Palin's politics

sew and sewsew and sew Posts: 3,443Registered Users
This thread *might* go towards a discussion of abortion IF you guys aren't tired of that (noticed the other thread, but I didn't have the time to really follow it) but there's something I'm curious about. This is mainly a question to those that find her policies "reprehensible" because that's a pretty passionate view of them. Underlined the question for those that don't want to read all the rest.

I agree with her moral stances (wonder about her own character though) and would not fault someone for being vocal about the same stances (in a context that fits), but from what I've read about where she's made the most waves politically in her career, it's not about social policies. I think people have this impression she would feel personally charged to forward policy consistent with her social views, and I just don't think she is of that mindset. She answered a questionnaire that revealed those stances. What is reprehensible about them? Do you feel morally justified in considering them reprehensible because you feel her being in a leadership position and having those views (even if she hasn't spearheaded policy towards them) means she has the potential to be oppressive?

Not trying to stir drama with this question, and I do understand why some people get scared by the idea of Jerry Falwells running things, but it feels oppressive when people who hold Palin's social views are said to hold "reprehensible" views. I'm in the camp where I think everyone has their vision of what's moral (and for everyone that does...which is everyone, there will always be someone else feeling like at least one of the stances is an infringement on their individual pursuit of happiness), and unless they aren't driven by aligning themselves with opportunistic stances, they will make decisions accordingly.
“It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
«13

Comments

  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    This thread *might* go towards a discussion of abortion IF you guys aren't tired of that (noticed the other thread, but I didn't have the time to really follow it) but there's something I'm curious about. This is mainly a question to those that find her policies "reprehensible" because that's a pretty passionate view of them. Underlined the question for those that don't want to read all the rest.

    I agree with her moral stances (wonder about her own character though) and would not fault someone for being vocal about the same stances (in a context that fits), but from what I've read about where she's made the most waves politically in her career, it's not about social policies. I think people have this impression she would feel personally charged to forward policy consistent with her social views, and I just don't think she is of that mindset. She answered a questionnaire that revealed those stances. What is reprehensible about them? Do you feel morally justified in considering them reprehensible because you feel her being in a leadership position and having those views (even if she hasn't spearheaded policy towards them) means she has the potential to be oppressive?

    Not trying to stir drama with this question, and I do understand why some people get scared by the idea of Jerry Falwells running things, but it feels oppressive when people who hold Palin's social views are said to hold "reprehensible" views. I'm in the camp where I think everyone has their vision of what's moral (and for everyone that does...which is everyone, there will always be someone else feeling like at least one of the stances is an infringement on their individual pursuit of happiness), and unless they aren't driven by aligning themselves with opportunistic stances, they will make decisions accordingly.



    No, I don't think Palin will go right out and try to take rights away from women if elected VP. My fear is that if McCain, who holds the same anti-woman views, becomes president and if any Supreme Court justices need to be replaced, McCain will appoint anti-choice justices. The balance of the SC is very precarious at the moment. The pro-choice justices are all ancient and the anti-choice justices are all young, and they're all pretty evenly divided. All the anti-choice side needs is one or two more anti-choicers and the balance will be upset. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and the abortion laws reverting back to individual states. I don't want to see women in red states denied the right to obtain safe legal abortion. I don't want to see women die from illegal abortions...and they will die. Palin holds the same views as McCain on abortion, so if McCain dies while in office, Palin will be in charge of appointing anti-choice justices.

    That's all aside from the fact that I don't think Palin is qualified to be either VP or President. The McCain camp is keeping her pretty well cloistered since her nomination. She's been the VP nominee for about 10 days, and has probably given 10 speeches since then...every single one of those speeches has been an exact repeat of the one she gave at the GOP convention. Word for word. So far, she's a one trick pony. She hasn't submitted to even one interview since the nomination. Not one. The first one she will give will be with soft-baller Charlie Gibson. He won't ask her any hard-ball questions. It will be a Sarah Palin lovefest. I want to know where she stands. I want to hear her speak about her views...something that's not scripted. Her VIEWS, not her life story...I've had quite enough of the hockey mom schlock.

    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.
  • Koukla72Koukla72 Posts: 1,680Registered Users
    Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys. :(
  • sew and sewsew and sew Posts: 3,443Registered Users
    No, I don't think Palin will go right out and try to take rights away from women if elected VP. My fear is that if McCain, who holds the same anti-woman views, becomes president and if any Supreme Court justices need to be replaced, McCain will appoint anti-choice justices. The balance of the SC is very precarious at the moment. The pro-choice justices are all ancient and the anti-choice justices are all young, and they're all pretty evenly divided. All the anti-choice side needs is one or two more anti-choicers and the balance will be upset. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and the abortion laws reverting back to individual states. I don't want to see women in red states denied the right to obtain safe legal abortion. I don't want to see women die from illegal abortions...and they will die. Palin holds the same views as McCain on abortion, so if McCain dies while in office, Palin will be in charge of appointing anti-choice justices.

    That's all aside from the fact that I don't think Palin is qualified to be either VP or President. The McCain camp is keeping her pretty well cloistered since her nomination. She's been the VP nominee for about 10 days, and has probably given 10 speeches since then...every single one of those speeches has been an exact repeat of the one she gave at the GOP convention. Word for word. So far, she's a one trick pony. She hasn't submitted to even one interview since the nomination. Not one. The first one she will give will be with soft-baller Charlie Gibson. He won't ask her any hard-ball questions. It will be a Sarah Palin lovefest. I want to know where she stands. I want to hear her speak about her views...something that's not scripted. Her VIEWS, not her life story...I've had quite enough of the hockey mom schlock.

    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult.
    I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.

    I agree with the two bolded statements. Holding Christian beliefs personally, Pentecostals also give me pause.

    I've only seen her give two speeches but they were really similar so I also got the impression she /might/ be a one trick pony. The VP debates should be interesting.

    What makes you think we're getting dangerously close to a theocracy?

    I think separation of church and state was in response to the idea of having one church stand over the country, but it wasn't intended to mean ensuring government has no acknowledgment of or appeal to a morality that a religion may acknowledge. You can have that acknowledgment and still be a democratic republic by simple virtue of honoring how that system works. Like if people are going to vote for a candidate because they trust the person won't make the supreme court arbiters of a 'justice' they don't see as just, even if I could understand and agree with the rationale of the court they don't want in there ultimately, the capability for their civil desire to win out should be supported.
    “It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

    3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
  • sew and sewsew and sew Posts: 3,443Registered Users
    Koukla72 wrote: »
    Well, I'm the one who said in the SP's Skirts thread that I find her politics reprehensible, so I'll answer.

    I actually feel there's a distinction between "policies" and "politics" in this and it's why I said, specifically, "politics". From exploring her record and news stories about her dealings, I feel that SP is more concerned with SP's power than about her constituency, or even about being consistent with her stated platform. I also feel based on this that she's the type of person who believes the end justifies the means - any means - and I don't like the thought of that kind of a Machiavellian in public office, especially high public office. I know there are many there who are already like that. It doesn't mean I find their politics any less reprehensible, eiher.

    When you claim to believe in fiscal responsibility and cost-cutting and yet leave a small town of 8000 that had been previously debt-free, tens of millions of dollars in debt by the end of your position; when you claim in your nomination speech to the families of special needs children, "I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House" after having reduced funding for special needs education by 62%; when you claim to be against earmarks once you join an election campaign that is against them, but previously enjoyed them and sought them out throughout your career; and on and on and on, it shows a serious disconnect between what you say when you're seeking office and what you actually do once you've gotten into office.

    Combine that with stories of firing all employees to get proof of loyalty, a vindictive nature, and other unprofessional behavior and to me it shows someone who is much more concerned with personal power than her own "policies" anyway. (I can't find the quote now, but I read one by someone who knew her before politics that "Sarah's always just looking for the next highest rung on the ladder." It confirmed the impression I'd already begun to form.) And if she's not concerned enough with so much of her supposed platforms and policies to stand behind them in fact as well as word, then why on earth would I give them more than passing thought?

    If it were someone who believed in these positions, whose record was more in keeping with the platform itself, I'd probably find them to be much less "reprehensible". Just as wrong in most cases, but still not reprehensible. ;)

    In fact the only part of her platform I believe she truly does stand behind is the religion-based part of her platform. And I find that, as I said in the other thread, not reprehensible but horrifying. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, and think someone who attempts to cram their extremist religious beliefs into law is violating other citizens' protections of their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs regarding how they live their lives. Not every person conducts himself the way SP thinks they should based on her Christianity, and not every family hold the same values dear. And they damn well shouldn't have to change that to accommodate SP's and the religious right's attempts at homogenizing the US into their view of what it should be.

    Interesting post. I think one other person used the word reprehensible, but I didn't note who it was, and kinda didn't want to because it seems more personal that way, more dramatic, less about just sharing why views are held. I appreciate that you were really thoughtful in your response because you used the word.

    I was disheartened by reading a few different accounts of how she's led, because it doesn't seem consistent with views she voiced that I actually liked. My assumption was that 'reprehensible' was probably used in response to her social stances, but I understand where you're coming from with most of your post.

    What would the 'cramming of their (religious rights') extremist religious beliefs into law' be?

    There are people who probably share her pro-life views that don't even believe in the bible. There could be a 32 year old that has a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, and both of them are really pissed that all (or at least most) state governments outlaw it. Those two dynamics are important when it comes to feeling moral about being intolerant of what's found to be intolerant. As much as you connect to protecting 14 year olds (if you do) someone could connect with rationals for policies you associate with horrifying viewpoints.

    We assume that a lot of people who have those moral stances would circumvent democracy if given the opportunity, and that is what I understand fuels the being horrified.

    This will sound crazy no doubt, but what really gets me is the bible communicates that in the end times, there will be a great falling away of believers, and people will 'have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof'....that is, serve God in name but not really at all. I want to say it's over-worrying on your part to think "religious extremists" will undermine democracy in order to forward what they want, but hypothetically if that falling away is happening, and we do have those with a form of godliness while not really knowing or being known by God, and passionate about their form of godliness...maybe they are as perceived. Either way, I don't think those people will ever have the clout that is worried about, but I think if this is that time spoken of, people will become divided on a serious level, hatred will be built up and those people will have given cause to it. Thrown fuel onto the fire. That's what I feel is happening, but of course cannot draw that conclusion for sure.

    To go back on point though, because there might be blowhards like that, you are completely, passionately against people holding those views and being in government. By just principle though (not their civil potential), I think if you're intolerant to a brand of morality being infused into society, it's hard to NOT be inconsistent. There are lot of things that most of us actually share in feeling staunchly one way or another about, and someday people could be completely pissed at how it infringes on them and their pursuit of happiness. Thirty years down the road someone could be horrified by a moral stance you have now, if not now. You can still hold firm to your opinions and dislike other opinions, just recognize human reality dictates the above situation, and so no one is outside of it.
    “It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

    3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
  • Koukla72Koukla72 Posts: 1,680Registered Users
    Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys. :(
  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    I think she should be interviewed by all networks, at least once. That's the only way we'll know exactly what she's thinking now. Then we can compare to her record and make judgements from there.

    I'd like to know more about IDEA funding and her efforts at banning books from the library. I'm curious about her values and views on communities.
  • VanedaVaneda Posts: 402Registered Users
    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.

    I agree with what you are saying in your entire post RCW, but especially the bolded. My husband's ENTIRE family belongs to pentacostal or "Assembly of God" type churches so I have had a little first hand exposure as to the beliefs that these churches promote.

    The fact that Palin belongs to this organization is a huge turn off for me.
    2/b-2/c - I shampoo daily with non-sulfate shampoos - right now am *loving* L'Oreal Everpure shampoo and conditioner
    For styling: homemade flax seed gel, Curl Keeper, and/or KCCC
    Current favorite product: *KCCC*!!

  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I think separation of church and state was in response to the idea of having one church stand over the country, but it wasn't intended to mean ensuring government has no acknowledgment of or appeal to a morality that a religion may acknowledge. You can have that acknowledgment and still be a democratic republic by simple virtue of honoring how that system works. Like if people are going to vote for a candidate because they trust the person won't make the supreme court arbiters of a 'justice' they don't see as just, even if I could understand and agree with the rationale of the court they don't want in there ultimately, the capability for their civil desire to win out should be supported.


    Christians do not corner the market on morals. Atheists and other religons have morals too. Someone, like Palin, who wears her christianity on her sleeve, is someone I'm not going to trust to be a good person because of her christianity. We've had way too many christians trying to force their religion into our gov't (ten commandments displayed in gov't buildings is one example).
  • LucilleLucille Posts: 588Registered Users
    Palin's positions are polar opposite of mine. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. There is no dispute that she socially conservative. But she claims to be fiscally conservative, when her actions say otherwise. She has governed as a fiscal liberal.

    On her fiscal policies:
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html

    Plus, she doesn't believe humans contribute to global warming and doesn't want polar bears to be on the endangered species list and advocates hunting wolves from airplanes, all of which are just entirely too bizarre.

    Compound that with the fact that she doesn't seem to have a grip on very basic national and international issues (like thinking that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were government controlled entities, which was not true until yesterday and admitting that she had paid little attention to Iraq), and I don't see her as a good person to step in for McCain if something happened to him before the end of his term -- for which there is a reasonable probability given his age and multiple bouts with cancer.
  • MichelleBFTMichelleBFT Posts: 4,812Registered Users
    I have all kinds of intents to weigh in on this thread, but RCW, Koukla and Lucille are covering it for me pretty well. So I'll just sit back for a spell.
    "And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
    Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
    Stolen.
  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Tagging on to Koukla, and the fiscal issues brought up by Lucille.
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • StephSStephS Posts: 352Registered Users
    If you want truthful information on just how influential and embedded the Religious Right is in our politics, read

    http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0786718919/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221000120&sr=8-1

    Also watch the documentaries "Jesus Camp," and "Friends of Jesus." The latter is truly an eye opener.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    >>The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.>>

    RCW - I'm calling you out on this one. Give me a firm instance where the so-called Religious Right has taken hold of the government. An example of a firm power.

    The Amendment reads that the government cannot/will not force a religion on us. There will not be a state religion that we must all adhere to. Historical context was Catholicism and Church of England. Depending on the era, you were a heretic if you believed one or the other. This nation is so independent minded that there is absolutely no way that one religion can be forced upon us. Christianity is made of up of many different religions, so that won't work either (besides, if it was tried, the Church of Scientology would sue the US gov't into the ground :D)

    Like it or not, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but the founding fathers made it very clear that religion was an individual's choice to believe or not. The ten commandments were put in government buildings when our nation actually acknowledged that you know, those commandments were a pretty good idea and I can't think of many religions that don't have a version of it somewhere in their theology.

    And what is your definition of a cult? Anything that is not Jewish, Catholic, Episcopalion, Methodist, Baptist or Presbyterian?

    How are we heading towards a theocracy?
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • SCGSCG Posts: 5,416Registered Users
    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.

    Well, thank you for proclaiming entire denominations of churches are "nuts".
    I'm fine with people having opinions, but nuts have feelings too.

    I realize not everyone is going to like the church that I go to. That's fine, and I accept that.
    But to make such a big generalization is strange, to me.

    "And death is at your doorstep
    And it will steal your innocence
    But it will not steal your substance
    But you are not alone in this"

    “My ability to turn good news into anxiety is rivaled only by my ability to turn anxiety into chin acne.” - Tina Fey
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.

    Well, thank you for proclaiming entire denominations of churches are "nuts".
    I'm fine with people having opinions, but nuts have feelings too.

    I realize not everyone is going to like the church that I go to. That's fine, and I accept that.
    But to make such a big generalization is strange, to me.



    This really can't be the first time you've heard it...
  • violaviola Posts: 224Registered Users
    I can list individually what I think about each issue, but to me that's not even the point. Palin was put on the ticket to attract voters by igniting the culture war. McCain was seen as having been too weak, at least at some points in his history, on the wedge issues the right loves. I'm sure Palin is intelligent enough to know this is what she was chosen to represent, therefore I don't really have a problem with calling it 'her politics'. Since I hate things that harm our country, I hate her politics.
  • violaviola Posts: 224Registered Users
    StephS wrote: »
    If you want truthful information on just how influential and embedded the Religious Right is in our politics, read

    http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0786718919/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221000120&sr=8-1

    Also watch the documentaries "Jesus Camp," and "Friends of Jesus." The latter is truly an eye opener.

    Another excellent choice for learning more about this subject is What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank.
  • SCGSCG Posts: 5,416Registered Users
    The other thing that gives me pause is that Sarah Palin is a pentacostal born-again christian. That's a cult. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it, those people are nuts. I don't want the religious right having any more power over our government than they already have. We're supposed to have separation of church and state, and I fear for our country if the evangelicals gain anymore foothold. I do not want the USA to become a theocracy, and we're getting dangerously close.

    Well, thank you for proclaiming entire denominations of churches are "nuts".
    I'm fine with people having opinions, but nuts have feelings too.

    I realize not everyone is going to like the church that I go to. That's fine, and I accept that.
    But to make such a big generalization is strange, to me.



    This really can't be the first time you've heard it...

    No, it isn't. However, what I generally hear is people commenting on particular churches, or even particular denominations... As opposed to entire religious groups.

    This just so happens to be the first time I've gotten a chance to comment on it.

    But, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind if that's truly what they believe. And it's not going to do me any good to worry about what people think of me or the denomination I choose to associate myself with.

    "And death is at your doorstep
    And it will steal your innocence
    But it will not steal your substance
    But you are not alone in this"

    “My ability to turn good news into anxiety is rivaled only by my ability to turn anxiety into chin acne.” - Tina Fey
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur

    Well, thank you for proclaiming entire denominations of churches are "nuts".
    I'm fine with people having opinions, but nuts have feelings too.

    I realize not everyone is going to like the church that I go to. That's fine, and I accept that.
    But to make such a big generalization is strange, to me.



    This really can't be the first time you've heard it...

    No, it isn't. However, what I generally hear is people commenting on particular churches, or even particular denominations... As opposed to entire religious groups.

    This just so happens to be the first time I've gotten a chance to comment on it.

    But, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind if that's truly what they believe. And it's not going to do me any good to worry about what people think of me or the denomination I choose to associate myself with.


    I used to attend a pentacostal church...it's a cult. Get out. RUN!
  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    If Palin's denomination affects her policies and in turn actions, then you'd have to consider it. If for example she thinks that we're in a Holy War with Islam then she might want us to stay in Iraq longer.

    I'm not bothered by people speaking in tongues. I've not been given that gift but it's just that - a gift from the Holy Spirit, not the only gift. If I have a problem with Pentacostals (and I'm still in prayer over that) it's that they think I'm not saved because I don't speak in tongue. But as long as I know that I am saved by the blood of Jesus, then what they think about me and my salvation really won't matter. I would hate to see the concept of speaking in tongue develop (devolve) into something nutty.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    I would hate to see the concept of speaking in tongue develop (devolve) into something nutty.

    According to the Southern Baptists (most of them anyway), think that certain gifts of the Spirit 'petered out when Peter petered out'...which is one reason among many that I left...

    But the religions and faiths all have their types, etc. My first exposure to Assembly of God was my sr yr in HS when I went to a Christian school and we played them in volleyball. I didn't know much about them and it took a few years to learn about them.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    I'm Southern Baptist. We don't have a creed or doctrine that tells us what we must believe. We have Articles of Faith that an individual church may choose - in consultation with the Holy Spirit - to adopt (i.e. my church didn't recognize the most recent one, we use the previous one). Then the individual member can choose - in consultation with the Holy Spirit - to follow or adhere to whichever of those Articles he or she finds consistent with the faith as he or she understands it. All of that was say that as a group, Southern Baptists don't have a stand on speaking in tongue. Individual Baptists might but they don't speak for me just like the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't speak for me or tell me what I should believe. I don't care for Palin's politics but her speaking in tongue is a gift from the Lord that she should use as He directs her. It shouldn't be ridiculed or denigrated by anyone for any purpose.
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    I don't care for Palin's politics but her speaking in tongue is a gift from the Lord that she should use as He directs her. It shouldn't be ridiculed or denigrated by anyone for any purpose.



    Is this "gift" controllable? When I attended pentacostal church, the folks there didn't seem to have any control over it...they'd just start doing it. Sometimes their eyes would roll back in their heads and they'd fall down convulsing on the floor, and an attendant would quickly come over and throw a sheet over the legs of the women who were wearing skirts, for modesty sake, because apparently the gift receiver couldn't do anything about when a gift strikes them or do anything to control it.

    What if Palin starts speaking tongues while in important meetings with foreign dignitaries? She wears a lot of skirts...will she have someone to throw a sheet over her legs?
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    I don't care for Palin's politics but her speaking in tongue is a gift from the Lord that she should use as He directs her. It shouldn't be ridiculed or denigrated by anyone for any purpose.



    Is this "gift" controllable? When I attended pentacostal church, the folks there didn't seem to have any control over it...they'd just start doing it. Sometimes their eyes would roll back in their heads and they'd fall down convulsing on the floor, and an attendant would quickly come over and throw a sheet over the legs of the women who were wearing skirts, for modesty sake, because apparently the gift receiver couldn't do anything about when a gift strikes them or do anything to control it.

    What if Palin starts speaking tongues while in important meetings with foreign dignitaries? She wears a lot of skirts...will she have someone to throw a sheet over her legs?

    LOL, that's funny, but I don't think that's how it works - I think you have to be worshipping God communally to become filled with the spirit like that.

    Pentecostal churches are pretty different to me than the religion I know, but I have no issue with the way they worship and I actually find it really fascinating to watch, in a good way. To each their own, and I really do not like the idea of judging someone JUST for the church they attend. Like with any other people, Pentecostals have a range of beliefs and politics and I think it's very narrow-minded and unfair to assume otherwise and make statements like "they're all nuts."
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Amneris wrote: »
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    I don't care for Palin's politics but her speaking in tongue is a gift from the Lord that she should use as He directs her. It shouldn't be ridiculed or denigrated by anyone for any purpose.



    Is this "gift" controllable? When I attended pentacostal church, the folks there didn't seem to have any control over it...they'd just start doing it. Sometimes their eyes would roll back in their heads and they'd fall down convulsing on the floor, and an attendant would quickly come over and throw a sheet over the legs of the women who were wearing skirts, for modesty sake, because apparently the gift receiver couldn't do anything about when a gift strikes them or do anything to control it.

    What if Palin starts speaking tongues while in important meetings with foreign dignitaries? She wears a lot of skirts...will she have someone to throw a sheet over her legs?

    LOL, that's funny, but I don't think that's how it works - I think you have to be worshipping God communally to become filled with the spirit like that.

    Pentecostal churches are pretty different to me than the religion I know, but I have no issue with the way they worship and I actually find it really fascinating to watch, in a good way. To each their own, and I really do not like the idea of judging someone JUST for the church they attend. Like with any other people, Pentecostals have a range of beliefs and politics and I think it's very narrow-minded and unfair to assume otherwise and make statements like "they're all nuts."


    You may think it's narrow-minded, but I think it's a valid question. The Vice President is President of the US Senate, which has been known to start sessions with a group prayer. That's "communal worshipping", is it not? I've been to pentacostal church...they start doing this tongues and convulsing stuff involuntarily. What's to stop Palin from becoming "filled with the spirit" at innopportune times? God works in mysterious ways, I've heard...maybe he's got a plan to show the Iraqis or the Saudis how real worship is supposed to be done. She might need to keep a sheet-thrower close...or start wearing pantsuits.
  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    I don't know enough about the actual speaking of tongues to say if it could come out while convening the Senate. Since it's a gift from God, it would seem that it would come out whenever He wanted it to come out for benefit of His kingdom. I've only seen people speak in tongue while we were in prayer or while alone in a worship setting.

    As I said, I see it as one of many gifts of the Holy Spirit. Pentacostals, I think, see it as be THE gift. I've been asked by a co-workers if I had it and both people suggested (didn't say out right) that I wasn't saved unless I had it. While that doesn't sit well with me, my salvation is personal. So if Palin doesn't think I'm saved, that's her issue. I know I am.

    If she tries to force the issue on others, that would be wrong. Simply engaging in worship the way that works for her, is not.
  • KookyCurlKookyCurl Posts: 1,980Registered Users
    As for speaking in tongues, it's not just an aspect of pentecostal churches. MANY churches used to have this. It's even part of how the Shakers got their name (Shaking Quakers). They are pacifist and one of the main tenets of their faith is not forcing their religion on others.

    I found this article on the history of glossolalia and found this part very interesting
    Glossolalia is a fairly recent phenomenon in the Christian world: "First wave", 1900: "speaking in tongues" was manifested in the traditional Pentecostal churches. "Second wave", 1960: neo-Pentecostalism or the charismatic renewal movement, "speaking in tongues" entered most traditional churches of Christianity including the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Roman Catholics and so on. "Third wave": the recent celebration church movement.

    Speaking in tongues did not come about as a result of studying this subject in the Bible. Speaking in tongues just happened, then students subsequently studied the Bible to find support for this new phenomenon that took place in the meetings of Charles Parham of Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas in 1900.

    Recent studies have indicated that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. Glossolalia is practiced by a large number of native non-Christian living religions around the world. Glossolalia is found amoung the "Inuit (Eskimos), The Saami (Lapps), in Japanese seances in Hokkaido, in a small cult led by Genji Yanagide of Moji City, the shamans in Ethiopia in the zar cult and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo. L. Carlyle May shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions is present in Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China, Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places. It is also present extensively in African tribal religions.

    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/speakingtongues.htm
  • JosephineJosephine Posts: 14,400Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    If she tries to force the issue on others, that would be wrong. Simply engaging in worship the way that works for her, is not.

    I agree. It's really disrespectful to me to pick apart how someone prays.
  • MarMar Posts: 3,004Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    "Christians do not corner the market on morals. Atheists and other religons have morals too."

    Thank you :)
    "what's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"



    "If you judge people,you have no time to love them"
    -Mother Theresa
  • xcptnlxcptnl Posts: 15,678Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Amneris wrote: »



    Is this "gift" controllable? When I attended pentacostal church, the folks there didn't seem to have any control over it...they'd just start doing it. Sometimes their eyes would roll back in their heads and they'd fall down convulsing on the floor, and an attendant would quickly come over and throw a sheet over the legs of the women who were wearing skirts, for modesty sake, because apparently the gift receiver couldn't do anything about when a gift strikes them or do anything to control it.

    What if Palin starts speaking tongues while in important meetings with foreign dignitaries? She wears a lot of skirts...will she have someone to throw a sheet over her legs?

    LOL, that's funny, but I don't think that's how it works - I think you have to be worshipping God communally to become filled with the spirit like that.

    Pentecostal churches are pretty different to me than the religion I know, but I have no issue with the way they worship and I actually find it really fascinating to watch, in a good way. To each their own, and I really do not like the idea of judging someone JUST for the church they attend. Like with any other people, Pentecostals have a range of beliefs and politics and I think it's very narrow-minded and unfair to assume otherwise and make statements like "they're all nuts."


    You may think it's narrow-minded, but I think it's a valid question. The Vice President is President of the US Senate, which has been known to start sessions with a group prayer. That's "communal worshipping", is it not? I've been to pentacostal church...they start doing this tongues and convulsing stuff involuntarily. What's to stop Palin from becoming "filled with the spirit" at innopportune times? God works in mysterious ways, I've heard...maybe he's got a plan to show the Iraqis or the Saudis how real worship is supposed to be done. She might need to keep a sheet-thrower close...or start wearing pantsuits.

    I know I am being silly but the bolded parts are totally cracking me up - I have tears running down my face just imagining the scenarios. We thought it was bad when Bush Sr threw up during a state dinner....imagine the above happening.
    Central Massachusetts

    One good reason to only maintain a small circle of friends is that three out of four murders are committed by people who know the victim. ~George Carlin~

    In regards to Vagazzling: They just want to get into the goods without worrying about getting scratched up by fake crystals. ~spring1onu~
«13

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file