Most of the time when I watch anything Sarah Palin has to say, it is for entertainment purposes. I very rarely take what she has to say seriously, but this week in particular she said some really outrageous things on the Bill O’Reilly Show. She was upset about the folks who were protesting the National Day of Prayer – so, Palin said this:
“Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments….What in hell scares people about talking about America’s foundation of faith?” Palin continued. “It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that’s the only thing I can attribute it to.”
What scares people is that governing from the bible is essentially spitting in the face of this little thing called ‘separation of church and state’. I’m pretty sure that whole idea was important to the founding fathers. Has she also forgotten that a big reason why the English people left Britain for America was the ability to practice freedom of any religion? I highly doubt Palin would be so supportive of mixing the government and religious freedom if a Jewish or Muslim congressman wanted to govern based solely on the Torah or the Qur’an. Freedom of religion also encompasses no religion; so atheists should not have to be subjected to anyone’s religious beliefs either.
I know the founding fathers are up there right under Jesus in Palin’s book, but before we are so quick to jump on the ‘getting back to original founder’s ideas’ bandwagon – let’s just take a moment to remember they didn’t give women or African Americans the right to vote. I love the Declaration of Independence as much as the next person, but it wasn’t perfect.
I know it’s fun to say that we should all love bible, the ten commandments, church, but it is very offensive to those who do not believe in a higher power and it is really, really insulting to the real foundation of this country – the separation of church and state.
She has a powerful message with her stance on smaller and less expensive government,but she’ll fuck it up with too much bible thumping. This conservative does not care for it. I guess I’m a deist also,as were many of the founding fathers. I like her,but I won’t vote for a Evangelical.
I do not like that woman. And I’m conservative, and I’m Christian. But I will never be fond of Sarah Palin.
Some poor white men couldn’t vote either. You had to be a property owner.
And the electoral college (created because the founding fathers thought the general public was too stupid to be entrusted with electing the President directly) hasn’t turned out so great, either.
The electoral college was established to give rural states more influence in the outcome of elections. Without it,it’s possible to campaign in several major cities exclusively and win the election,not a good idea.
The amount of time and money spent in different places by candidates is still disproportionate due to the number of electors available in different states or the fact that certain states are “winner take all” states where the same party almost always wins. Although they may not be campaigning in a only a few cities, they still have a limited number of places that they hit hard and others they never go to. Besides, now, with TV and the internet, you could be giving a speech in LA and people in Buffalo can be watching it in real time. So what’s the big deal? I don’t understand why a simple majority vote isn’t better.
Oh, and that thing about people being too “stupid” to elect their own President came from my high school American history teacher. Thanks for letting me know that was wrong.
All states are winner takes all,in regards to electoral votes. We don’t live in a democracy,this is a representative republic.
There are two or three states that aren’t winner take all, aren’t there?
No I don’t think so. But you need a clear majority of 271 electoral votes. In an election where a third party (like Palin)was to show a strong presence,it would be difficult to achieve that 271 number,then the house of representatives would decide with one vote per member.
I completely understand why the electoral college was formed, but I think as the world becomes more and more connected by internet/television it is becoming unnecessary as any politician can broadcast across the country from any location.
I think the issue is less about being able to go to rural places but rather votes counting.
When it is one person one vote, if a few of the major cities all vote one way, then it won’t matter if the entire rural population votes the other way – they’ll be outnumbered.
And in the States, that is realistically the case. The republican-democrat divide is far more a matter of rural-urban than between states. It shows up more based on what is the majority in a state.
In order to maintain some regional representation, things are balanced by state rather than just by individuals.
The point about “it’s possible to campaign in several major cities exclusively” was not that other places wouldn’t get to see the candidates and not know what to do.
It’s that it allows you to carry the votes of only several major cities, and then the rest of the country simply wouldn’t matter.
That is not affected by media.
I see your point, and I would in no way want to deny rural people their say but I still have major qualms with our current system of voting.
Oh, I don’t know if your system is great. As a non-american, I have never studied the details of your voting system. In fact, it is commonly accepted up north that your elections suck massively. You know how to organize a government, but you should really bring the Canadians in to teach you how to organize an election. :)
I just noticed that two of you had read the comment to a different conclusion, and I wanted to explain the point of it.
Actually, I think the declaration of independence is pretty damn close to perfect.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a damn good thing to base a set of laws on.
The fact that the founding fathers did not recognise all people as persons and thus did not follow their own declaration is a different issue. The document itself is awesome.
Why do we always have to “go back” to the founding fathers? This country is over two hundred years old and has evolved immensely. The base values that the US was founded upon–life, liberty, pursuit of happiness–have not changed. Our understanding of human rights and our moral responsibility have changed so much; why would we want to return to the society of the founding fathers? Should we reinstate slavery and begin witch-hunts for the gays?
“but it is very offensive to those who do not believe in a higher power”
You’ve got that right. I’m quite tired of the presumption a hefty majority of Christians seem to have that everyone else believes exactly what they do. I don’t see it happening so much with other religions in this country, probably because they’re all so marginalized in comparison.
It gets old, and it makes me feel judgmental. It especially bothers me when someone says something about Jesus to me, and I say I’m an atheist, and that person reacts as if I’ve just sprouted horns. If you don’t want to be confronted with my lack of faith, don’t push yours around where it’s not invited.
Someone already mentioned this, but I’d like to drive home the fact that the founding fathers were not actually Christian. They recognized that most of the people who moved to the US were Quaker, Protestant, etc and wanted the Constitution to reflect that, but they themselves did not necessarily believe in a higher power.
Well,actually they did believe in a higher power. A Deists believes in God but not organized,man made religion. They believe that no man can adequately explain God,no man has the whole truth.
Weeeeeeeell, yes and no. Deists believe that a Supreme Being created the universe — or, wrote the physical laws that set it into motion — and then sat back on his hands. Kind of like reality is nothing but this huge game of The Sims and God’s just sitting back eating a sandwich and watching or something.
But the Deists didn’t believe in a God that intervenes in personal affairs or the world at present, which…well, some theists also don’t believe in, and some do. It’s kind of complicated.
But I suspect that Sarah Palin didn’t know about how Thomas Jefferson once edited a version of the Bible for his own use in which he cut out all the passages which implied Jesus was divine — because Jefferson did NOT believe Jesus was divine. He thought Jesus was not the Son of God, but just a normal guy who was a good philosopher. (I have to confess that the urge to write “and a very naughty boy” was very strong. I’ve seen LIFE OF BRIAN a few too many times.)
Always look on the bright side of life.
I really don’t know why people are so attached to 200 year old documents (or 2,000+ year old documents for that matter). A lot of the Constitution is great and can still be used effectively today, but it has to be a living document and subject to change with the times. The bible is another book that needs to be analyzed and subject to change with the times. You can not use a book that was written between 4,000-2,000 years ago as a way to govern in present times. The ten commandments do have some rather good rules to live by, like don’t kill or steal, but they leave out some pretty important rules. In the bible it’s ok to rape a woman as long as no one hears, she’s single, and you pay her father. This book was written in a time when stoning someone to death was considered fair punishment. It’s honestly not a book that I would base my ethics, judgement, and law upon, but if you chose to do so then you must interpret it for modern sensibilities.
I would prefer for our government not to be based upon any religion or holy book. Th founding fathers were pretty cool, but they did live over 200 years ago. So even if they had intended that we govern using the bible, I still wouldn’t think that we should.
I think that a lot of the time in this country that there is such a high percentage of Christians in this nation that they forget that there are people out there who believe differently. I’ve talked to many people where I’m the first atheist that they’ve talked to.
My favorite thing (it would be exasperating if it weren’t so funny) is to actually read the 11th article of the Treaty of Tripoli (you know, the part where it outright states that the U.S.A. is “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”) to these “Founding Father” Christians and watch them pretend it doesn’t exist or doesn’t count. It’s like watching a 5 year-old just go “nuh-uh” over and over.
My anger… it’s… too much right now. I can’t even… ugh.
I despise, I loathe this woman. I just… oh god. Some day this woman is going to give me a heart attack of rage.