|
||
On God, Palin Was Right, Gibson Was Wrong
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.
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 cases - 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.
Now, if you want to know what is actually worrisome about Palin and religion, click here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Good job, Waldman. If we can't handle the truth, we're no better than our adversaries. It's time to stop attacking Palin for on the basis of that particular statement. If we want to talk about her religious extremism, which is not where she is most vulnerable, we should focus on the pipeline comment.
I don't know which is more terrifying - Gibson's quote or Palin's quote. Whether she believes that war in Iraq is God's design or that we should hope war in Iraq (that has led to thousands dead, displaced, tortured, mutilated, traumatized) is God's plan all along, both equally offend my conscience. Its not just that it perturbs me to use God to justify your approval of a war, its that these are delicate times when religious fervor on one side has inspired thousands to ignore logic and civility and engage in horrific acts of violence. By all means pray that our troops make it home safely, pray the we can restore stability and peace in Iraq, pray that our leader's exercise the best judgement but do not pray that God gives his nod of approval for this unnecessary evil.
I don't care how anyone spins it, her remarks were not benign and were in tune with President Bush's comments implying God's approval.
Well I guess I could understand if both were fans of the Old Testament but aren't Christians supposed to hold the Scriptures in the highest regard?
What's REALLY scary Steven, is this article.
really, what country would Jesus invade?
Who would Jesus Torture?
Why are you defending Palin's invocation to god for war?
What's the big deal either way. People in church always pray that the leaders are doing what is "in God's will".
Senator Obama mentioned several months ago that he prays diligently to be a tool for God's will.
Why is it "insane" (speaking to several commenters) if a repub mentions doing God's will, but just hunky dory if a democratic candidate mentions the same?
Actually, a lot of the same Dems are terribly upset because over Obama's religiousness, even if not as much so.
And Nancy Pelosi caught all kinds of, um, heck from the left for reporting that she (gasp!) prays.
I agree to some extent. But I will always find it objectionable that one prays or believes that God's will involves war, especially an unnecessary war. This Old Testament crap, no offense, does not belong in our public discourse.
That isn't the only thing Charlie got wrong, but you won't any of the media mention it. He quoted her wrong or else didn't do his homework and on the "bush doctrine" he was wrong as well.
The use of "bush doctrine" has meant many different things, a network news team should have known that.
The "bush Doctrine" means only one thing: the national defense policy Bush has created:
Why don't you read it yourself:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf
And I guess you thought the Bush Doctrine implied "His World View" as well? It would normally be fair if someone didn't catch his meaning but NOT if that person was running for the second-highest office in the US government. C'mon doesn't it concern you that she not only lacks the intellectual curiosity about our foreign policy but that she seems to be cramming to learn basic issues in a 2 month period. Would you be comfortable selecting a doctor for your kid who was trained about the basics of medicine two months before?
He wasn't "wrong," and the doctrine has related parts. I don't understand why repubs (OK, yes I do...grasping...) insist it "changed" definitions. "with-us-against-us" is so closely related to the next part, "pre-emptive strike" (obviously against those who are against us-duh) is like the same subject! I could have misinterpreted, but I assumed he was "giving" her part of the doctrine on which Palin could elaborate her views. To explain it ALL would have really made him look like the disappointed "teacher", as the new republic described him, I believe. I mean really--read those two parts as one: If you are not with us you are against us, and thus, if you opt to be against us, we will pre-emptively strike at you. I, like Gibson, opt not to waste time explaining the other two parts and how they relate, as a doctrine in progress that developed as Bush's administration advanced.
It is not God's plan that our troops have been tasked with. It is MAN's plan.
If our enemies kill in God's name, and we pray that our troops are sent out on a task that is God's plan...
Where's the distinction between their religious extremists and ours? Could it be that both sides are wrong?
Excerpt from al Qaeda's 1998 fatwa:
"We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."
Sarah Palin:
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."
Is there a distinction between "us" and "them"?
We're us, whereas they're them.
Mr. Waldman,
While you correctly point out the difference in the quote, much of your argument is based on semantics, not intent. I think Charles Gibson inferred by his editing the intent that even most hard core Palin supporters would acknowledge was her implication in her rambling discourse. The argument presented here is like the troopergate scandal response "but Trooper Wooten is still employed!" Yes, he is. But the problem was not his employment status, it was Sarah Palin's intent. It's about time people had the chutzpah to see a person stand as they have implied by their own intent, not what the words mean from the hearers perspective. This is the proper hermeneutic for true ‘literal’ biblical interpretation. I applaud Charles Gibson for using her word concisely and posing the proper question. (Since all of Dispensationalism, including ‘The Rapture’, is a 19th century creation, totally non-biblical and is derived through the same improper hermeneutic as was used in this article!)
In other words, be so arrogant and presumptuous as to interpret the words of others (especially those we disagree with) as we see fit. Lovely idea. Heck, our foes do it, so why shouldn't we? Is that the idea?
As far as semantics and hermeneutics go, the issue is one of grammar.
Yes, I think this is a fair assessment. And it is one Obama himself made in an interview when asked about it. She didn't say anything the vast majority of Americans of any political stripe have said hundreds of times, and Obama supporters do him and the election a disservice by continuing to harp on a quote out of context... especially when there are real issues to speak to Palin about.
Drop this one. It will backfire if we don't.
What the he!! is it with you people. She made a statement, why does the second remark change the meaning of what she said? It doesn't it's in addition to her first comment. She said what she said and Gibson called her on it. Drop the insane suggestion from a future potential President? Are you nuts? The second remark is just as offensive as the first. This is why we lose elections. This should be pounced and brought up again and again. Look at her life for context, nothing contradicts her statement that we're on a mission from God. I believe, she believes it and I don't want someone like that in control of ur military.
Whoa. Calm down. she did not say what Gibson said she did. It's on YouTube. Just go watch. She said basically "let us pray god is on our side" in that in that first quote -- in the quote about the pipe line, yes, she did say the pipe line was god's plan. That's the one Gibson should have spoken about. But to keep going at her about the out of context quote is just dumb. Press her on what she actually said, not what will make us feel most justified if she said.
What I like about this post is that the writer is applying standards to Palin that I would expect him to apply to Obama. This is truly principled, something often claimed but rarely practice.
What I'm hearing in Palin's words is someone who doesn't know God but is hoping that God approves and will act as if God does until told otherwise. In other words, she is hoping that God approves of Bush's Iraqi escapade. Of course, bin Ladin is also hoping that God approves of what he has set forth. For all I know they could both be right. Or God may not give a rat's ass. However, I am certain that belief is not knowing. It seems to me that belief tends to validate ego and is grounded in an emotional propensity. Knowing requires the surrender of the ego; you don't make something yours but become one with it.
Then why did she say we were on a mission from God? Oh she must not have meant that part. But why'd she say it then? Pretty careless. This is why Dems lose elections. We're not willing to call a religious lunatic a religious lunatic. She said what she said and the context doesn't change that.
Maybe so. But why should anybody pray that the war in Iraq is part of God's plan? If I were a praying person, I would pray that God wants peace.
Gee, I don't know. This might be a case of the printed transcript distorting the meaning of the dynamic, spoken word. Listen to the clip beginning at about 5:30. She is speaking ungrammatically and exactly what she is exhorting people to pray for is not (IMHO) unambiguously clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihQ7X9rzlM&feature=related
"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 that's what we have to make sure that we are praying for that there is a plan and that that plan is god's plan so bless them with your prayers your prayers of protection over our soldiers..." (punctuation intentionally omitted)
Maybe so, but I'm still iffy about having end-times people around nuclear weapons.
I don't remember any End Times people cheering when we were attacked in 2001. Which is odd, if we assume such people are really and truly itching for big-scale disaster. End Timers--the ones in the media, anyway--strike me as very ambitious and materialistic. That is to say, not at all like people eager for the Final Days. If someone like Palin honestly anticipated being whisked up to Heaven on a moment's notice, wouldn't she be living a simpler, less stressful, lower-cost kind of lifestyle?
Somehow, I can't picture her saying, "Darn, I hope the Final Days get here soon! C'mon, God."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
