el gordo said (quote):

“I guess it never occured to you that there is a christian left? They are more likely to go after your wallet and your freedoms than Sarah Palin.”

The import of these two sentences is simple and clear: There is a Christian left that is more likely to go after my wallet and my freedoms than Sarah Palin.

Do you somehow interpret it differently?

I asked el gordo if the link I provided was an example of the Christian left he or she was talking about.

Not very complicated.

At any rate, my EXACT words on Sept 8 7:54 am were:

Is this the “Christian left” that is “likely to go after” my wallet and my freedoms?

But you quote me as saying:

The Christian left [...] is likely to go after my wallet and my freedoms [...]”

What I asked was a QUESTION in reference to the link I provided.

I did NOT make a statement, as you have done when “quoting” me, and I certainly did not “bend” the meaning of el gordo’s statement.

The only bending of meaning is what you have done with my question.

KD said in his post on Sep 8 7:54 am:

“The Christian Left [...] is likely to go after my wallet and my freedoms [...]”

The exact words, which no amount of spin can alter.

See? this kind of quote bending, eliding crucial clauses, is foolish and unbecoming in a self-governing people, whether practiced by KD or Charles Gibson.

If we cannot engage with meaning as intended by our opponents, and instead play ‘gotcha’ word games like this, we will have so debased the civil debate required by a free people as to put into peril our experiment in self government.

http://www.miserere.org/m/

“Task from God.”

Your “spin” cannot alter her actual words.

As for President George W. Bush believing his actions are inspired by God:

“God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam which I did. . .”

“I trust God speaks through me.”

Believe as you like.

The YouTube clip I watched was not skewed. It was Mrs. Palin’s speech/prayer, sans commentary or spin.

As for a “Christian left” that will “go after” my wallet and my freedoms: absurd. What “freedoms” of mine are a Christian left “likely” to go after?

You say you are an atheist. I am surprised you aren’t concerned when national leaders (President Bush, for example) and/or aspiring national leaders (Mrs. Palin) believe their actions and decisions are inspired, if not directed, by an absolute, unerring Power.

First, they didn´t say that. That is your unproven claim.

Second, I am an atheist but I can look beyond the tip of my nose.

Saying that “Iraq is a task from God” and praying that what you are doing is the right thing are fundamentally different statements. The latter worries me not at all. It sure won´t make me vote for a walking disaster like Obama.

Now I have to resate my original question, which you did not answer:

Does it not worry you that the quote was deliberately bowdlerized in a transparent fashion by a major newspaper and in a youtube clip? Why was it changed at all if there is no difference?

Here is another one: I guess it never even occurred to you that there is a christian left? They are more likely to go after your wallet and your freedoms than Sarah Palin. Think about it.

Nothing whatsoever.

My primary argument is that Mrs. Palin is not (as her own words reveal) simply praying for God to look favorably on the nation’s or on soldier’s actions. Her prayer/speech carries with it the assumption that He already has, and that the war in Iraq is a task from Him that we must succeed at.

There is much on this blog that smacks of the absurd when it comes to Mr. Obama. I guess that is perfectly OK as along as it helps to denigrate the candidate Mr. Kimball and others don’t like.

Perhaps a more honest, less partisan approach from the editor and readers of The New Criterion, a publication described as America’s leading review of the arts and intellectual life.

“Equating a prayer for God to look favorably on a nation’s or on soldiers’ actions with fanatical religious triumphalism is absurd.”

I see.

And “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” was all about US magazine wanting to expose the lies on Left-leaning blogs.

But anyway – why should I be repelled by God & guns? Embarking on a military tour makes young men think about their own mortality. Some go to go to Church to try and ease their minds. From time to time, dignitaries attend these services. Palin could genuinely believe that her remarks might comfort them (or it could just be a cynical photo op to her. Maybe a bit of both). The intersection of religion and military service doesn’t have to mean delusional red-staters invading Iraq b/c they have a direct line to Heaven.

How should anyone know whether & to what extent Palin reflects on human agency, morality, & religion? Unlike some Democrats & Republicans I try not to lose my head over any candidate. I’m fully aware that the politicians I support are still human and often deceptive. Could be that Palin’s an amoral deceiver, and if so it won’t come as a complete surprise to me. After all, there are enough fallen political charlatans throughout History who did the same.

Nevertheless, for now I believe that her remarks at the ceremony seemed appropriate. Making false equivalence between praying that God approves of soldiers’ and nations’ between adhering to a fanatical religious triumphalism is absurd (at least to me. To others, it’s perfectly OK as long as it helps denigrate the candidates they don’t like.)

And as for OIF – it is not a religious crusade for me and I do not claim to know what purpose the war could serve for God, Satan, Horus, Zeus, or whatever.