Fox Is Now More Fair and Balanced. Sarah Palin Joins.

[Sqrl]

TheRealMafoo said:

Sqrl said:

The fact that you compare drug addiction to religious belief is truly quite astounding.

I think it says more than I ever could.

The only comparison I made is putting them both in the category of bad candidate.

One of the key reasons for the US to break away from Britin was religious freedom. If I was going to rate people on how religion influenced the choices they make in life, I would say Sarah is in the top 1%. Why is it a bad thing to not want someone in that demographic to lead a nation who's founding principle is separation of church and state?

When it comes time to make a choice on a law, I do not want my leader to look to God for the answer. I want them to look to the Constitution. Sorry if you find that offensive, or astounding.

if I was going to rate people on how religion influenced the choices they make in life, I would say Sarah is in the top 1%. Why is it a bad thing to not want someone in that demographic to lead a nation who's founding principle is separation of church and state?

When it comes time to make a choice on a law, I do not want my leader to look to God for the answer. I want them to look to the Constitution. Sorry if you find that offensive, or astounding.

 

 

The comparison seems pretty explicit quite honestly.

But the problem I have with what you're saying is that you show a profound lack of understanding of what religious people mean when they say they look to god for the answer.  It's not "god was in my bedroom and told me to go to war" type of stuff like you make out to be.  It is "what would jesus do?" type of stuff. 

You take the most perverse view of their faith you can, even if you do recognise that not all religious people are this way, and condemn them for it.

As for your last sentence, I find your use of a false dichotomy (some might prefer false dilemma) to be tiresome.  Do you even have a specific instance where Palin, or any religious presidential candidate has said he/she would put their religious faith before the constitution?  Let alone an argument that would satisfy the idea that these two things must be mutually exclusive (which is required for the statement to have any logical consistency whatsoever)?

At this point I'm getting the sense that your intolerant view of religious politicians came before your rationalization of it.