staying_sane_in... [September 14th, 2008 10:43 am], I don't recall anyone on this thread actually 'pushing' an atheist agenda.

If you're trying to say that religion is in no way a part of some of the most brutal and bloody acts in human history, I'd have to say you're wrong. You're also wrong to say that Hitler's Germany, and its eugenics, were atheistic -- Hitler used Christianity as much as any other politician and most Germans considered themselves good Christians, even those ushering Jews into the gas chamber and teaching racial purity in the classroom.

Here's what Hitler had to say about Christianity:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."
-- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922.

and,

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
-- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941.

So, Hitler was no atheist.

staying_sane_in...:"Was Stalin a creationist?"

Were Emperor Constantine and the Popes of the Holy Roman Empire Darwinists? The atheists Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung are exceptions to the historic 'slaughter rule' rather than the norm although, as I said in a previous comment, I don't think any major politician is really religious.

staying_sane_in...:"Human nature will out. Take away religion, and human nature will find something else to use as justification for atrocities."

I disagree, but, then, it's never been tried, just as Christianity has never been tried as a state religion. I think when people have to take personal responsibility for their actions -- instead of blaming them on God, the devil or some other invisible deity -- they are less likely to commit atrocities. As Voltaire wrote:

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."

Belief in an Invisible Super Being who created a universe too vast for us to even comprehend, all so that he, she or it can obsess over the personal daily actions of the inhabitants of one tiny planet in a solar system that is no more than a grain of sand in the infinity of creation is a bit absurd to me, as it was to Jefferson and Franklin. But, if this ISB actually did 'intelligently design' such a universe, and has such a petty obsession, than certainly he, she or it is responsible for evil as well as good. I refer you to Epicurus and the Old Testament:

"If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?"
-- Epicurus

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
-- Isaiah 45:7

It's possible God's just not paying attention to us, or our conception of good and evil is wrong and they are simply two conflicting forces of the universe that must operate in balance in order to create existence.

Another of my favorite quotes on this subject comes from physicist Steven Weinberg:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."

staying_sane_in...: "Religion does not turn a kind person - someone with a conscience - into psychopathic killer."

I beg to differ, and the millions who have died in holy wars of the past and present are my proof.

staying_sane_in...: "Atheists promote the message that our genes teach us to care about no one other than our own family. A great cultural message that is! But that's exactly how our political leaders behave - them, their family, and no one else. They also regard themselves as having superior genes to the rest of us, and therefore a natural right to be rulers."

Specifically, who are you referring to when you say atheists think they have superior genes to the rest of the human race, or that secular people don't care about anyone but their own family? I know of no atheists or agnostics who have this belief or act this way.

First of all, there's no proof that religious faith is genetic (so far) and, secondly, I have known several very religious people who treated others miserably, including their own family.

staying_sane_in...: "So, in conclusion, you could say the success of the religious right is the result of the failure of atheism, the failure of atheism to create a strong sense of community and concern for others.
"Corporate power is pure atheism run rampant."

You can try bottling and selling that notion, but I don't think you'll have many buyers. The influence of atheism in America is miniscule, and Walmart, one of the nation's biggest abusers of humanity, is also run by very religious so-called Christians.

There's also the pesky fact that the born-again Junior Bush has sanctioned the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, while handing out taxpayer money to corporate contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. This is a failure of atheism?

So, in conclusion, you could say the success of the religious right is the result of the failure of atheism, the failure of atheism to create a strong sense of community and concern for others.

Corporate power is pure atheism run rampant.

And the rise of the so-called religious right is the direct result of the willful failure of the Democrats, the ignorance and apathy of the American people, and corporate media control.

The U.S. is NOT a dictatorship. Americans had a chance to vote, and they voted/allowed Bush back in for a second term. They also supported Bush during the invasion of Iraq: 70% were behind Bush, and of that figure, 40% were solidly behind him.

Regarding my comment below about priests raping boys. I've heard the argument that gay priests denied an outlet for their sexual urges turn to boys. So, it is religion to blame, others say, albeit indirectly.

I suggest people find out about the past sexual abuse of children in care homes. The staff were not priests or religious people.

HUMAN NATURE, folks! It's good old human nature that's at work.

Atheists promote the message that our genes teach us to care about no one other than our own family. A great cultural message that is! But that's exactly how our political leaders behave - them, their family, and no one else. They also regard themselves as having superior genes to the rest of us, and therefore a natural right to be rulers.

RSJ writes: "Looks like we may have to learn how to speak Swedish or Norwegian if we expect to escape from the Planet of the Apes Who Teach Creationism."

It's nothing to do with creationism. Atheism and the worship of the gene gave us eugenics, Hitler, and the attempted extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, blacks, the mentally retarded, the disabled, gay people, the poor, the "stupid", and many others.

www.waragainsttheweak.com

Was Stalin a creationist?

STOP BLAMING RELIGION WHEN HUMAN NATURE IS TO BLAME.

It's like blaming creationism for priests raping little boys.

Would the world be wonderful if we were all atheists. Palin says Iraq is a "task from God" - she can say what she likes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not about religion, it's about oil, U.S. corporations, and U.S. hegemony.

Human nature will out. Take away religion, and human nature will find something else to use as justification for atrocities.

Jesus did not advocate worshiping mammon, but both Bush and Palin refuse to reign in the corporations.

You are what you are. Religion does not turn a kind person - someone with a conscience - into psychopathic killer.

Could the atheists please stop pushing their agenda at every opportunity.

I was hoping for the 'end times' for the neoconservatives this election, but we may be saddled with Sen. Frick and Gov. Frack -- in which case I may take Dafoe's suggestion. The problem is, the country between the US and Palin's Moose-Hunting and Snowmobiling Preserve doesn't want any more disgusted expatriate Americans, and neither will NZ or that country 'Down Under.'

Looks like we may have to learn how to speak Swedish or Norwegian if we expect to escape from the Planet of the Apes Who Teach Creationism.

Palin believes we are living in the "end times" . . .

We are living in the end times. The Repimplicans will finish off the United States for good.

Dafoe
I think Palin was a "God" send for the republicans, she will help win over the God fearing, and the followers of all those tv tubthumpers who are God' s elect and spokespersons on earth. The country was just waiting for God to send a catalyst for change and here she is. Doesn't matter that she knows little about things not amurican, not necessary. President Palin has a magisterial ring to it doesn't it. She will make amurica Godly whether you like it or not. A homemade solution to the present political mendacity. I can't wait, mind you when it happens I might slope off to Kanader or New Zealand or Australia since I would be one of "them"..

Leea [September 12th, 2008 11:48 am] unfortunately, if religion is taught in US schools, it won't be 'Blessed are the peacemakers,' 'Love one another,' 'Know thyself,' 'Beat your swords into plowshares,' or 'Forgive your enemies' -- not in our post-9/11 militarized blood-and-guts America. That sort of spirituality in classrooms I could endorse.

Siouxrose [September 12th, 2008 12:03 pm], thank you and I appreciate your thoughtful comments as well. As much as I hate to disagree with you about prostitution, I have met a woman who enjoys the 'business,' although it's true that most prostitutes probably are forced into it by dire circumstances and would rather not pursue it as a career.

The woman I'm talking about is a dominatrix (no, I'm not a customer, just a friend-of-a-friend), and she says she is fulfilled by the work, so to speak. Actually, I was surprised to learn that what she does is legal, as long as she doesn't touch the genitals of her clients and they don't touch hers. She was formerly a call girl because she liked sex, but got out of that due to pressure from law enforcement -- they cracked down on her. (Another unfortunate choice of words.) At any rate, she spent years at a miserable office job, toiling for low wages and putting up with a series of jerks (sorry) before going into business for herself -- today she can make the same amount of money in a couple of hours that she earned in a week at a 'straight' job, and she's her own boss. (And -- ahem -- others, too.) I agree with her -- what's the difference really between selling your body and time to dig ditches or pour concrete and using it to provide sexual relief for another person? And, contrary to right-wing deceptions on the subject, rape and violent crimes against women are way down in places like Amsterdam where prostitution is legal, as are the rates of STD. She believes if you have no moral objection, life as a sex worker -- as she calls herself -- is very pleasant and rewarding, and less degrading than saying "You want fries with that?" five hundred times a day while you labor under a petty despot called a store manager.

staying_sane_in... [September 12th, 2008 2:12 pm], your points on Dickens are well taken, but his writings did help to expose the horrors of 'underclass' life in England to the middle-and-upper classes and rid the society of such things as workhouses and child labor. I hadn't read of his opposition to unions before, but that would be consistent with the aristocratic 'airs' he adopted after he became famous, and the anti-socialist view prevalent in Great Britain at the time. Al Capone was also a raging hypocrite, but his soup kitchens fed most of Chicago in the early days of the Great Depression when there were no government welfare programs and private charities were overwhelmed. Ironies abound.

staying_sane_in... [September 12th, 2008 2:56 pm], I just have to mention one thing: I don't think there are ANY elected religious people in government, at least not at the national level. 'Religious politician' is as much of an oxymoron as 'intelligent Bush' or 'honest Dick Cheney.' It's a creature that never was and never will be. God, Jesus, Yahweh or Allah is just another talking point for them; another cheap bid for votes from the proles. Inner Party members, as Orwell pointed out, believe in the power of the state and themselves, but not really in anything beyond that. Jesus said you can either worship God or Mammon, but not both; these characters signed up with the latter.

Religion is all about control. Period. Do you really think a human being can know the mind of some imagined supernatural being that looks like your kindly old grandfather and lives in the clouds and can be influenced by "prayer"?

People. Please. Grow up. Take responsibility.

-- EKATON --

Who would have thought that I could find a political ally in Schwarzenegger - a Web search for the term "religious interference" brought up this article:

"Catholic Schwarzenegger to terminate religious 'interference'":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843183/posts

"Describing himself as a 'very dedicated Catholic', California Governor Arnold Schhwarzenegger is backing stem cell research initiatives, saying that religion should not interfere with government policy."

:)

In fact, I think I would go so far as to make it illegal for anyone in government to support or implement any policy based on their religious beliefs.

So, Bush saying, "God told me to strike at Al Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did" (Bush talking to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, on June 4, 2003), would have got him arrested, and he'd now be in jail.

Tony Blair said something similar, that "God" guided him in his decision. He'd now be behind bars, too.

I haven't been listening to Palin. But if she's saying that if McCain gets elected, she will support this, this, and this, because that is what her religion dictates, then she'd now be forced to stand down from running as VP to McCain. She would also be forever barred from taking up a position in government.

Aren't I a sweetie! :)

(Correction to the above: Palin has already said enough to be forced to stand down as VP - that is, if a "religious interference" law were in effect)

SIOUXROSE writes: "...You raise some interesting points. Rather than see religion as antithetical to government..."

Well, I wasn't commenting on religious people being in government. I think it's naive to stop someone being elected merely because that person is religious. Politicians - whether they are religious or not - all have their own little and not-so-little agendas. Having said that, what should NOT be allowed is a politician advocating for an issue based on his or her faith. They either present a reasoned argument for what they support or get kicked out of government. No politician should be allowed to support a policy based partly or completely on their faith.

My point was people naively think atheists are angels, and if we all become atheists, we will all live in peace and harmony - or, at least, we won't be worse off.

If people think that, they should read up on eugenics, and its impact on those nations that put the gene on an altar and began worshipping it. Tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized, and it culminated in Hitler's Nazi Germany and a world war - all in a day's work for the gene ;)

www.waragainsttheweak.com

"How American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of 'human genetics.'"

RSJ writes: "...penurious and punitive conservatism has already been given its chance to cure poverty and ignorance and you can read all about how well that worked out in the books of Charles Dickens and the economic policies of the Republican Party in the 1920s that resulted in the Great Depression."

Charles Dickens seemed pretty Conservative. I remember reading something he wrote in which he abhored labor unions. Dickens also moaned about the lax enforcement of copyright, how he should be paid for every copy of his books sold. So, there's Dickens using the poor as fodder for his stories, but doesn't want them to organize and form labor unions, but does want some kind of organization or union to protect the work of authors. It should be pointed out that when you write a book, after you've received an income that's fair for the effort put in, and that also reflects your past investment to become an author, the rest of the money you receive is not money that you've earned, but money for nothing!

Good old Dickens - you could consider his form of hypocrisy a forerunner to Tony Blair's, just nowhere near as virulent. :)

ESTEBANDIDO: Women largely do not CHOOSE sex work. It's probably a desperate act taken when there are no other skills, the economy does not offer opportunities (say in war zones), or the female is drug addicted and no longer master of her own will.

AUSSIDAWG: Good luck in the storm! AS one seasoned by many hurricanes, I know what they involve.

RSJ: Thank you for the well-reasoned posting. I appreciate your thoughtful posts in general.

JH: I hope that factor comes up in at least ONE publicized forum! The public should know this, though the "End Timer" crowd might just want to be beamed up sooner than later.

MUJERIEGO: Not so off the mark satire!

TRUTH TELLER: (I take you for neither): "Live will go on," what a cavalier disregard for the million plus MURDERED in Iraq. WHOSE life, yours?

STAYING SANE: You raise some interesting points. Rather than see religion as antithetical to government, note where the two converge and whose agendas are being fueled. There are some WONDERFUL people now and in earlier times who have been motivated by their faith to do good works. However, when "the faith" is used to politicize substantial segments of the US population and advocates for war, then something is more than rotten in Denmark.

Leea [September 12th, 2008 11:34 am] educating kids does open doors that enhance their self-respect and, as has been proven, educated people commit far fewer violent crimes than those who aren't. They are also less likely to become drug addicts. That may not be the complete answer, but that's a good start.

Our problem right now is less with drug addicts and violent kids than it is with the purportedly well-educated who are stealing our Constitution and getting us into wars for profit that the children of the disadvantaged fight. Educated people are less likely to allow their kids to be killed in wars for profit, and less likely to vote for those who start them.

And you're right about Palin -- she's no Christian, by any stretch of the word.

As far as I can tell by how she represents herself, Palin will be a follower of Christ when pigs fly.

She does well emulating a wolf in sheeps clothing.

What ever happened to turning the other cheek, giving the situation due consideration instead of blindly reacting like a drone for the nest?

Newsflash for sarahintology, pitbulls and Christians blink before they attack.

Siouxrose [September 11th, 2008 5:34 pm] an adult version of that game you played at camp is the 'color game' that Jane Elliot uses to teach the idiocy of prejudice based on superficialities. As her webpage says: "Taking pigmentation -- in this case, eye color -- as an arbitrary dividing line, Jane Elliott builds a microcosm of contemporary American society, compelling her more privileged blue-eyed participants to live in another world for the longest two and a half hours of their lives."

For example, she takes a "group of 40 teachers, police, school administrators and social workers in Kansas City -- blacks, Hispanics, whites, women and men. The blue-eyed members are subjected to pseudo-scientific explanations of their inferiority, culturally biased IQ tests and blatant discrimination. In just a few hours under Elliott's withering regime ... grown professionals become despondent and distracted, stumbling over the simplest commands."
Jane Elliot URL: http://janeelliott.com/index.htm

It's incredible the number of the 'blue-eyed' who become livid at this separation and shunning, having never experienced such ostracism in their lives, and equally amazing that some few don't translate it to such things as skin color.

Unfortunately, we have a large number of Americans who, due to poor education, indoctrination and isolation, seem to be incapable of seeing past their nose, or using their heads for anything more than as a platform to hold their empty brains and open mouths.

Craig Merrihue [September 11th, 2008 6:05 pm] wrote: "Liberalism, descended from the 18th century Enligtenment, was a naive embrace of liberty and individualism which presupposed a society who's fabric was maintained by morality, religion, law, & the basic goodness of people. I lived for 13 years in South Central L.A. & the barrios of Anaheim, doing my small part to clean up the mess you ivory tower liberals engender and are safely removed from by your income. Drugs, hedonism, & materialism is liberalisms real legacy. The drives toward egalitarianism and against restraints know no bounds--that's why Truman's liberalism is so unlike Obama's. It just keeps pushing out, creating alienation and destroying community in the name of freedom as it goes along."

Craig, as to your first point: Actually, the Founders of this country were well aware of the 'evil' that lurked in men's souls and established a government based on competing self-interest, not on the innate goodness of humanity. You're confusing Rousseau with Jefferson here. Jefferson believed that an educated populace would naturally, in their own self-interest, want to remain free and have a just government that was subordinate to them. This is demonstrably true, as revolutions around the globe have demonstrated. This is also why he advocated free public education so strongly; it's concomitant to enlightened self-interest.

As to your second point, I assume there were conservatives in office during your 13 years in South Central L.A. and Anaheim -- conservatives who cut programs to help the poor and drug-addicted. Instead of a failure of liberalism, you might consider this a failure of conservatism to properly fund and administer programs, as I have seen happen in bad neighborhoods in Chicago. After all, FEMA worked fine in responding to emergencies until George W. Bush appointed incompetent cronies to run it and made it part of Homeland Security instead the cabinet-level agency it was before. Katrina wasn't a failure of liberalism -- it was a failure of the Bush creed of small-government neoconservatism and a practical application of what Naomi Klein calls Disaster Capitalism in the service of privatization so that the rich can get richer at the expense of the taxpayer.

A friend who worked for the Cook County Dept. of Public Aid said one of the biggest problems she had was that successful programs -- such as free breakfast and lunch programs for indigent school children, afterschool activities to keep them off the streets, and drug counseling rather than prison for addicted kids -- were consistently cut by conservative Republican politicians until they failed, and then those same conservative Republicans pointed to the failures they caused through underfunding as proof that liberal government programs don't work. It's a neat trick, but it isn't true.

I'm sorry you think liberal freedom is what's destroying our communities, but that's simply not true, either -- inadequate education and poverty are the culprits there. And materialism is hardly the fault of liberals or progressives -- all of those TV ads and useless products and Walmart are brought to you by good conservative Republican corporations, not liberty-loving liberals.

As far as your 'progressive' past, I'm reminded of the Pacific Islander who wanted to be the greatest baseball pitcher in the world, but only knew about the game from hearing it on the radio. He somehow got the idea that the right way to throw a fastball was underhanded and between your legs. Obviously, nothing will work if you are doing it wrong. Perhaps that was the case when you were a progressive working in the barrio.

At any rate, penurious and punitive conservatism has already been given its chance to cure poverty and ignorance and you can read all about how well that worked out in the books of Charles Dickens and the economic policies of the Republican Party in the 1920s that resulted in the Great Depression.

Just to temper the enthusiasm to blame religion for the specter of a "theocracy" in the U.S. - and for the world's problems generally! - we have reached this point thanks to the "failure" of politicians of all stripes.

In the U.S., the anti-religious right's - i.e. the Democrats' - past actions and failures has disenfranchised many would-be voters. Bush rose to political prominence because he was the son of a former president. Clinton had a chance to tear down H. W. Bush's presidential legacy, but chose to protect it by shutting down three investigations into Republican wrongdoing, including one into the illegal arming of Iraq by the White House (read "Spider's Web" by Alan Friedman - at the time, London Financial Times correspondent).

That's just a couple of examples of how the Democrats - effectively non-religious people - are helping the religious right get elected.

Second, Americans themselves have turned their nation into a religion. 9/11 was a desecration of the U.S., the most sacred temple in the world, an act that could not go unpunished. This - along with a mindless belief that a tiny, two-bit terrorist organization called Al Qaeda could destroy the U.S. - and the fact that foreign lives are largely irrelevant to Americans - resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and Bush being re-elected for a second term.

The military occupation of Iraq has no religious raison d'etre, but it does have an economic and geopolitical one. So, whether Palin wants to call it a "task from God" or not, the U.S. is in Iraq, and will be staying in Iraq, for purely "atheist" reasons.

I would liken Palin and her similarly politico-religious counterpart, Bush, to men and women who claim to be Christians in order to gain access to children for less than pure reasons. Has Bush, and will Palin, upset the corporations and the wealthy? Will U.S. foreign policy ever reflect "God's" will that the meek shall inherit the Earth? Answer those two questions, and you'll have your answer as to how much religion is to blame for the mess we are in.

Finally, if you think atheists are any better, first bear in mind that foreign policy is controlled by atheists, who spill blood, loot and pillage to feed corporate profits. Second, many of those who are virulently anti-religious worship the gene like a god. The genes, according to them, are the entire living universe, as well as the creator. And, just as the physical - but dead - universe has laws that cannot be violated, so, too, does the living universe. Those with "superior" genes are destined - preordained, so to speak - to rule over those with "inferior" genes. Genes also determine who we care about - we care about our family members only!

Who knows, perhaps religion has kept atheists in check in the same way the Soviet Union kept the U.S. in check all through the Cold War years.

None of us wanted to be ruled by the "Soviets", but, in hindsight, they did serve a purpose. Perhaps, religion also serves a purpose. We just need to make sure it doesn't control us - that's all!

If Palin's daughter can "choose" to keep her baby, then why can't other women "choose" to abort?

I read a quote from a delegate at Minneaplois: "The right to choose does not mean pro-choice." Umm, WTF?

Vote third party so we can stop this endless back-and-forth between our two mainstream corrupt, corporate-controlled parties.

Good grief, another Palin article? Enough~ please stop! This distraction is exactly what "they" want!

The most frightening aspect of Palin as potential president is her religious dogma. Her heartfelt hope is the "end of days" and the "rapture." What would a fanatic do (WWFD) when the power of the nuclear button is placed in her hands? What would restrain her? The thought that it would destroy the world? That, in Palin's ideology, is incentive, not deterrent.

The rapture already happened...all the virtuous sinless christians were taken up to heaven....but the bus was empty.

This is obviously hell, were vicious, craven, psuedo-christian republicans rule

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

You want to see a theocracy, go live in Iran. Or check out a secular theocracy and go live in North Korea. Otherwise, quit whining. Life will go on.

CRAIG MERRIHUE: You're an interesting "animal" to have in this forum. You remind me of the once-liberal thinker who became a Bush man and is credited with coining the phrase, "compassionate conservative." His name escapes me. He also "pioneered" the list of "America's 100 most dangerous professors."

The thinking here is black of white. You presume that a society that allots its members freedom is responsible for what they do with that freedom; and then see conservative constraints as the cure. It's as if only polarities operate in your sphere of orientation. What about shades of gray? Blaming the conditions of LA lawlessness on liberals is like fighting a war on TERRORISM. These are trite shields that never tap into the plurality of factors that CAUSE phenomena. It's like a kneejerk response. If freedom causes problems, just constrain everyone. I happen to believe that those who espouse conservative viewpoints do not trust THEIR OWN instincts. Perhaps they were raised on harsh Christian values that turned them against the natural urges of their own bodies (original sin, for instance). Perhaps where others can use recreational drugs and still maintain a hold on themselves, those who come apart then blame the drug and want a world where that option is no available to anyone else.

Ancient cultures along with many indigenous cultures made use of hallucinogenic plants as part of elaborate rituals. These were done to expand consciousness, to provide a greater empathy or sentience capable of connecting with the natural world. Given the blood on religions' hands, to claim that conservative policies work is a scary fiction. Just look at the state of the US while directed by twisted souls who claim the moral highground while shooting at living targets and stealing everything that rightfully belongs to the collective citizenry.

Those who turn against a path they once traveled should explore new ones before thinking they own the authority to tell the rest of us which path is "right."

Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is Spiro Agnew, packing a taser on a mission from God.

Sarah Palin's chief function on the GOP ticket paired with John McCain is to fire up the evangelical Christian and small town rural America culture factions of the traditional Republican base, while injecting gender as another omnipresent wedge issue into the presidential campaign (along side religion and race) - ostensibly also to appeal to disgruntled Hillary supporters. Governor Palin appears to be a very well scripted, unconventional choice to fill the traditional attack dog role.

All this of course has been commented upon by others before. From the personal contacts I've recently had with real life Hillary Clinton primary supporters however, I don't think there's much of a direct threat there of major defections by Democratic-leaning women voters. An interesting subtext of the Palin selection that has not received much notice or comment yet, and which reinforces my sense of how this may all play out, is Sarah Palin's open affiliation with a fairly new neo-con group called Feminists for Life.

Out there in Limbaugh Land, the customary right wing tactic for use against the women's rights movement consists of thinly veiled, misogynist ridicule: taunt them as Femi-Nazis, bra burning dykes who hate men and hate motherhood, angry social misfits seeking to scam the system for personal economic advantage against male wage earners by resorting to often fake or exaggerated claims of sex discrimination and/or sexual harassment. So-called social conservatives and their talking point spin meisters have labored long and hard to frame feminism as a dirty word, as dirty a word as liberalism.

So go make a quick visit to the Feminists for Life website. What I sense rumbling out there on the far right fringe of the political spectrum is a conscious effort by the heirs of Phyllis Schlafly to co-opt, and ideologically redefine, that which could not be fully discredited or destroyed.

Suddenly, the dreams of Susan B. Anthony so long deferred can be realized, and the crusading spirit of the Womens Christian Temperance Union can be revived and modernized. This election cycle, we're being told it's the paternalistic good old boys' system of the Democratic team that's trying to keep the glass ceiling intact, and it's Sarah Palin who's now supposedly the agent of change, striving valiently to break through at last so that women everywhere will benefit.

At the center of this neo-feminist, neo-conservative repackaging groundswell effort is the issue of reproductive rights. Trying to excorcise the ghost of Margaret Sanger from the history of the US womens' movement is rather like claiming to be a champion of civil rights for African-Americans - but just please don't mention that Frederick Douglass fellow.

Overturn Roe v Wade? In the name of some newfangled feminism?

No matter how slickly marketed towards its demographic target group, I just don't believe this new brand of snake oil is going to sell.

Bill from Saginaw

In Fairness to Sarah Palin…
(AV) The news this week seems to have been all about the Republican’s #2 nominee. Although she does not answer questions from reporters yet and has been strictly confined to say only the words that appear on her teleprompter, the photogenic Veep nominee, with the assistance of the mainstream media, has brought the McCain campaign back from the dead.
Those elitist left-wing pundits who point out that Palin favors teaching of creationism in public schools always fail to point out that she would allow teachers to present evolution to impressionable youngsters as well, as long as they say it is just a theory.
Families of special needs children are expected to vote for her since she has a Downs Syndrome child, even if she cut 60% of the money for special needs kids in public schools in Alaska.
And no one should talk about the governor’s insistence on abstinence only sex education when the cameras are on her pregnant 17 year old daughter.
While we’re at it, we must be fair to John McCain also. When he says he is against lobbyists, we must not mention that most of his top campaign staff are lobbyists. When he rails against corruption, we should not point out his membership in the ‘Keating Five’ during the last real estate melt down. And we must never speak of McCain’s special treatment while a P.O.W. or his failure to assist the families of those still missing with information on the fate of their loved ones.
Most of all, when McCain-Palin speak of change, we must never point out that their party (with considerable help from Dems) got us where we are now.

We MUST start calling the Repulsive Party's ticket the McBush/Paliban ticket.

Given the expanded powers of the executive branch, due primarily to Cheney and the lawyers he surrounded himself with, a Palin vice-presidency is very dangerous, especially considering McCains age and health. Can you imagine if this upstart evangelical becomes president, with all that consolidated executive power? Watching her sends chills up my spine. Prepare for a modern day version of the Inquisition if she ascends the throne.

(Most of the following was derived from a response to a Paul Loeb article on Palin, but is largely pertinent here as well).

For many years my politics were far left progressive, evn up through my 2004 at large stand for city council in Anaheim. For that reason, I am particularly dismayed by liberalism's disparagement of religion in the last half century of accelerated slide into secularism with its attendant fostering of the self-centered & liberine perspectives which fill our prisons, & poison our society with hedonism, drugs, & consumer-materialism.

I well understand the arrogance of a liberal who cannot abide the possibility of "reality" being significantly different from opinion. I used to adhere to such arrogance. I ran as a Green, have voted for Nader twice, have been married to an African-American woman (who's not voting for Obama)for 20 years (I know how "progressives" love "street cred")with whom I've raised our 6 children, & received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood (which I now fully repudiate) and the Mexican American Political Association (I still love, though disagree with, Nativo Lopez).

"Reality"? Some folks I'm sure you dismiss or disdain, perhaps "bitter & clinging to their guns & religion", believe life begins at conception and its willful termination is murder, not a "right". But that's just us "gun toting hillibillies" & "senile warmongers" denigrated by one of your supporters here.

Liberalism, descended from the 18th century Enligtenment, was a naive embrace of liberty and individualism which presupposed a society who's fabric was maintained by morality, religion, law, & the basic goodness of people. I lived for 13 years in South Central L.A. & the barrios of Anaheim, doing my small part to clean up the mess you ivory tower liberals engender and are safely removed from by your income. Drugs, hedonism, & materialism is liberalisms real legacy. The drives toward egalitarianism and against restraints know no bounds--that's why Truman's liberalism is so unlike Obama's. It just keeps pushing out, creating alienation and destroying community in the name of freedom as it goes along.

Thanks a heap, Marjorie

Craig Merrihue

WC DEVINS: Thank you for the recognition. I have a theory that the split of the atom has created something of a fissure amid the family of mankind. Lately, this election is also causing so much contention, even on our own little CD community site.

As a child (aged 5) I was sent to sleepaway camp and it was quite illuminating watching the spectacle known as "Color War" (an event much anticipated by campers who returned each summer) break out. As soon as the artificial "membership" on one of the two color-based teams began, fierce competition followed and friend was turned on friend all for the illusion of belonging to a specific (fabricated context) team. I believe an adult version (though it can be argued the vast majority of persons are just larger children, is there such a thing as a mature adult in America? It's NOT the majority of persons, that's for sure!) is underway today in the U.S. So be kind to yourself. I consider myself a spiritual being who remains aware of the law of karma and tries to act in accord with it at all times, but whether it's PMS or just a moon cycle, there are some on this site I've had a few coarse words for... it's HUMAN, although admittedly, I do rather like Dr. Spock!

"Barack Obama plans to expand President Bush’s program to provide federal assistance to faith-based groups." WSJ, July 08.

Separation of what and what now?

Guess it all depends on your definition of "change we need." Do we need an expansion of anything that begins with "President Bush's..."?

"...her teenage daughter's choice to continue her pregnancy..."

Okay, I'm willing to buy your assertion that her daughter was given a choice for the moment... but I want some proof that's the case.

*Perhaps* she had a choice to become pregnant... but to "continue" her pregnancy? All background on Palin leads me to believe this statement is in need of a reality adjustment.

It must be remembered that the framers of the US Constitution worded it the way they did to PREVENT the ascention of a Christian theological state.

Walk in peace.

WC DEVINS: I agree with everything you have said on this matter, and then some. When souls leave the body they must answer for how they behaved. I'd be interested in hearing the testimonies of those who cleaved to the right and under the guise of believing in Jesus, demonstrated every form of prejudice and LOATHING of their fellow man, and especially WOMAN.

While as some say this woman has stirred debate away from "THE ISSUES," her reference point being founded in a highly repressed religious orientation influences all other policies. There IS no longer a separation of church and state in the U.S. as it's the contorted-by-religiosity group who have supported such heinous candidates. And while it's disgusting that Democrats will cleave to the right in search of the "centrist" votes, and it's deplorable that too many have gone along with insane Republican policies, the Christian Right/Reich is what any freedom-loving person with a basic understanding of a representative republic OUGHT fear most! To put this lady into the # 2 slot is a SIN against reason and any semblance of democracy.

Clearly only a party with no concern at all for their own country would put such an inexperienced, unknown, intellectual featherweight up for the second highest office in the land. The GOP cares only about remaining in power. The fact that in the last 8 years they have proven to be utterly unfit for the challenge of governing, that they have failed at everything and at every level, is lost on their cheerleaders. The Palin pick is a transparent attempt to attract disenfranchised women, evangelicals, security moms and others merely through her identity rather than her dismal lack of qualifications and experience; it is the ultimate insult to America. Yet her apparent acceptance underscores the lack of discernment in about half of the voters in this country.

"Theocracy"..."bloody inferno", or , as Nelson Algren wrote in 'Walk on the Wild Side', "Army-Gideon!". Get real. Sarah Palin is a rational, sensible, pragmatic lady who will be interesting and effective as Vice-Prez, if she is elected.

I wouldn't get too worked up about Palin. Like other Republicans, this is just to prop up and stir fears on both sides to keep us distracted from the real issues. Once she's in office, she will just put this culture issue on the backburner. In any case, most of the theocracy forced on this country for the last 8 years has already been done. Obama could also be questioned on his support for extending Bush's faith based policies once elected. Palin may help finish SMASHING what's left of the lower/middle/working class and drag more US troops into more endless wars which I think is more worrisome but she'll lay off on going gung ho theocrat. Besides, failure to "Christianize" is used to succeed in SMASHING the country economically.

And yet it is clearly a mistake for the media to keep attacking her; it only makes her "sympathetic" in the minds of so many americans. I've often wondered if we actually ever had a truly evangelical presidency (Bush's administration was only sort of and didn't really do what the evangelicals really want, an overturning of all of our rights)if americans would WAKE UP and finally say "NO!" to conservative nonsensical policies.

"What big teeth you have, Grandma." "All the better to eat you with." She is truly a wolf in women's clothing.

A great satire--you'll laugh out loud--of Bush, Palin, the Moral Majority, etc.: "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual." It's motto: "We are marching proudly backwards to the future." It explains all you need to know to live well in this new age of decency. It's available at bookstores everywhere.

The left continues to lend credence to the story that McCain picked Palin when anybody with a 3 digit IQ knows that Karl Rove strategically picked Palin. She is another example of the Rove genius. The Palin phenomenon, combined with Obama's failure to challenge the alleged success of the "surge" and his comments to Letterman about letrting the voters decide based on facts indicate that Democratic Part strategy is non-existent and Obama is not likely to carry as many states as Kerry did.

Sarah apparently feels that it is her mission to make Alaska available to True Believers in the Last Days as they will gather here before the Tribulation to await the Rapture . . . Yikes !

Unfortunately, she is no friend to agriculture in the 49th state, we lost our very good Agricultural Director a few months into her reign, he was replaced by The Daughter of the Woman who Babysat Sarah when she was a Child . . .

So I guess all the True Believers can just sustain themselves on oil rather than food while awaiting the Rapture . . .