.

"Yes, there are "Jews for Jesus." They are called Christians. These people are usually jewishly undereducated, alienated people whom the Jewish people let down by not reaching out to those who cannot afford the high cost of a jewish education."

I can't speak regarding statistics, I have know some very well-educated rabbis who became convinced that Yeshua was indeed the Messiah declared by the prophets, and became Jewish Christians. It is very condescending to imply that any Jewish Christian is ignorant and uneducated, just as it would be to imply that any Southern Baptist is an ignorant redneck living out in the woods, clinging to his guns and religion...

rlb1961, you wouldn't have a dog in this hunt, would you?

If such was 'common, expected, and desired', then you should watch what these people are doing, and you should imitate them. Then, I will regard your label of 'bigot' as a stone cast from one whose judgement I question.

Churches Gone Wild: tinyurl.com/5rrktz

If you marry a Jew and you are a Christian then you will understand a lot more about being a Christian and about being a Jew. I have learned what many Christians and Jews have not forgoten "War on religion" is "War on a country." Our Constitutions being changed across the States of the USA is an example of changing the way the Constitution was written. Oh yes and by the way Sarah Palin might be a little bit conservitive but she does not strike me as a "President Washington,Samuel Adams,or anyone else." She is her own person in history like the rest of us. Times have changed for many of us.So look upon a glass house and throw eggs. Please for the sake of the people inside do not throw rocks...lollolandlol