Palin “Mission from God” misquoted by AP
I am disgusted that our media is so biased, so blind to objectivity that they can’t even report basic statements and issues legitimately. When tapes from Obama’s Church came out, most credible right-wing/conservative pundits were careful to not take comments like, “God damn the U.S. of KKK A.” out of context. But now that this “religious zealot” Sarah Palin is on the scene, the left is straining to make her look silly and overly religious.
The AP reported a quote from recent tape of Palin talking at Church. Their quote in the article was, “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.” This is to be interpreted that Sarah Palin claims that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. That in her opinion, there is no question that it is a God-approved action.
This quote, however, was taken out of context. Here’s what she said with this comment IN CONTEXT:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.“
Not only does Palin not say that the war in Iraq is a task from God, rather she more importantly expresses the hope and prayer that indeed it is just, fair, and within the will of God. Something I hope every member of Congress and the Bush administration pauses to ask from time to time.
September 8, 2008 at 7:50 am
what task was she referring to?
September 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I believe she is referring to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan…
September 9, 2008 at 12:40 am
Hey, you right-wing haters made the bed. Now you get to lay in it.
Beat up on Obama for months about something somebody else said in his church, now you want to whine about Sarah Palin’s own words coming back to haunt her?
Get used to the attention.
Palin has invoked God and God’s will any number of times for such things as justification of the war in Iraq, natural gas pipelines in Alaska, and if you go back far enough probably some of her high school basketball games.
September 9, 2008 at 3:56 am
There’s an easy way she can correct the story – - the same way every other candidate for national office does: hold a press conference and explain her side.
Until she holds a real, free and open press conference (and no, a softball lifestyle interview with Charlie Gibson doesn’t count) the rest of us will be forced to wonder what she’s hiding.
Really doesn’t seem like too much to ask of someone who could potentially be in charge of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in as little as 4 months.
September 9, 2008 at 5:23 am
For what its worth… the first place that I saw the short lived book banning rumor quashed was on the Huffington Post. It seems that she did bring up the subject three times with the librarian. Also, I’m quite aware of the whole quote about Iraq and its context. To me it sounds just like Bush trying to find some sort of divine sanction.
You said, “the left is straining to make her look silly and overly religious.”
I dont have any problem with any quantity of personal religious conviction. The operative word is PERSONAL. Thats just how I was raised. What concerns me about Palin is how much it seems she brought extreme right-wing religious ideology into the usually non-partisan world of local politics. She did it for the purpose of creating wedge issues where none had existed before. She did this in WASILLA. Again this sounds too much like Bush/Rove style politics by division.
Lastly, i feel your frustration with seeing the critical issues of the day being ignored or overwhelmed by swarms of gossip column trivialities. Im sick and tired of all the “analysis” news shows and round tables and the latest polling and the playing the latest political of for the “brand X” candidate and then his opponents and on and on and on and on.
What i want is fact checking. Thats it. I can handle the rest myself, thank you very much. When both candidates are blasting away at each others plans for taxation, i dont care who is responding to what commercials (on the east side of such and such swing-state) just give me a PIE CHART of what it will look like and bug off.
Take care
September 9, 2008 at 6:02 am
Texas Buddah- you misunderstand…the problem is not that her words in Church are brought up, rather that they are brought up, taken out of context such that they have a whole different meaning. The media is not supposed to do that. They aren’t pundit hacks like Olbermann or O’reilly. The AP is supposed to be a source of objective reporting so that, as WidgetBrain mentioned, we can get actual facts and decide for ourselves.
What is wrong with pondering the question of what God thinks of what our nation is doing? What is wrong with expressing the hope that our cause is just? Why report on that and talk about that with disgust and chide Palin and others for remembering God?
Before you leftists and Marxists start rambling about how religion should not be in politics, you have to realize that religion will, and should, play a part in one’s decision making and will help shape their judgement. Global Warming is every bit a religion now as Christianity (probably has more follwers than Christianity) and is every bit a part of politics…
Anyway, I think WidgetBrain nailed it…”just give me a PIE CHART…” I totally agree. There are plenty of real reasons to be for or against the two tickets. We don’t need to worry about whether or not BO is a muslim, went to a madrassa, etc. or if Palin is pentacostal, generic christian, a hunter, good mom, bad mom, etc.
What do they say they want to do if elected? That is what our votes should be based on. If you want the bat-snot taxed out of you, vote B.O. If you want non-activist judges, vote for Mac. If you want to run away from the war, vote B.O. If you want to take responsibility for our nation’s actions and stabilize Iraq, vote Mac…on and on and on…
September 9, 2008 at 8:09 am
The AP misreports things, and it happens both ways, from that very same organization. Watch Obama’s acceptace speech, then read the AP story about it and tell me it was at all accurate.
Yeah, our media is manipulative, and that’s no good. But it’s a side effect, I think of having a 24-hour news cycle and the need to fill it and get ratings at the same time.
As for Palin, she’s a dangerous fanatic who’s totally ignorant of international, military and economic affairs, who mismanaged Wasilla and Alaska and is the very kind of pork-barrel politician that she, McCain, and the Media tell us she’s a champion against. I fear for America should she become President – we’ve had enough of stupid, extremist loonies running the place. Policy informed by religious values is one thing; policy dictated by fanatics is quite another.
September 9, 2008 at 8:38 am
Sorry.
I guess I’m the only one that fails to see the difference when you take the quote “in context”.
It didn’t prove anything.
Her dominionist viewpoints are very dangerous to forward thinking Americans.
September 9, 2008 at 9:52 am
What evidence do you have that Palin is a religious fanatic, Ardwulf? How is she dominionist, mc? Just because someone believes in God and isn’t afraid to mention it does not make one a fanatic. When I think “religious fanatic” I think of Jonesboro, 9/11, President Ahmadinejad, etc. I hardly consider a “believer” a threat to “forward thinking.”
If that’s the standard, than anyone who buys into Global Warming is just as dangerous a fanatic as someone whose views on war, abortion, and justice have Christian roots.
September 9, 2008 at 10:30 am
She is a member of a Dominionist congregation, even though she claims not to be. The pastor at the church she worships at is connected to a Dominionist movement. Dominionist groups have universally supported her as one of their own. I think it’s pretty safe to say that she has Dominionist leanings even without examining her political positions.
But it’s those positions that really scare me; her position on Abortion is actually totally legitimate, although frankly it’s a much more complex ethical issue than the rhetoric from either side would have anyone believe. But human-driven climate change and evolution are both facts, like it or not, and failing to recognize that is either intellectually dishonest or a result of being misinformed. The President of the United States cannot afford to be misinformed, nor can we as a country afford another President who is intellectually dishonest.
Palin is an extremist, not a mainstream Christian.
September 9, 2008 at 10:41 am
Ummm…”human-driven climate change and evolution” are not facts. They are both theories supported by some evidence and refuted by other evidence. It is not intellectually dishonest to take the position that modern evolutionary theory does not explain all aspects of natural development or that greenhouse gas emissions from human technology directly impacts the climate when there are plenty of sound studies and evidence that support that position.
September 9, 2008 at 10:54 am
The fact that people are using this one AP quote to show basis in the favor of the left is laughable. The AP is a sad skeleton of what was once a constant in objective journalism. Due to AP Fournier’s slanted reporting and encouraging others to follow his lead this organization has become just another of the right wing corporate agents of maintaining the status quo.
As far as this being unfair to Simple Sarah, one needs to take into account what her church believes which is simple to ascertain with just a bit of effort. They believe we are in the End Times and that Alaska will be a refuge state when the world comes to an end. This mentality makes it easy to ignore serious world and domestic events by saying: “God, will solve it all so when Jesus returns “which is radical and to me mentally ill.
This woman is an extremist to make a woman bear the child of her rapist is not something most people support. Killing wolves from the air and not believing in global warming and using God’s plan in anyway dealing with war are all extreme positions that signal a very scary black and white, Us vs Them mentality that will lead at least to years of discord if not out and out social war.
September 9, 2008 at 10:57 am
sfbguy,
What about the theory of gravity?
Or theory of relativity?
Find a REPUTABLE scientist that denies the impact of man-made carbon emissions on the environment.
Or for that matter, one that stakes his scientific reputation on the basis of creationism.
September 9, 2008 at 11:06 am
I’m not sure but it may be just me; but the context you’re providing doesn’t sound much different.
“Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.”
The quote clearly indicates that Palin believes the mission is one of God’s particular interest. She isn’t specific to clarify which “task” she’s referring to, however — the task of raiding foreign soil or the inevitable damage control which follows.
Perhaps we’re applying some of our own contexts here as well. =)
September 9, 2008 at 11:07 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Google is cool…
Also there are countless scientists who believe in creationism and can balance their objectivity. As a geneticist myself, I absolutely rely on scientific method and an unbiased scientific approach, but that also allows me to bear in mind that there is more to all of this than we know. The opposite of science is NOT creationism. The opposite of evolution is NOT creationism.
September 9, 2008 at 11:17 am
sfbguy,
Nonetheless, I’m sure your field of study has lead you to understand the necessary significance of evolutionary science. To state that “the opposite of evolution is not creationism” speaks nothing of the fact that evolution still stands as our best model for explaining complexity.
To speak otherwise would demand a more plausible model — one that I doubt you or anyone else for that matter can provide.
September 9, 2008 at 11:18 am
“Ummm…”human-driven climate change and evolution” are not facts. They are both theories supported by some evidence and refuted by other evidence. It is not intellectually dishonest to take the position that modern evolutionary theory does not explain all aspects of natural development…”
I’m going to try to briefly answer this and leave it at that, in the hopes of not derailing somebody’s blog with a lengthy debate about evolution.
Evolutionary theory explicitly regognizes the fact that it cannot at present “explain all aspects of natural development,” and people who are actually familar with the scientific method realize that it’s very unlikely to ever get to the point that it does so. This does not undermine the basic fact of evolution. There is much evidence that challenges various nuances of the theory; there is absolutely none – not a shred – that challenges the fact of evolution itself.
Acknowledging evolution is not about belief, it’s about recognition of an established and demonstrable fact. Its opponents oppose it on religious, not scientific grounds, and it’s not even a universally held viewpoint among Christians. It’s fine – intellectually dishonest or not – to hold that view; the founding fathers ensured us that right. It’s unconstitutional, unethical and un-American to mandate that the tenets of a specific branch of Christianity be taught in public schools.
September 9, 2008 at 11:18 am
I said REPUTABLE.
September 9, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ardwulf,
And apparently, some of our founding fathers discouraged it as well.
Thomas Jefferson:
“To talk of immaterial substances is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise … without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.”
September 9, 2008 at 11:24 am
I don’t think the quote “clearly indicates that Palin believes the mission is one of God’s particular interest.” The context of “also” refers back to praying for our soldiers, and she then says to pray also for the leaders that they are sending them on a mission that is right in the eyes of God. This is something I pray for all the time- that our leaders will be inspired and lead to make decisions that are right. What’s the harm done if you don’t believe in God?
I believe that God does inspire men to do what is right. Am I a zealot for that? Man, I sure hope that our definition of religious zeal has not diminished to that low a litmus test.
September 9, 2008 at 11:25 am
So by reputable you mean “believe the same as mc”?
September 9, 2008 at 11:32 am
I immediately noticed that a lot of the people on that list actually explicitly acknowledge global warming.
September 9, 2008 at 11:37 am
sfbguy,
You believe that God inspires men to do what is right. And what is to say of men who do wrong? Furthermore, men who do wrong in God’s name?
My argument is not one of ‘good intent versus bad intent’. My argument is that of people who believe their judgments are somehow merited by God’s guidance — as to make their judgments reasonable. These people, IMO, don’t need seats of jurisdiction — especially the case when regarding a woman of religious faith.
September 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm
ciscorey…you like the idea of throwing out quotes from the founding fathers…what about the fact that they acknowledged divine guidance? Under your premise, the Constitution is crap because the concepts it contains were, according to the authors, “merited by God’s guidance.”
We’d be a lot better off with political leaders who not only espouse Christianity, but live it, as the founders did, to a much better extent than today’s leaders.
September 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Have you ever fallen asleep during long road trip and woken up hours later to wonder how the heck you ended up here…?
September 9, 2008 at 2:03 pm
ROTFLMBO
Thanks, everyone for pitching in!
September 12, 2008 at 8:03 am
“Before you leftists and Marxists start rambling about how religion should not be in politics, …”
We leftists won’t stop unless you rightists and Nazis stop lumping us with Marxists.
And in fact, the point is that religious beliefs should serve to reinforce rational decisions, not be a substitute for them, or in the case of Bush/Palin, stand in direct opposition to them. That’s what separates us from you Christian Taliban.
September 12, 2008 at 10:37 am
Wow…you don’t know much about fascism, do you? If you did, you’d find that conservatives are not Nazis/fascists nor are they even close by comparison to the left. The Democratic platform is fascism with a smile. Doubt me? Read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg. B.O.’s entire platform is rife with Marxist ideology mixed with pure socialism.
As for “Bush/Palin”, I’d love to see an example where their religious beliefs are in direct opposition to “rational decisions.”
And by the way- I know this is hard for you lefties to understand, but just to be clear, BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!! He is out of there in January no matter what. MoveOn already…