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

I think it says more than I ever could.

How many people here think that they would be able to seem intelligent and well informed if I gave you 6 to 12 hours notice for a 2 minute debate? This is why I think Sarah Palin may be highly successful as a commentator; even if all you did was memorize the top 10 talking points from bloggers, and repeat the ones that seemed appropriate, you would probably come across as being informed and intelligent.

I'll bet all of my vg$ that she'll quit within the next couple of years.

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.

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.

Every political candidate I have voted for was religious, so I am no way intolerant of it.

Every member of my family is religious other then me (including my wife), and I am extremely tolerant of it.

What I am intolerant of, is religious radicalism. What your doing is the same thing as saying I am against someone who drinks a few times a month, because I speak out against an alcoholic.

Palin is a religious radical, and you are defending her point like she has the same views as all religious people, and that when I speak about her and how I feel she would conduct herself, that it's how I fell all christians would act.

That's not remotely true.

To give you an example of what I am talking about. Zig Ziggler is a very popular motivational speaker.

Here is a bio on him, and a paragraph from it reads:
"Ziglar’s second revelation came in 1972 while floating in his trademark arrow-shaped swimming pool of his suburban Dallas home. Reflecting on his recent experience of being born again in Tullahoma, Tennessee, he said to himself, “Lord, I know you put this whole big universe together, and I know that someday you’re going to take it down.” Then, after a shooting star passed his gaze, Ziglar heard the following from the heavens above: “That’s right boy, and don’t you ever forget it.” This would not be God’s only direct contact with Ziglar: later Ziglar would hear The Creator interrupt his telephone call to tell him that if Ziglar “would leave it up to [Him, He] would take care of [the] little things for [Ziglar].”"

http://www.olemiss.edu/mwp/dir/ziglar_zig/index.html

This is not "what would Jesus do?" kind of stuff. it's I was talking on the phone and god broke into my call to talk to me.

I have met this man, and people like him scare me when in power. Palin reminds me of this man.

You've given no justification for why you believe she is any different from literally millions of other religious people in this country.

You are simply declaring her a religious radical and then moving on from there like it is established fact. 

Ok so the logic is:

• Person A is crazy.
• Person B reminds me of Person A.
• Therefore person B is also crazy.

The bottom line is if you had prior justification for your classification of Palin as a religious radical akin to this man you would of used the quote of her and not the quote of this man instead.

I posted two videos. What more do you want?

And your right. I have nothing other then my gut feeling that she is a religious radical. Why I am not trying to convince anyone else of it. It's just how I feel, and I have every right to feel that way.

I don't take issue with you thinking I am wrong about her bring radical. I take issue with you suggesting that the way I feel about her reflects on how I feel about anyone religious.

How I feel about her is how I feel about anyone who is a religious radical. I put very few people in that category.