Sarah Palin is Quitting

At the close of her statement, she quoted General Douglas MacArthur, "we are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction." This, of course, is a euphemism for retreating, which, in part makes it an interesting choice to close with by the soon-to-be former Governor.

I found it interesting that she chose to quit, but even more interesting was the "very clear" reason she gave - to "effect change," which is a rather vague reason, to say the least.

I'm sure there will be pundits all over on both sides of the political spectrum giving reasons for her departure, some more truthful than others, some more partisan and defensive or offensive than others, but I think at the end of the day what we need to remember is that we came within 4 percentage points (8 million votes) in a national election of having a politician who couldn't handle the spotlight of the Alaskan Governor's office for a full term elected to the office of the Vice President.

In a final note - the man she quotes, General MacArthur was fired because he didn't respect the authority of the President, in her statement, she alludes to a lack of respect for the current President...

As I Have Said Before, There Will Always Be Prayer in Schools

Most people understand that. Some, even if they understand it, seem nevertheless to feel obliged to use it as a weapon for political gain. Few things in the world are more terrifying to a member of the Religious Right than an atheist, which is what makes attacks on the "attack on Christianity" a viable weapon.

Take Missouri, for example. Missouri has proposed an amendment explaining that children have the right to pray and read their Bibles. This despite the fact that there is already an amendment that does this - the First one.

I actually like the take on this that Brian Kaylor gives:
Those who self-righteously proclaim they are standing up for prayer seem to have forgotten the teachings of Jesus. As Jesus explained in his "Sermon on the Mount," we should pray in secret in our closet and not publicly like hypocrites so that all can see us.
What I like about this is that he not only understands that there is a Separation, but he actually can use the teachings of his belief to support his position and to show that Church and State can co-exist independent of each other.

Pandering 101

I am a supporter of Church-State Separation. You may have been able to glean my leanings by reading the subtle nuances in my posts that suggest this. I do not subscribe to the notion that, just because many (if not most) of the Founders of America were Christian, that we are, by devise, a Christian Nation. I have read many of Jefferson and Madison's writings, and they were both very careful about what they said. Both advocated for a separation of the two, to keep the State from interfering with religion, and vice-versa. Jefferson spoke of the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans in America - not solely Christians. Even George Washington wrote of America as a nation where individuals could believe as they wished, and worship as they wished. Yet, I somewhat understand the need for some people to equate America with Christianity. I mean, I don't completely get it. I don't see how a land that is equal for all should be more equal for those who have gone through Confirmation, but perhaps that comes from a weakness in those peoples' own faith...

At any rate, when it comes to politicking with religion, it's nice to see a refreshing approach to campaigning. And there's a new one out there. Paul Abramson is the founder of Creationism.org. He has long supported Creationism over Evolution. I'm not opposed to Creationism as a religious belief, but inasmuch as I support separation of church and state because I don't believe that Hindus or Buddhists, et al. should have to learn one religious theory over any other, think it should be taught at religious institutions, and if a parent wants their child to learn only that theory, then that parent should send their child to a religious institution for his or her instruction, but I digress. Mr. Abramson has decided he's going to run for Congress. I admire that. I like it when people aspire to serve their nation. But I disagree with his platform: If elected, he would push the Public Expression of Religion Act, making public display of crosses, menorahs, nativities, etc. on public property injunction-proof. Additionally, he would introduce a bill mandating "display of the 10 Commandments in every federal courthouse in the United States and its territories."

His premise for this proposition is that America is supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I completely agree with his premise, but I think his proposed application is flawed. By mandating display of one religious doctrine over all religious doctrines rooted in this nation, then we are in effect favoring one religion over another at the best, and coercing those who believe differently into changing their beliefs at the worst. Imagine if you as a Christian were to walk into a Courthouse and the judge forced you to swear in on a Q'uran, and the sight greeting you upon entry was a giant tapestry of the Sharia. Would you feel as though you were going to get a fair judgment from the judge in your case? What if you knew that the State mandated this not only in the courthouse you visited, but in all courthouses? In all Government buildings? Would you feel free to worship as you choose?

By keeping religion free from government intrusion, we do not preclude Americans from believing in God, or in Christ or the Trinity. We instead make this country comfortable for those of all faiths to practice as they see fit.

If I were living in Abramson's district, I would vote for Brad Ellsworth, not because I don't believe in God, but because I believe my faith does not need our government's endorsement to exist.

New Links

I've started reading a couple new blogs. The first one, Vim and Vinegar, is written by a former bar member in North Carolina (I believe), who writes far better than I could hope to match. She's got good insight, and I've enjoyed reading her comments at the Gun Toting Liberal for some time now.

The second blog, which I've not yet blogrolled, is Dick Polman's blogspot. He's a political journalist from Philadelphia, so he's got the writing and research skills of a seasoned journalist combined with the personal involvement that comes with a blog. His writing is quite good, and his points are very well made. The most recent example can be found here. If you have an eye for politics (and are critical of the current administration) then I think you'd enjoy this blog.

That Darn MSM

They're attacking the Republicans again. This time, the report announces that Newt Gingrich, the man who led the charge against Clinton during his impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair, was actually carrying on an extramarital affair at the time.

Except, wait - Newt admitted to the affair. So this wasn't undercover MSM work trying to discredit a prominent republican for daring to be republican. And hold on - he admitted to the affair to James Dobson, who, last I checked was nowhere near the MSM.

But here's the strange thing, so me. Dobson didn't vilify Gingrich for failing to obey the 10 commandments, at least, the Methodist version, which says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." That doesn't seem to be a very pro-family action.

I don't presume for a moment that Gingrich and Clinton are the only politicians who have had affairs. I find it interesting that the affair was such a big deal to this hypocrite, which now suggests that it was little more than political posturing, which is exactly what the Neocons are now pleading for the democrats to not do.

I don't like the democrats, and I would not vote for any of them, except maybe a Richardson/Obama ticket, but stuff like this makes me want to cast an opposition vote just to keep the republicans out of office. Still, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian again.