I dug up another quote by Sarah Palin and I thought readers should consider just how deeply offensive appeals to God during war time are.
It has been fun watching the Democrats and the media gun for Governor Sarah Palin. And when they dug up that terrible dirt about her claiming our troops fighting in Iraq were doing God's work, I was appalled. So I dug up another quote by Palin and I thought readers should consider just how deeply offensive appeals to God during war time are.
Well, I will tell you how it was. In the pinch of the campaign in Iraq when everybody seemed panic stricken and nobody could tell what was going to happen, oppressed by the gravity of our affairs, I went to my room one day and locked the door and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed to Him mightily for victory. I told Him that this war was His war, and our cause His cause, but we could not stand another 9/11 . . . And after that, I don't know how it was, and I cannot explain it, but soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul. The feeling came that God had taken the whole business into His own hands and that things would go right in Iraq . . .
So much for separating God from our war against terrorism! Maybe Jeremy Gerard at Bloomberg News was right when he wrote: “Gibson didn't ask (Palin) if she has any clue about the principle of separation of church and state on which her beloved United States was founded. I wish he had.”
Shame on Sarah Palin! Only one problem. This is not a Sarah Palin quote (sorry for that little act of deception). Substitute the appropriate battles (Gettysburg and Chancellorsville ) and this is Abraham Lincoln, by many considered our greatest president, seeking God’s help and guidance during a difficult time during the Civil War. (And of course we have those on the Left comparing Senator Obama to Jesus, the latest community organizer — and, geez, I thought he was preaching, not getting out the vote . . . oh well.)
Now, that said, let me be perfectly clear. Sarah Palin may not be ready to be president (she has more experience than Lincoln, but then Lincoln wasn’t spared personal attacks either). But is she any less qualified than Barack Obama who heads the ticket for the Democrats? They are both smart, charismatic leaders who, with a little seasoning, could be ready for the presidency in a few years, assuming you agree with them on the issues.
The problem for those supporting Senator Obama is that he is heading up the Democratic ticket and Governor Palin is the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republicans. The person running with the most experience and best equipped to be commander in chief is John McCain. Second most qualified, if you consider years of experience and exposure to international issues, is of course Senator Biden. Should we lobby for a McCain-Biden ticket?
The hysteria being displayed by the liberal-left over Palin is the hysteria of those who sense, rightly or not, power slipping from their grasp. She has a nice quality about her – a real, authentic voice that does not have the slippery feel of the Obama-Clinton style.
People like it. They like McCain for the same reason. The guy is real. He doesn’t duck and weave and bob – he just says it the way he sees it. So does Palin.
But in fairness, Obama has been in the national limelight for more than a year and he has been – to a degree – exposed to the American people. Palin is new on the national stage so it is legitimate to ask questions about her experience, her abilities and her positions on issues.
What is not legitimate is the kind of trash journalism and commentary being practiced by the celebrity/media Left at her expense. What is not acceptable is applying one standard to Palin, and another to Obama and the Democrats. It is a sad day for the Democratic Party and their friends in the media when they are concerned about a 17-year-old girl being pregnant but lionize two former married presidents who used their power to maneuver girls not much older than 17 into situations where they might have gotten pregnant. Please.
Here is the good news. Most Americans, I believe, are capable of seeing through the leftist agenda and getting to the heart of things. At the end of the day, Senator Obama is to the far left on domestic issues, lacks foreign policy experience and savvy and has barely functioned as a U.S. Senator.
Don’t blame Palin, Democrats, because you selected a guy who probably needed another four years. The Republicans chose a soldier and a leader who has been consulting with presidents for nearly 30 years. God willing, Palin will get the time she needs to expand her portfolio of experience and she sure as heck is smart enough and savvy enough to function at the highest levels of our government.
But come November, the presidential candidate for the Democrats will be a man who has spent less time as a functioning member of the Senate than Palin has as an active Governor running a state. American voters will have to judge if they think he is better prepared than McCain; heck, they might even pray about it.
"Worked up into a lather?" Hardly. The only frustration I have were her is her total cluelessness.
You on the other hand are not clueless. Just wrong.
Very good Suzanne. However, I am betting that, to you, conservatives are the wolves and liberals the lambs. That is the opposite of reality when it has been socialists in liberal camouflage destroying our republican system to remake it in the Marxist mold. Franklin's warning was against those who abuse democracy to push non-republican measures that corrupt government. He would have included collectivism and welfare in that category. The fact you think socialism expedient to guard the weak against those more enterprising does not change that you wind up with wolves in charge of the lambs. Socialism makes wolves of those in charge, whatever their label and ideology.
fi11222,
The religious exposition was interesting, but it is not clear from this what it is you mean about Palin? Are you saying she is not fit to lead? Are you saying she has no attributes worthy of placement in the token slot other than she's a token?
What excites the conservative base is more than the attractive package. That is important, too, because we realize package matters in getting elected. But, Palin is also at least as sharp as anyone else on either ticket. She has more executive experience than either Democrat, and is on par with McCain. Her values are fairly sound and hard to dispute. And, she's no push over for the media to destroy.
How do we know package matters? Because McCain doesn't excite parts of his own base and has little attraction to those disaffected among Democrats. Obama has been riding on his appearance of youthful masculity even more than his message (which is weak). Biden was chosen to make Obama more believable to those losing confidence in him. Elections this close come down to margins and without the Palin attraction McCain would likely lose this one.
Elections should not be beauty contests and I agree, but they are. Palin was not chosen because she is smart and has the right politics; she was chosen because she is smart, articulate, has the right politics, hasn't got a past that could harm her, doesn't fumble, and is highly attractive to boot. So, if it takes a little 'sexual attraction' to keep Obama out of the White House, I am all for it.
FI11222,
Being homely did not make Ginsberg a better choice for Supreme Court judge and being a sourpuss did not make Albright as brilliant as her name implies. Yet, it was this unattractiveness that made some people think them more capable than they are (i.e., ugly women have to work harder to get where they are). Beauty does not automatically make a woman an imbecile any more than homeliness confers intellect.
Bob, thanks for the comments. If Palin is a token, she is a horribly wrong one if you take "token" as a synonym "symbol".
Palin is a very vocal traditional christian and yet she uses to the hilt all the symbols of the sacred-feminine oriented idol worship that permeates our culture. Just imagine the prophet Ezekiel having his anti-idolatry tracts distibuted by young girls dressed to look like Ishtar or some other popular goddess of the time because his marketing guru told him that it would "sell better".
That might surely have worked in the near term but it would certainly have created an uproar among his own followers and we would probably never have heard of him. He would most probably have been labeled with a word that is abundantly used in the New Testament and is therefore also part of the core of our intellectual heritage: "Hypocrite"!
In the NT, this word is mostly associated with the "Scribes and the Pharisees". For most of us, this does not ring much of a bell. But if you look at the position of these "Scibes an Pharisees" in the Jewish society of the time, it is quite easy to see that they were more or less the "conservatives" of the era. They were the Republican Party of Judea in the 1st century A.D.
What does that tell us ? That hypocrisy is the perennial scourge and pitfall of the conservatives of all times. Having Palin on the ticket is a golden opportunity for Obama to picture the Christian Right and, by extension, the whole Republican Party, as the camp of hypocrisy. In the short run, the fact that she is a woman will impose some restraint. But evantually, that restraint will erode because Palin IS an hypocrite and you cannot hide that sort of thing for long when you are in full public view all the time. Palin CANNOT be a sincere christian and not realize that she is using the visual vocabulary of contemporary idolatry to succeed. She is supposed to read the Bible every day isnt it ? How can she not realize that this passage of Paul, for example, does indict her: "1 Corinthians 10:7 Do not be idolaters as some of them [the Israelites in the Sinai desert] were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” [...] 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. [...] 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? ".
In the XIXth century, European conservatism was closely associated with the Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in many countries. Accusations of Hypocrisy had been a problem for the Church since the Reformation. But these accusations reached tremendous proportions in XIXth century Europe and became the rallying cry of all the sundry radical groups who would have been hardly united in purpose otherwise. As a result, we had the French Revolution, then the Socialist Internationals, the Commune and then 1917 in Russia.
Hypocrisy is the best gift a conservative can make to a radical. We should avoid it at any cost. Even if that means losing an election.
JD Will,
Would Hamilton have supported social programs? Give examples, I would sooner suspect Franklin than Hamilton, and Franklin made clear he looked to local communities to supply education and poor relief, not federal government. Similarly, “Unions as a counter to mega-corporations” does not support a Hamiltonian approach to government. Hamilton would have objected to unions as an impediment to commerce. Jefferson might have supported them as ‘democratic’, but might also have condemned them as too radical in the aftermath of the French Terror.
“Welfare safety net” Now, that is really stretching to make an attribution. The ‘general welfare’ spoken of in the preamble to the Constitution is nothing like modern welfare-statism. The Constitution calls for government to “promote” welfare; not manage it or reassign wealth. The very idea would have been repugnant to men dedicated to belief in the individual capacity to “… manage our affairs without reference to government.”
Universal Healthcare is code speak for socialist healthcare management. It doesn’t work in Britain and the results have been hyped for places like Sweden and Canada (where it is a joke). Government run healthcare services lack accountability, are mismanaged, create scarcity, and discourage medical advancement.
Regulation is not a conservative principle. Regulating the market is a ‘progressive’ notion started in the late 19th century that saw its wildest expression in FDR socialism.
Our public education system is a joke and did not make our country great. Give me one example where our system of education exceeds that of leading socialist or autocratic nations. Britain’s public (private) schools turned out better students. Catholic schools in this country (until recently) consistently outperformed our public schools. German and American military academies, pre-WWII Japanese schools, even Chinese schools turn out kids ready to compete. Ours turn out semi-literate consumer-workers; and, that is by design. What has made this country both great and the envy of the world is not our education, it is our freedom (which is still more than most have) and our enterprise.
Okay, Obama writes well enough, and entertainingly. So what? What does he say that is so darned intelligent? Nothing.
No one disputes Obama is intelligent, but ‘hyper-intelligent’ he is not, not even close. Read his policy proposals on his website, and then read the many critiques made of them, some by fellow Democrats. The guy has absolutely no economic credibility, his terrorism and foreign policies would encourage terrorists and rogue states to adventure, his energy notions are the slave-children of a dogmatic, in-your-face environmental policy, and his welfare programs and wealth redistribution is ruinously expensive. The guy is a cliché who has people convinced he’s a heavyweight.
By what measure is Obama “a step above in intellectual curiosity”, and how does that make him more intelligent than the next slob. There are lots of bright minds on this one site alone, some who are loaded with curiosity. Would you say he’s more intelligent than us? Many believe we are above average yet less than geniuses. What insight we have comes through hard work. Obama could achieve that kind of insight, but, so far, he’s been intellectually lazy drawing from the erudition of giants and relying on hackneyed but cherished phrases with which to inspire. This qualifies him for a church pulpit, union organizer, or rabble-rouser, not a President of the United States.
How do you know he’s more intellectually active than the other candidates? McCain is acknowledged as an intellectually active guy by his fellow Senators. I can’t say which of them are better read, but McCain has had more time in which to both read and digest. McCain has written and co-written, not one but, a large number of books; including accounts of his time in the Hanoi Hilton, histories, politics, and opinion of intelligence estimates. In addition, he has authored (not just sponsored) several pieces of legislation. Have you read any of these to see which is the more intellectually developed? McCain takes the time to understand the legislation he supports, and works hard at garnering support and selling his ideas. The same cannot be said of Obama who has sponsored one piece of legislation in the Senate and authored exactly none. Selling hard ideas to an inattentive audience like Congress is also an intellectual exercise; one more demanding than empathizing and emoting.
Fred Thompson has far more understanding of history and political philosophy, Mitt Romney knows far more about economics and the role of government, and Jim Gilmore runs a think-tank. So, calling Obama more "intellectually active than any of the primary candidate field of either party" tells me you've only glanced at the field or looked at guys like Huckabee and Kucinich.
I may not like McCain as a choice for President, but that is hardly the same as calling McCain v. Obama “a binary choice”. As this term is generally applied (coin toss), it implies there is no appreciable difference between the two. I have already outlined three significant differences between them, two regarding policy and one of character. Regarding the latter, McCain has it while Obama has chosen to keep his hidden. What I know of him, I find unsavory and not just because others think so. His politics are, without question, abominable to me. I don't like McCain's stances on immigration, ANWR and campaign finance, but I respect him for defending positions that made him less popular. The war and border are, for me the defining issues. Other issues, while still important, must take a back seat to those.
No, Haidt didn't mean classical-liberalism; he meant that counterfeit for liberalism properly called socialism. Classical-liberalism is something very specific, well-defined and unmistakable. Haidt wouldn't know classical- liberalism if it bit him in the butt. Somehow, I doubt he's even heard the term or, if he has, knows how it relates to the ideology he now deems 'the real deal'. Read his article again. The clues are all there that he believes in all the trappings of socialism: “… economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies", "diversity and progress ", his regard of Mill (a progressive) as archetypal libertarian (whereas Mill advocated has come to be regarded as 'creeping socialism') and Dukheim (a socialist). In the twentieth paragraph after the intro, he shows us he defines 'liberal' in terms of those values today's liberals share, not those values classical-liberals regarded liberal (complete with slider switches allowing the liberal to 'adjust his morals' as appropriate to changing circumstance). This is not a fixed political or moral philosophy, but a kaleidoscope of evolving liberal preferences. Haidt believes that all the things that have been grafted onto and force fit into the liberal label in the 2+ centuries since the founding are what make modern-liberalism the equivalent of classical-liberalism.
Bob:
In brief: Obama speaks of Grandiosities; McCain speak of practicalities.
Palin is the visual equivalent of the Prostitute in Revelation, according to our contemporary iconographic vocabulary. The Prostitute, seated on a beast, is a quite transparent reference to the Mesopotamian Goddess Ishtar who was often represented seated on a Lion (btw, the Hindu Goddess Durga is still represented seated on a tiger to this day). Ishtar/Astarte was an extremely popular goddess all over the middle East and had been for at least 3000 years when Revelation was written.
What is the equivalent of Ishtar in our modern culture. It is not very difficult to pinpoint. Supermodels, actresses, every pretty female face that adorns our magazines and TV shows and which everyone more or less worships. Palin's outward's appearance is in the same category and as such she is committing the worst crime against God according to her supposedly christian standards: infringing the first commandment.
Doesnt that make her a hypocrite ? See comments 99 and 105 above for more.
Well, it looks like McCain-Palin has lost the fringe religious vote.
Fi11222,
Here I thought the worst crime against G*d was the worshiping of false gods. Adultery (the commandment covering prostitution) comes 7th right after murder. In Judaism, we have 613 mitzvot to observe. We don't put them in any particular order of precidence, observing all of them being more important than sifting them in a futile attempt at out-guessing G*d. If you read the commandments (or mitzvot) as a whole rather than focusing on individual 'crimes', we see they comprise a code for living amicably and honorably. Without the element of honor, they'd be just a set of rules. By observing all (to the best of our ability), we fullfill G*d's first commandment which is to love (thereby staying out of Satan's clutches).
I will have to take your word for the rest of your scriptural referents as I am not well versed even in my own, but you are sounding suspiciously like someone who has made up his mind and is fishing amongst those references for a justification to libel and hate a fellow human being. If I read you right, you accuse Palin of prostituting herself for political gain, using her looks to create advantage, and, therefore, hold her in contempt as a prostitute. By that standard, we are all of us prostitutes (you included) with men no more exempt from the charge than women. Scriptural prostitution is specific and has to do with women selling bodily sexual favors only. It is not a prescription to rant against attractive women using their charms in every possible situation to some advantage. Ester was, by any standard an observant Jew and a girl of high morals. Yet, she put both her physical and intellectual charms to work saving her people. Using your ‘logic’, she was a prostitute who ought to have been stoned to death.
I am a Jew rather than a Christian, but isn't the message of Christ supposed to be one of love? Somehow, I think you are distorting that message and, in the process, giving secularists good reason to despise both our religions. You also give Christians a bad name, for which they may not thank you. Perhaps someone better versed in scripture and not a misogynist would care to spar with you. For myself, I am done trying to reason with you and have no desire to engage in your politics of hate.
Bob, I am happy to be talking to a Jew. Jews (and muslims) have as a rule kept a better memory than Christians of what it is that we owe God in the first place, i.e. respect and awe. As far as I am concerned, I do not consider myself a Christian (I do not believe in JC in the flesh) but a monotheist and therefore heir to that tradition as a whole.
You misread me completely but I am not surprised nor in the least resentful as what I am talking about is almost completely forgotten and therefore difficult to retrieve and express. I am groping in the dark trying to find something long lost so please bear with me.
When I am labeling Palin a "Prostitute" or a "Sex Goddess", this has nothing to do with her being sexually immoral. What I think she is guilty of, with respect to God, is Idolatry and not "sexual immorality" (NT expression) or of "Adultery" (equivalent OT and Jewish scripture expression, such as in the 7th commandment). "Prostitute" is a term often used in scripture (mainly the prophets) to describe idolatry, such as in the expression "Israel prostituted herself to the gods of the nations", and it is in that sense I use it here. I am making a specific reference to Revelation because in that text, this term is used in the classical OT sense but also more specifically to designate a particular and very well known middle eastern goddess, Ishtar, who is quite litterally a "Sex Goddess" as her greek counterpart (and probable copy) Venus.
You say that all God's commandments are on the same level and I disagree. The first of the ten, "You shall have no other gods before me" seems to be obviously placed above the others and both Jews, Christians and Muslims have traditionally understood it that way. What is the point of being a monotheist if you are not one ? Sexual adultery is only ranked 7th but it seems logical that spiritual adultery (going after other gods) be ranked first among crimes from a monotheist point of view.
Palin's crime, in my view is to be not only an Idolater but worse, a maker of idols; in her case, herself. I linked her to Ishtar for a specific purpose. At the time of the prophets, as well as for a long period before and after that time, the Middle East was heavily steeped in "sex Goddess" worship. She was called Innana in Sumer, Isthar in Akkadian and Astarte in the Aramaic languages that were spoken in most of the small states of the mediterranean coast surrounding Israel at the time of the prophets. There are a lot of aspects of that current of religiosity which are no longer relevant to our time but its core principle is. Ancient Ishtar-worship was a an adoration of the female immage in its seductive power, just as is our modern fascination for images of young attractive females. What is a "super model" if not an image of female seduction that we worship for its own sake ? She is not even an actress and her claim to celebrity is just to be an image and absolutely nothing more. An image of female seductive power just as each statue of Ishtar was a reflection of Ishtar. In order to understand the ancient Hebrews abhorrence of Idolatry, we have to remember that they not only claimed that there was only one God but also that they refused to make representations of even Him. The concept of Idolatry, understood in the light of that tradition, is not only the multiplicity of gods but is also characterized by the multiplication of the images (statues, paintings, …) of those various gods. In the Ancient Middle East, and also all over ancient Europe, there were statues and paintings of gods everywhere, from the small "houshehold gods" that everyone kept in his house to the giant masterpieces which adorned every main square and of course every temple. In Hindu India to this day the practice remains. Each shop has at least 2 or 3 "portraits of Gods" hanging in a corner. So has every house and naturally every temple. But it seems to me that they are not alone and that we modern "westerners" do the same. We have rock stars, TV presenters, football players, and yes, supermodels. And we multiply the imgages we make of them, with the added power that our technology gives us. In that context, what is Palin doing ? She is using the fact that her figure is sexually attractive enough to look like a representation of the modern Ishtar in order to place herself on a national ticket that her other achievements would otherwise put way beyond her reach. In that respect, her candidacy is chiefly idolatrous in the fact that it mostly boils down do the creation of a new idol image, her own, that is reproduced in millions of copies by the media. In so doing, she creates another sub-ishtar deity (herself) just as their were variations on the Ishtar theme all over the Middle Esat. There was the Ishtar of Ninneveh but also the Ishtar of Erech and many others. None was exactly the same but they all contributed to reinforce the worldwide (the middle east was "the world" for its inhabitants) Ishtar worship movement. In doing what she does, Palin is doing the same; paying homage to the general modern seductive female worship movement and thereby reinforcing it. She cannot claim to be doing so in the interests of her christian creed. As I said, you cannot be a monotheist by not being one.
Now the question remains: why were the prophets, and Jewish spiritual inspiration as a whole, so virulently against Idolatry? I do not have the space to deal with that aspect here in detail but I believe that one example may give us some clues; the Assyrians. As is quite well known, they were the fiercest and most ruthless of the empire building peoples of ancient mesopotamia. As a result they have sometimes been called, I believe with good reasons, the "Nazis of the ancient Middle East". It so happens that the Assyrians were of course polytheists, like everyone in that time except the hebrews, but also enthusiastic worshippers of Ishtar. One may be surprised at that discovery and ask why a warlike people worshipped a goddess of love. The reason is that we are mislead by the word "love". Ishtar was not a goddes of love, she was a goddess of seduction. But Ishtar was also a goddess of war. To a modern mind that seems odd. "Goddess of Love and war" seems an oxymoron. But if we call her, as is I believe more accurate, a goddess of "seduction and war", a new picture starts to emerge. Seduction and hatred are never far away, as we know too well. If we want to imagine what an assyrian dignitary was like I believe that the image of a Waffen SS officier gives us a pretty good idea. Cruel and blood loving warrior but also refined worshipper or Lili Marleen and "impeccable gentleman with the ladies". That sort of warped and disgusting combination. That is what idolatry of the seductive female image is at bottom. And that is why the ancient Hebrews loathed it.
Of course, Palin does not realize anything of all this. She is just an ignorant and stupid hypocrite like so many of her kind.
I am wondering if fi11222 is ever gooing to say anything that makes sense, either politically or figuratively. Hasn't happened yet.
It appears that Palin's chief sin is that she is young and attractive, and therefore evoking Ishtarian imagery. The fact that she is modestly dressed, the wife of one husband, and is a professing woman of faith seems irrelevant to fi11222.
I suppose that if she was old and unattractive, she would be guilty of something else equally unexplainable, perhaps evoking, say, Molech?
Over one hundred posts on this thread, dominated by an assortment of fringe kooks and koolaid drinkers. Thank God for the voices of sanity and reason intertwined herein; otherwise it would have been a total waste.
And all this time I thought Ishtar was just a really bad movie. Little did I know the strumpet Palin was trying to steal my soul.
Both MM and Bob have nailed it. The kooks on the Right can sure give the kooks on Left a run for their money. But at least we don’t give our kooks a free pass, and therein lies the difference.
I’m looking forward to having politically carnal relations with Sarah this November. It gives a whole new meaning to the imagery of getting screwed by a politician.
You can’t make this stuff up.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
Voltaire
What happens when God makes YOU look ridiculous, Suzanne?
Godless conservatism ? What is that ? At best, Ayn Randesque irrelevance. At worse, Nazism. What is there worth conserving anyway but the decrees of God's judgements ?
It seems to me that the last few posts contain an interesting assortment of some of the usual godless conservative blunders that tend to play so well into the hands of radicals, making their work of deception so much easier and their vacuous platforms seem so much more full of content.
1) Quoting Voltaire. Voltaire invented the technique of using the wit of the sophisticated courtier to win an argument of ideas that you would probably not win on the merits of your ideas alone. He called that "mettre les rieurs de son côté" (putting the laughter on ones side). Who benefits most from this technique ? The witty radical. It is always easier to make an honest man look ridiculous than it is to make a conman look ridiculous. The conman, after all, is a showman and knows his trade.
2) Playing the "holier than thou" card. "The fact that she is modestly dressed, the wife of one husband, and is a professing woman of faith seems irrelevant to fi11222.". Yes, it is irrelevant. As any moderately scrupulous pastor will tell you, salvation is not based on works. It is not because you are correctly dressed that you are saved. In the eyes of God, your good deeds are filthy rags, etc. etc. Making a show of one's righteousness is hypocrite. Hypocrisy is ridiculous and there is always a witty Voltarian radical waiting in the wings to exploit that sort of blunder to the hilt. Again, this is what undid XIXth century European conservatism and gave us 1789, 1848, 1870 and 1917.
3) being the archetypal American philistine. "And all this time I thought Ishtar was just a really bad movie …". My goodness, why do you think it is written: "my people perish for a lack of knowledge". Because a lack of knowledge (historical in particular) prevents you from understanding the very text of the Bible and therefore makes you vulnerable again to all the pitfalls that it is there to protect you against. How can you conserve what you do not understand ? How can you understand the concept of Idolatry which is so central in the Bible if you are unable to even understand how such a massively idolatrous cult as that of Ishtar operated ?
Somebody with a psychology degree and a passing familiarity with Shakespeare and Freud could have a field day with the thought process behind some of these comments.
MM and Suzanne,
MM Said "What happens when God makes YOU look ridiculous, Suzanne."
Obviously G*d makes us all a little ridiculous so we can eat humble pie and restore some of that perspective we think we have a monopoly on. I got to admit she caught us on that one, but might I suggest, Suzanne, your remarks have verged on the 'whacko' a few times and you are right sloppy with your facts, fallacies and fancies (She who lives in a glass house … and all that). You, too often, emote your way into a corner and then flail your way out. You should see yourself and other liberals through our eyes once in awhile to get an appreciation how ridiculous liberalism is taken to extremes and badly defended. If Conservatism is anything, it is a mirror with which to show so-called liberals just how little they still represent or appreciate that once proud concept. Just as ridiculous are leftist pretending to liberalism when they really mean socialist, communist, or just plain radical (and wouldn't know a real liberal if one fell out of the sky, fully clothed and quoting Locke, Smith and Montesque verbatim). I know this is hard for you to imagine (i.e., that your cherished beliefs are anything but liberal, way out in left field, and not really the way people would think were it not drummed into us from that very first episode of Sesame Street and Barney), but do try.
As pithy as your remark was, it is even funnier coming from someone who has yet to hold her own here. We don't stop people at the door because they wear aluminum-foil hats. Your remark was meant to cast aspersions on us for the company we keep. Well, that includes both you, Suzanne, and the guy with the funny cryptic moniker. Therefore, don't say things as applicable to you as the next (or as they say out west, don't come to a gunfight armed only with a knife), because you can be pretty sure we'll turn the tables on you and we've the wit to do it. And, if you're going to cut somebody, make sure you don't leave him/her able to cut you back.
What fi11222 is going on about is not conservatism, so your remark doesn't really apply. The type of argument he makes is as often made by the liberal religious fringe as the conservative religious fringe. Yes, he is a conservative, but it is not a conservative talking-point he is making, it is a moral precept (or at least his opinion of one). Moreover, this is an argument that is as applicable to Obama, McCain, and Biden. Apparently, he doesn't see it that way or doesn't care if it does because he's singling out Palin (and, I would have to suppose, Hillary) as though this restriction applies to women only. I can't quite fathom his reasoning from there on, and I don't really want to go down that particular rabbit hole with him. It appears, however, he sublimates all reasoning to scripture to the exclusion of all else. Theoretically, I suppose that may be a valid approach to reason (i.e., much of human reasoning can be found within scripture), but it supposes you a) have a lock on the one true meaning of G*d or b) still excercise reason from within the confines of scripture. I wouldn't know.
I am not buying his argument, with or without reference to scripture (and I don't think anyone else is here either), not because of his scriptural preference, but because it lacks internal consistency. He's using scripture to trump argument and stretching it to make Palin the idolater. One problem with that is he hasn't based this on anything other than scripture and mythology, and certainly not on anything she has done or said to deserve it. Were he complaining of conservatives worshipping her as though a goddess, he might have something, but his only chastisement is for her. She stands accused of idolatry on the sole basis 'she is too sexy'. She hasn't said anything about being a sex-goddess or suggesting anything like that, and hasn't tried to pass herself off as one. Neither has she hidden her looks under a burka (and no reason she should). Winning 2nd place in a state beauty contest 20-years ago doesn't make her an idolater, just someone trying to get a scholarship and maybe enjoying the ride (along with a lot other girls). Unless, fi11222 has some secret knowledge of Palin he isn't sharing, he can't say whether she entered the contest for adulation or not; and he can't really say she's running now for that. It's just his opinion based on the flimsiest of evidence, and he is resorting to scripture to prove an unprovable. As far as I can see she isn't demanding anyone worship her, just asking us to give her a turn at bat along with the boys.
fi11222 continues to argue nonsense as if it is profound. "Yes it is irrelevant" he says, which only can mean that easily discernible facts are unimportant to him, but his secret knowledge of Palin somehow explains everything.
Toss in a reference that salvation is not based on works, which no one has argued for, along with a "holier than thou" irrelevancy, and the circus sideshow is complete.
It is somewhat amazing to me that fi11222 can sort of make things up as he goes, then is surprised when someone disagrees with him. Suzanne has found her intellectual peer.
Bob,
Of course you are correct that God does make us all ridiculous. I am not ashamed to raise my hand and say, "me too." But what is the most ridiculous is those who think they are not.
Is Palin an Idolatrous sex Goddess ? I believe there is, contrary to Bob's opinion, a wealth of evidence to support this view.
That there is an emergent current of feminine oriented idolatry in our culture is supported by a wide array of testimonies and analyses. Just google terms such as "feminine idolatry", "female idolatry", etc. and you will get an idea of how wide the realization that something of the kind is currently happening has become. Just recently, I bought in Paris, where I live, a book of collected papers in sociology entitled "The Sacred Outside Religion" ("Le sacré hors religions"). None of its contents pretends to be sensational or shocking. It is just a series of articles by scholars in the field of sociology and history of religion; a very typical product of contemporary accademia. One of the papers in the book is entitled "Vers une Sacralité du Féminin" ("Towards a Sacrality of the Feminine") and the text is true to its title. What does this shows ? That radical academia is moving, quite consciously, towards a redefinition of feminity as sacred, i.e. as an Idol. On a very different level, one of the google searches I mentioned above yields a very interesting piece of information. By googling "supermodel idolatry", one comes across a number of references to a work of "art"; a solid gold statue of model Kate Moss very self-consciously designed to allude to the golden calf (cost: $2.8 million). Interestingly enough, this piece of news is quoted in a blog entry entitled "Are we guilty of Supermodel Idolatry ?", published on some female fashion website (http://latestbeauty.com/blog/view/id_862/Are_We_Guilty_of_Supermodel_Idolatry). What does all this means ? That in the most godless (de-Christianized) segments of our society, from the left-wing academic to the filthy rich and the average fashionista, many are starting to realize, with a definite sense of unease, that they increasingly treat the female image as sacred and idolize it. They even use the very word "Idol", in a remarkable fit of honesty!
Note that none of the above observations are "based on Scripture" but are made possible by an eye trained in it. That is why it is not necessary to possess any sort of "secret knowledge" to conclude that the Palin phenomenon is Idolatrous. Scripture gives us a sufficient wealth of insightful criteria to enable us, just by looking at her behavior, to realize that it falls under the category of what the Bible calls "Idolatry". Of course, we don't have access to her inner thoughts (only God has) and so cannot judge her morally or even fully evaluate the degree to which she realize what she is doing. But that is not the main concern here. Contrary to what Bob thinks, I am not building here a moral argument but asking a political question: Is it wise, for a conservative, to associate with someone who is at the same time a professing Christian but a (perhaps unconscious) Idolater?
Let us now come to the evidence directly connected with Palin. Within the general trend of feminine idolatry, there is a sub-genre of particular interest, the "girl with guns" icon. A whole website (http://www.girlswithguns.org/) is devoted to it and makes very interesting read, if somewhat depressing. For those unwilling to spend too much time on the issue, one may just think of the "Lara Croft" video-game/movie character or that of "Trinity" in "The Matrix" trilogy. These two are quite notable examples but the "girl with guns" stereotype is actually quite commonplace in either SciFi or action/adventure Hollywood productions of the past 20 years or so.
What is the "girl with gun" archetype, if you strip it down (so to speak) to its core essentials: an attractive female with a weapon. Now, it so happens that a relatively large number of historical or present pagan deities also fit that profile :
- The already mentioned Ishtar, goddess of seduction and war, whose Sumerian Inanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innana) is probably the origin of the paradigm.
- The Hindu Goddess Durga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga), often represented seated on a wild beast, like Ishtar and the prostitute of Revelation, and wielding weapons.
- The Greek/Roman goddess Aphrodite/Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_(mythology)) who, though being chiefly associated with sexuality, was still clearly viewed as a warrior goddess at the time of Cesar to be claimed by him as his ancestor under the label "Venus Victrix" (the victory giver) or, in greek, "Aphrodite Enoplios" (the armed, same root as in "hoplite").
- The Greek/Roman Goddess Athena/Minerva often represented helmeted and holding a javelin and shield.
- The Greek mythological figures of the Amazons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons).
- The Norse/Germanic goddess Freya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freyja).
Now, it is a well known fact that Sarah Palin loves hunting and, yes, Guns. But more to the point, she has often let this fact be known and allowed herself to be viewed in public holding guns and shooting them (such as in this video: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=yn7UzxXv8p4), thus allowing her appreciation of guns to become part of her image. It is noteworthy in that respect that those who deride her have focused on that aspect of her personality, as if they sensed that this was a particularly glaring weakness. This is true in particular of this video, which caricatures her by making the fullest use of the "Girl with guns" stereotype: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/61410aa4ff.
Now, one might object that it is just a coincidence; a vice presidential candidate who happens by chance to be an ex-beauty pageant contestant and a gun lover. In order to dispel those last remaining doubts, I believe it is helpful to briefly come back to the case of the supermodel. Models have existed for centuries but supermodels (models with celebrity status) are relatively recent. What is a supermodel? A person with absolutely no achievements other than being an image of female beauty. But a model is that too so how come supermodels exist? To account for this fact, for this ability that some models have nowadays to attain celebrity status, we have to acknowledge the existence of a psychological force potent enough to focus the minds of enough people on such a person in order to make it worthwhile for the media to spend valuable airtime and print space on her. That force is, I beleive, not mysterious. It is what is called "worship". The only way to account for the otherwise mysterious popularity of the supermodel is to acknowledge that she is an object of worship, hence an Idol; a living statue. Now I believe it is easy to see that Palin is also such a living statue in that she has, much like the supermodel, little achievement of her own apart from her image. Unlike Angela Merkel or Tzipi Livni who have both held cabinet posts before being nominated for the top job and thus earned their national politician status the hard way, Palin has been the mayor of a small town and the governor of a small state (and that for only two years). Admittedly, that gives Palin a little more achievements of her own than a supermodel usually has, but certainly not enough to be nominated vice presidential candidate were it not for her "girl with guns" persona. If that persona is powerful enough to propel her into the ticket it means that it is, like the supermodel's appearance, able to evoke that powerful force we were just mentioning in the latter's case: worship. Palin is close enough to one of our idolatrous stereotypes in order to trigger a worshipful following. In other words, she is, like the supermodel, a living statue; an Idol.
Pretty + guns + former beauty queen = idolator. Sure, adds up for me.
No achievements = supermodel status. Oops, has some achievements, "admittedly." Must make an exception to retain thesis…
Palin is idolized, therefore she must be an idolator. Oh, wait, those who idolize here are the idolators, so she must be a seductress… "mysterious popularity" evidence that she is unnaturally worshipped… a temple prostitute, logically speaking.
Now for the "…evidence directly connected with Palin…" Wait for it, wait… girlswithguns.org, armed women are idolized by, who, Palin supporters? Conclusive proof, for Palin has been photographed with guns…
No, no, no. Hang on a minute. She is a modern day golden calf… but, but, she's more qualified and more experienced than Obama, so Obama must be the Nubian Prince archetype, representing spiritual darkness of Africa…
head hurting… persistent illogic causing shutdown of cognitive function… constant unjustified application of the general to the specific has overloaded higher brain operation…. going, going, I'm outtahere!
MM: I think this is all an elaborate joke. A little excessive in taking it this far, but still a joke.
Either that, or someone has some serious issues relating to the opposite sex when they only see attractive, accomplished women as whores. Like I said before, Freud would have a field day with this one.
Just look at this Video on YouTube:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=D7mvXFyPUZc
The more interesting part of it is the caption above it and in particular the following part of it " … (I think I like her)". This is the way Idol worship is done in our time: collect images and reproduce them. Rock Stars and Supermodels are worshipped precisely that way.
One last piece of irony (only God can do such things): This video was taken in Irak, i.e. the place where Inanna and Ishtar were invented and worshiped 5000 years ago.
Another one:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCmO5-wZt8
Several interesting points :
- McCain besides Palin. Similarity with Assyrian kings (and others) seeking to bolster their prestige by associating with Ishtar.
- Person represented in prayer position besides pulpit. As if praying to Palin.
- Explicit "girl with guns" references.
- Background rock music.
- Palin with motorcycle. Another stereotype closely associated with GwG.
- Hunting scenes: Artemis, yet another Greek goddess.
This is a semiotic treasure trove.
Yet another one, with supermodel associations this time:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=4i3cNYfgKUQ
What is the point of representing the face of a person (and a politician for that matter) for 4 minutes and 13 seconds with a music background if not to worship her ?
Isn't this what we do in church ? Sing with music in order to praise ?
Another one with music even more explicitly worshipful.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=_9BTDH2uYuk
This one has an interesting twist. It is from a PUMA supporter, i.e. a Hillary Democrat who refuses to support Obama. Proof that female worship loyalty trumps political affiliations for some.
Seek therapy. And fast.
Phil,
Red pill or blue pill?
One more:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=9pd1C3BNpCU
Don't tell me the person who put this together (a few hours work probably) doesn't worship her …
Or it means we do not have the same notion of what the word "worship" means.
Worship of anyone other than God is the unnatural fascination with a person or thing. Like what you're doing.
Notice that I actually address your points, something you routinely fail to do.
Both colors. And hurry!
Mountain Man, I am willing to talk to you of course, provided you refrain from cheap sarcasm. As you well know, it is written "Don't sit on the seat of scoffers" (ESV, the word "scoffer" was rendered as "the scornful" in more traditional KJV translations).
"Worship of anyone other than God is the unnatural fascination with a person or thing." Bravo! I see we understand each other finally. A few remarks though. That fascination is not "unnatural" unfortunately. It is, on the contrary, part and parcel of our fallen nature. Indeed it is one of the things in which our fallen state is the most readily apparent: our incorrigible tendency to stray and go after other gods. This tendency was very openly displayed in biblical times. Polytheism was rife and unashamedly public. I believe it is foolish in the extreme to assume that man's deceitful heart has changed since that time. It has only become more deceitful in fact; just as prone as before to run after idols, but more artful in its ability to hide the fact.
"Like what you're doing." Of course I am a sinner like the next man. There is unfortunately no way to do what Augustine recommends: "As, therefore, there are two ways of knowing evil things,—one by mental insight, the other by sensible experience, for it is one thing to understand all vices by the wisdom of a cultivated mind, another to understand them by the foolishness of an abandoned life". Unfortunately, there is a certain insight into sin that you can only gain through the experience of a certain amount of "abandoned life". Maybe this is the very reason why the most High allows us to sin; so that we may know. Yes, I am a great sinner and I was a great idolater. That is why I can tell idolatry when I see it. So help me God.
"Are," not "was."
By the way, when someone doggedly pursues an irrational line of thinking, completely ignoring all the commentary to the contrary, all that is left is mocking and sarcasm.
Sorry, fi11222. We offered you many chances, and you simply restated your opinion yet again, sounding more and more nutty each time.
We who enjoy IC don't tolerate flaky opinions that someone makes up out of thin air.
Your post No. 135 show that at least we understand each other Mountain Man. I could not ask for more. Next time you meet a Palin-like Idol, I am certain you will remember this exchange.
I know I don't understand you, and am pretty sure that you don't understand me.
Worship is the natural state of all creation. Anything worshipped that is not God is unnatural.
As C.S. Lewis said, "'There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an unhealthy interest in them." (The Screwtape Letters)
Yours is an unhealthy fascination with an idea. It has no basis in fact, it is mere speculation. "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." That's where I'll leave it.
Mountain Man, your view of the creation is not the Bible's view. Sadly enough, you are not alone, even among supposedly fundamental Christians.
"Worship is the natural state of all creation." Yes, before the fall (or after salvation).
"Anything worshiped that is not God is unnatural." No. At least not according to the Bible and 3000 years of Jewish/Christian tradition. As a result of the original sin, our nature is FALLEN, surely you know that. To worship things and persons other than God is a fairly typical consequence of the FALLEN sate of our present nature. In that respect, it is not good, certainly, but NATURAL, as it conforms with what our nature is.
C. S. Lewis, like catholics of all ages would prefer us not to concern ourselves too closely with the business of devils lest we might discover some among the multitude of them which are at work in the Roman Catholic Church. Thank God, people like Luther or Calvin did not follow such advice. By the way, why quote Lewis ? Do we really need worldly and shallow Christians like Lewis when we have scripture, and the Fathers, and the Reformers ?
It's always good to be reminded that religious bigotry is not the exclusive province of Islamo fascists.
Religious bigotry ? And what about non-religious or anti-religious bigotry ?
Europe experimented with non-religious conservatism, most notably in France and Germany, and in both cases with disastrous results. In France, it was Bonapartism in the XIXth century, which resulted in 1971 and the Commune, and Gaullism in the 50s and 60s, which resulted in the revolts of 1968. In both cases, a period of God-less conservatism proved a boon to the most outlandish and destructive form of radicalism. In Germany, the experiment with non-religious conservatism led to Nazism and is not in need of any further comments.
Why did America fare better in the XIXth and XXth century than Germany or France? Because it was not Godless. Because its conservatives were mostly conserving the Christian monotheist tradition which is the only thing worth conserving. This blessed situation ceased after the 2nd WW. and Eisenhower was the last truly God-fearing American President. In his presidency, there were already ominous signs, like the difficulties he had to find someone he felt comfortable with enough to endorse him for the Republican nomination. We all know the consequences of his eventual choice of Nixon and that is the best illustration we have at our disposal in the American context of the amount of damage a God-less conservative can do.
What is most interesting is that, following the Nixon debacle, the Republican party was still sufficiently anchored in Christianity to realize the cause of its problems and understand that it had to focus again on religion in order to fix them. That strategy worked well enough in the 1980s with Reagan.
Are American conservatives of today still sufficiently connected of their spiritual roots to do the same sort of adjustments following the Bush debacle ? I am really not sure when I see a well meaning but obviously clueless McCain parading besides an Ishtar-analogue bible-thumping Girl with Guns Idol like a modern day Assurbanipal while attempting to maintain a moderate common-sense father figure image. The whole spectacle is so surreal that I really don't know where it will all end. Just imagine Eisenhower selecting Marylin Monroe as vice-presidential running mate and you will see how far American conservatism has strayed from normalcy.
Anti-Catholic rants are an obvious form of religious bigotry, just as the Isalamo fascist belief in the superiority of their religion is ("superiority" requiring the condemnation of all opposing religious thought).
You have a real problem with the opposite sex that's painfully obvious to everyone reading your rants. Live whatever lifestyle you feel comfortable with (including or excluding females), but leave God out of your pseudo-religious bilge. It's offensive.
And Ishtar is still a bad movie.
"Anti Catholic rants" were once called "the Reformation" and don't tell me you are ignorant enough of history to not understand how much of the American worldview was built on the Reformation.
It was fashionable for Victorian era ladies to pretend to be shocked at the mention of anything connected to sexuality. Now it is the same thing but in reverse. Big grown men like you Phillip have to pretend to be "offended" at the slightest mention of something seemingly "anti-sex" or "mysoginistic". That is the price to be admitted into polite society: you have to go with the crowd.
And of course it is also fashionable, in a token show of residual masculine pride, to pretend to know little of what has made us what we are.
More pseudo religious tripe disguised as intelligent thought is still pseudo-religious tripe.
The author of "The Lucifer Covenant" is unquestionably qualified to tell intelligent thought form "pseudo-religious tripe".
So, you've read the book? I thought not. As ususal, you're commenting on the substance of an issue that you know nothing about.
And Ishtar is still a bad movie.
I certainly would not dream of reading a book with a title such as this. Can you think of a phrase as tacky sounding as "The Lucifer Covenant"? I can't.
So, you comment on things you would never read, and therefore never understand. And we should be surprised?
Your ramblings are juvenile and offensive, not to mention outright ignorant. What you’ve done is cherry pick English language translations of Hebrew and Greek text, taken out of context for the time in which they were written, and use them to construct a world view to support your own twisted view of humanity. You’re no different than those who use "race matters" as a justification to divide the world along genetic lines.
Religion should be a way for man to embrace God and through prayer, speak to God in an effort to better both himself and the world in which he lives. People who use religion to divide up the world, or assert their own superiority, are fools at best, and dangerous at worst. My quarrel with radical Islam, for example, isn't over their belief in Allah. It's over their belief in Allah that justifies the taking of innocent human life in God's name.
And so it is with fools like you who have some serious male-female personal issues you're attempting to work through under the guise of promoting a religious doctrine.
Seek help. And fast.
I am not continuing this silly tit for tat game with the author of "the Lucifer Covenant" (lol).
If you want to continue your therapy session to work out the issues you have with women, I'm going to start charging for my time.
Seek help. And fast.