I must disagree with my friends Andrew Sullivan and David Kuo, who criticized Palin’s answer to Charles Gibson’s question about “God’s plan” for the Iraq war.
The Republicans are guilty of one case after another of egregiously ripping Obama words out of context. This time it’s Palin’s words that have been taken out of context.
Here’s what Gibson asked:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
Actually, Palin asked members of the church to pray “that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
In the quote as edited by Gibson, the meaning is that she thinks the war is part of God’s plan. In her actual quote, she’s saying it might or might not be part of God’s plan and we sure better hope, and pray, that it is.
My friend David Kuo, on his wonderful new website Culture11, chides Palin for saying she was really thinking about Lincoln and suggested that she was abandoning her actual theological views in favor of a politically more palatable answer.
First, she didn’t actually claim she was pondering Lincoln; she said her line was a “repeat” of Lincoln’s sentiment that we should pray we’re on God’s side, not vice versa. I view that as an inelegant way of saying that her views were akin to Lincoln’s words (albeit a tad less eloquent), when he declared, “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”
Palin is right. Her sentiment was the same as Lincoln’s. Both said it’s important to figure out whether you’re on God’s side. So I don’t believe, as David does, that she abandoned her faith at all.
I understand the impulse to hear in that Palin comment the sentiment that the war is God’s plan. After all, she has in fact used that line of logic in other caes – like when she said it was “God’s will” that the state build a natural gas pipeline. (I wish Charlie Gibson had asked her about that!). Maybe this is a case of framing the guilty. And perhaps in this case Palin accidentally phrased it in a Lincolnesque way and some shrewd aide notice the parallels and suggested the Lincoln comparison.
But all we have is her words, which, in this case, were quite responsible.
If you want to know what is actually worrisome about Palin and religion, here’s a summary from my WSJ.com column:
Invoking Divine Support for Pet Projects: She told a group of young church leaders to pray for a gas pipeline because it was God’s will. “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that.” This is well beyond what President Bush customarily said. Asserting that God endorses a particular energy strategy or public works project is exactly the sort of mindset the Founders feared. The vote-for-this-because-God-says-so approach means that those who oppose a particular policy are violating God’s will — and good Christians should view them that way. It turns policy issues into religious conflicts. Such a politician may be impervious to reason, evidence or compromise. If God has blessed an idea — and told you so personally — what possible argument could dissuade you?
Dividing the Electorate Into Believers (Helpful) and Non-Beleivers (A Hindrance): Gov. Palin suggested that her work as governor would be hampered “if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.” That means that if Gov. Palin fails, it will be in part because non-believers have not been “right” with God. So we’ll certainly know who to blame. It also ascribes largely spiritual explanations to the success or failure of policy, which makes assessing her performance nearly impossible. If she stumbles, it’s our fault.
Insensitivity to Religious Minorities: There’s been much attention to Gov. Palin having sat in the audience during a sermon from the head of Jews for Jesus, an organization most Jews find offensive. Honestly, a lot of the reason folks became so exercised with this is as kharmic retribution for the right holding Sen. Obama accountable for the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. I doubt this Jews for Jesus sermon would have gotten any attention without the Wright precedent. Until we know whether Gov. Palin herself actually agreed with this, then this sermon should be no more held against Gov. Palin than Mr. Wright was against Sen. Obama — and actually less so since it was a one-shot guest sermon.
What should be of concern to religious minorities is that Palin signed a resolution establishing a Christian Heritage Week. It didn’t actually declare the U.S. to be an officially Christian nation but it plucked Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians. In many other cases, this same technique has been used to promote the argument that America was created to be a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is a myth. Now, I’m willing to drop this from the list if can be shown that also has a Jewish Heritage and Muslim Heritage and Secular Heritage Week (I’m not holding my breath). That would mean she wasn’t giving preference to one religion over another.
posted September 13, 2008 at 6:30 am
The comment was made: “it’s important to figure out whether you’re on God’s side” in reference to ending human life on a massive scale.
What frightens me the most is that so few who supposedly hold christian values fail to see the error in this.
Did Christ ever end a life, or teach us that it was acceptable to end a life? Yet here we have christians pondering if it is Gods will to engage in an activity that has already ended tens of thousands of lives.
The answer is very simple, and it speaks VOLUMES about the character of Sarah Palin that she even has to ask it …
war is NEVER Gods will
killing is NEVER Gods will
posted September 13, 2008 at 10:56 am
If you’re praying that it’s God’s plan, who are you praying to? You’re taking her statement to not really be a prayer, but a hope. She’s saying, “I hope that this is God’s plan”. Lincoln was taking responsibility for making a major decision. He also was using the word to mean hope. My only point is that Gov. Palin’s words seem more ambiguous to me than to you. I’m not sure what she was trying to say, but it did seem to imply more than hope.
Also, Progressive Revival, which I’m following along with Crunchy Con, and I’ll read your blog now, needs more posts.
posted September 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Don, I concede that there’s some ambiguity. Partly I was writing because I was a) upset that Gibson took her words out of context. The quote he presented did have a different meaning (even if it still has some ambiguity) than the way she actually said it. And B) there are so many other more clear cut things to ask her about
posted September 13, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Good points. I agree.
posted September 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm
DGF,
Re: war is NEVER Gods will
killing is NEVER Gods will
Allow me to say, that I was NOT for this war in Iraq, nor am I for McCain -Palin knowing for ‘sure’ that they are not God’s will. Yet, I’ve become so amazed during the journey God sent me on as a ‘former’ atheist by His Amazing Grace, about how many don’t really ‘know’ God’s Word and some don’t even know God. Yet, all know, I guess, that we were given a Word in the last days that “there will be wars, and rumors of wars.”
I know from personal experience that God and His ways are very complex like He says in Isaiah 55: 8,9 saying His ways are not our ways, etc. God is so very awesome that it is above humans to FULLY understand. Maybe why faith is required. From my experience with Him, it’s almost like expecting an ant to understand the Theory of Relativity – God is so vast. Humility is definitely required regarding God. Sure, we were instructed via Moses “Thou shall not kill.” However, shortly after that Word was given by Moses, God sent Joshua to kill, thus war. War at times has been God’s will as we see in scripture. A few KJV:
Joshua 1:12 spake Joshua, saying,
1:13 Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD
commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given
you rest, and hath given you this land.
Joshua 4:13 About forty thousand prepared for war passed
over before the LORD unto battle, to the plains of Jericho.
4:14 On that day the LORD magnified Joshua in the
sight of all Israel;
Joshua 6:2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into
thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty
men of valour. 6:3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye
men of war, and go round about the city once.
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the
edge of the sword.
Joshua 6:27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised
throughout all the country.
War AND killing was definitely God’s will in that case, among others. Iraq, however, wasn’t. Maybe in Afganistan. He hasn’t revealed it to me yet, if He chooses. PHN!
Blessings,
His ambassador, prophetess
posted September 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I think the pipeline issue is worse than this. But read her quote closely. I think it could be paraprased like this: pray for our soldiers being sent out on a task from God? if its not pray that it is.
Its disturbing because its not that she was praying that we change, it was God she wanted to change his mind.
posted September 18, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Even if you do pray to be on God’s side, you still want to be on the “holy” side, so there is not much difference between what Palin said and explained to Gibson after the video of her Wasilla speech came out. Unless she were praying to herself rather than to God, I don’t see how she not wishes to be on his side and the Iraq war part of His will. Besides, who exactly are all the other people on the other side? We don’t even know if it is really what she meant as far as God’s plan goes, because there are many more statements that she made of this nature. I’ve made a small collection of her quotes here…
http://thereligionofpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-narrow-georeligious-view.html#links
posted September 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Actually, it doesn’t really matter if you pray to be on God’s side, because in doing so, you still want God to be on your side. I don’t see much difference between her speech in the church and her response to Gibson. Besides, what about all the other christians who opposed the war, or those who don’t believe in such prayer in the first place? They also make up that “other side” as far as God’s will goes. Gibson did not ask her all the right questions, and she did make worse statements than what was mentioned on ABC. By the way, you can read these and learn why Palin lacks depth in her beliefs…
http://thereligionofpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-gibson-needed-to-ask-palin.html
http://thereligionofpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-narrow-georeligious-view.html
posted December 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Waldman again shows incompetency when dealing with the views of those like Palin. What is a problem with declaring a “Christian Heritage” week? As a nation, we did in fact receive influence from the Christian faith in instituting our open free marketplace of religious ideas. Many of our laws reflect a Judeo-Christian sense of morality that had already been in place in Europe. Just by her signing on for a “Christian Heritage” week does not mean she or others are advocating a Christian Theocracy in America. America has benefitted greatly from the convictions that the Christian faith brought to many of our leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln, and yes many members of the founders of our democratic repuclic.
What is more incredible is that you attack those who, in your opinion, “have plucked Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians.” Sir, the quotes have always been available for all to see, and they speak for themselves. While our Founders did value not having govt. rule and restrict religion, and vice versa, it is factual that all, to some degree, did see value and inspiration coming from the teachings of Christ and the Christian faith. This is fact; to deny it and argue that those who referrence these quotes are dishonest is in itself disingenuous and dishonest yourself. Very unbecoming. What is more alarming and comical is when some take other quotes of the Founder’s way out of context to deny that these men generally revered and adhered to the Christian faith, and that the did not intend some man-made seperation of church FROM state in their founding principles. These were not borderline atheists. Drop the political correct agenda and please accurately represent all the facts. .
posted January 15, 2009 at 9:56 pm
In this article, Walden has done an excellent job of showing that the Left, too, resorts to gross dishonesty and rhetorical dirty tricks when ‘framing’ their enemies.
In this article, I have to agree with Walden 100%: the way she was quoted out of context, and even LIED to while being interviewed, is thoroughly dishonest.
Once upon a time, I thought I could get away with believing that no one on the Left could sink so low. But Walden has proved how wrong that was.
That said, I have to say that Palin simply did not do her homework. She left herself wide open for these dirty tricks, simply by being SO unprepared. This is as reckless and irresponsible as stepping out onto the mat in a Karate contest against a black-belt, when you are still only a yellow-belt. If it was really not possible to prepare her better for the interviews, then the Republicans should have chosen somebody else.