None of My Business

Mr Otterson:

Thank you for your insightful remarks. I fully agree with you

In 1764, Adams married Abigail Smith (1744–1818), the daughter of a Congregational minister, Rev. William Smith, at Weymouth, Massachusetts. Their children were Abigail (1765–1813), future president John Quincy (1767–1848), Susanna (1768–1770); Charles (1770–1800), Thomas Boylston (1772–1832), and the stillborn Elizabeth (1775).

He started his political career in 1765.

It's a shame a 17 year old girl, who just happens to be the daughter of the V-P candidate should have her whole life paraded in front of the nation. And that brings up the question of parental responsibility to their children. Sarah Palin has a special needs infant also. Would a responsible parent make the decision to accept the nomination, knowing her family situation?

I don't think the question is whether or not Palin is capable of doing it all. the question is why would she choose to place her political ambitions over the needs of the family she chose to have.

It is true that others have certainly done this. Biden has children. Obama has young daughters- but the pressures on the Palins are somewhat greater. She has a very young, months old, special needs child. Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Palin herself is playing an enormous game of catch up and she and her husband, and oftne the kids have been paraded out like ads for family values at a time most other families would be prioritizing the needs of their kids.

I'm not going to blame Palin's religion for Bristol's pregnancy.Happens to everyone. Questioning her judgment and priorities is a whole other thing. Palin comes across as cold and calculating, well scripted and coached, but definitely not warm. So maybe the whole family values persona is a thin veneer on a person who is so cold and manipulative, she is not above letting her 5 month old son get passed around to various strangers at political events or exposing her 17 year olds' private and surely agonizing mistake to the entire world- well, I just gotta ask. What kind of judgment call was that?

and what is Palin really saying? An infant with special needs is no big deal? My daughter's privacy is not more important than what I want? I'm a parent who chose to have 5 kids and now I'm bored with it, so the heck with what they need?

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Whether Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan or Buddhist, one of the Supreme Laws of Mankind is:

"Protect Human Life in All Its Forms".

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Not one debate question about First Born Male Butchery, Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies (e.g. Gabriels, Moronis), Ascending/Descending Bodies, Wine to Blood and Bread to Flesh and the rest of that ancient Voodoo with some first century Palestine hoodoo and six to seventh century Arab hallucinations!!

Shocking???? Or maybe we have finally grown up and put away Dark Age superstitions!!!!!!

Paganplace:
"republican's have made religion an issue"
Of course they have. That's because their base tends to be religious. They lose no votes by making religion an issue. Do I like it? Heck no, I'm an atheist and don't care for it one bit. But 75% of this country claims to be christian. to win votes from a lot of them, a WHOLE lot of them, you'd be a fool NOT to speak to their beliefs. Even Obama has done that.
" if you're going to say Abstinence Only needs to be the policy,"
That is the policy proposed for public school sex education classes. Palin is not against birth control or STD prevention per se.
I started this awkward rant only to break up the ridiculous argument that Bristol's pregnancy has anything to do with public school sex education cirriculum. Even an abstinence-only policy, which by the way I am completely against, teaches that if you have intercourse it is very possible you will get pregnant. Bristol knew at least that much, yet she still got pregnant. As for it being against her mother's religion, I won't presume to say and I do not know what Bristol's religious beliefs are at all. It doesn't really matter if they are evangelical though since she can ask for forgiveness from her lord at anytime, problem solved, go and sin no more.
I have had teenagers, nothing is scarier than sitting at home while they are out dating. I know the pressures, I know the temptations. The righteous are tempted just as much as the non-righteous. As a parent of a teenager you live in constant fear of this outcome, you know how easy it is to slip up. You are also aware of your own inability to actually keep it from happening. You've taught, lectured, scolded, warned, but when it come down to it; it is ultimately the decision of a not fully matured mind in a very natural state of extremely heightened arousal.
Sexually, teenagers are sticks of dynamite dating lit fuses. It is remarkable to me that it doesn't result in MORE pregnancies.

"Environmental issues, gay marriages, abstinence only, abortion everything I've read says that Palin is viewing these from a purely religious stand point and not a constitutional and or freedom based stand point."

Believe it or not, I agree with you completely. She/McCain never, ever, ever had my vote.

I do agree with Mr. Otterson that a person's religion should not be the sole determining factor for election as president or any other office. We need to stop basing our votes on superficial matters. Being president (or vp) is a job and, like all hiring managers, we need to decide what qualifications a candidate should have, not what his/her religion is. We need to get over the media sensationalism about the candidates' and focus on their position on real issues like the economy, foreign policy, and the energy crisis.

Not one debate question about Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies, Fortune tellers/prophets for propfit( e.g. Joe Smith), Ascending/Descending Bodies, Wine to Blood and Bread to Flesh i.e. all that ancient Voodoo and some first century Palestine Hoodoo!!

Coloradodog:
You said: "Is that what Mormons think happened to Obama?"
You should read the whole book and you will find that dark skin is not what he did.

Paganplace:
Are you ignoring the references to god in the documents of this country because they are inconvenient to you?
How about the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court?
Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket and read it.
This is a Christian country wither you like it or not. If you don't, then you are in a minority group.

Gladerunner,

What is happening with Bristol really wasn't the point or topic I was trying to comment on. (Though I do have a few choice comments on that one, as I'm sure you can imagine!)

My real point was more to the fact that republican's have made religion an issue. To be specific they have made Palin's religion an issue. While I don't think a person's religion should be an issue, if you're going to make it one, than you'd better be able to stand up and back it up. And I just don't think Palin has.

The Abstinence Only issue was the first topic I thought of. It seems to me that as a politician if you're going to say Abstinence Only needs to be the policy, and your child is pregnant before she is married, which is against not only the religious practices that you've taught your child, but also against the Abstinence Only policy you're advocating, than instead of walking around saying "You can't talk about my family. They're completely off limits," you should be talking about how your own family fits or doesn't fit with your policy and why. Shrouding it in this taboo veil they've made makes me think that there is a problem and the republicans know it. Her not addressing the issue or the religion implications of it, while toting how religious she is, shows to me that she is a hypocrite. What's good for the goose had better be good enough for the gander or don't make a policy out of it.

Environmental issues, gay marriages, abstinence only, abortion everything I've read says that Palin is viewing these from a purely religious stand point and not a constitutional and or freedom based stand point.

If your party is making policies part of their platform based on your religious choice than you'd better be ready to comment on it. You'd better not only expect questions, but have real answers to them. If you're not ready for that, than leave it out.

Again OB, when confronted regarding a religious question, respond to it immediately with, what I consider, clear answers. And more importantly He has done his best not to dwell on it.

I am looking forward to tonight's debate. I won't be able to watch while it's happening, but that's what TiVo is for!

If someone has their itchy finger on a nuclear trigger and they subscribe to an apocalyptic world view, you better believe I want to ask them few questions.

Tolerance and respect call for acceptance of people no matter what religion or sect they adhere to. That doesn't mean I embrace their beliefs. It does mean that I base judgment on personal actions. I am much more interested in a candidate who possesses core values and adheres to them, than I am in a candidate who professes to worship the same way as myself.
Let a candidate (or any citizen) worship how and what they may. I can't say I'll never vote for someone who is Jewish. I will gladly vote for a candidate of any religious creed so long as his/her core values align with own, and his/her actions are proof of the same.

Paganplace " Palin's support for the notion doesn't extend to her own home"

Once again i find myself in an awkward position, sbince I anm not a Palin supporter...

Palin supports 'abstinence-only' sex-ed as a policy for public schools. There is no indication whatsoever that she plans/wants to extend that narrow scope of education to the home. Conservatives are not simply moral puritans. Many of their positions are about the proper role of government/schools.

"Is this supposed to be something that *supports* Palin's notion that radical Christianity and complete ignorance is enough? "

No, it's simply a question of motive. If Bristol KNEW she could get pregnant doing what she did, then 'abstinence-only' sex ed or not in public shools is moot. Like those girls in MASS last year that formed the 'lets get pregnant by a homeless guy' pact. They wanted to get pregnant, knew how to go about it, so knowledge or not of vasectomies, condoms, BC pills did not have any effect on the outcome.

"Really? It didn't? You know this to be true? Did Bristol even receive abstinence only sex education?"

Unless of course, Palin's support for the notion doesn't extend to her own home, which is where those who want to exclude real knowledge from the schools are supposed to get it, and unless I've missed something about the Assemblies of Gods' position about premarital sex, yes, She got all the 'education' Ms Palin wants for all our kids, (and no more, or else) ..But still got pregnant as a teen from premarital sex.

This is supppsed to work as public policy by Ms Palin's fine example *why* again?

" Did she have no knowledge of alternative birth control methods? Do we know that she did not know the consequences of unprotected intercourse?"

No, we don't know. But in this day and age, we should know for *sure,* not be trying to abolish the notion she could.

" Do we even know that she didn't want to get pregnant?"

Is this supposed to be something that *supports* Palin's notion that radical Christianity and complete ignorance is enough?

Cause that's not what I think America sees, there.

As for another poster:

"Same deal for Biden, though I have seen fewer connections raised."

That's cause Senator Biden has *decades* of experience and a Congressional record that says he *doesn't* let his Catholic beliefs override reason, fact, or representing his constituency.

There are fewer questions cause he didn't come out of nowhere. You can look it up, if you have worries what he thinks.

from Henry James

I essentially agree with Mr Otterson's reasonable sentiments.

The only disagreement I would have is on the beliefs Ms Palin or Mr Biden have publicly expressed that would affect their positions on matters of public policy.

For instance, I think it is fair to ask Gov Palin if her religious beliefs would lead her to press for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Same deal for Biden, though I have seen fewer connections raised.

I thought BTW, that Gov Palin gave a good answer yesterday on her views of abortion: one of her best statements on public policy/religion overlap.

And YES, this IS the same henry James.

Proudpagan: ". . . and how everyone in America should follow that policy than the republicans need to expect questions about her family where her policy DIDN't WORK!"

Really? It didn't? You know this to be true? Did Bristol even receive abstinence only sex education? Did she have no knowledge of alternative birth control methods? Do we know that she did not know the consequences of unprotected intercourse? Do we even know that she didn't want to get pregnant?

I am not a Palin fan at all, but it serves no good purpose to base otherwise win-able arguments on lies and misstatements, especially old, unoriginal ones.

sisterjudith wrote:"I wouldn't vote for someone who worships in a church with a pastor who damns America for twenty years and then leaves that church because he might lose votes. It is the lengthy association, that tacit consent of the philosophy that I find objectionable."

And what of the Republican administrations pandering to preachers like Hagee, Parsley, Flawell and Robertson who have made many anti-semitic comments and also blamed 9-11 on gays, pro choicers and non-believers. Look ti up- you can find the video clips online. So how is the Republican establishment who supported and asked these people for advice so different from the Rev. Wright. They are not. And yet again I muyst point out Wright served his country as a Marine and a Navy man- how many of your white preachers have done the same? I beleive only Robertson, who was a liquor officer in an officers club in Korea.

Mr. Otterson,

I both agree and disagree. I don't care about Obama's faith. He doesn't make it an issue. he proudly and quietly lives it. And when it is thrust out into the open he talks about it and than lets it go. He's got a larger platform than just his religion.

The republicans have toted Palin around specifically for her faith. They have *MADE* her faith an issue. She has policies directly related to her faith that she wants to put in place. If the republicans want her to stand up as a faithful than they should expect questions. If she wants to talk about her Abstinence Only policy and how everyone in America should follow that policy than the republicans need to expect questions about her family where her policy DIDN't WORK!

If politicians didn't make religion an issue I would certainly never care about their version of it. I would care only that they allowed me to live my religion as I see fit.

So while I agree that religion shouldn't matter, I disagree on saying that we should ignore it at this point. It's too late for that, the republicans made sure it was way too late for that.

Mr Otterson:
" I give about the same weight to his pastor's opinion as I do to that of my barber"

Seriously? A pastor's advice/opinion has virtually no value? Is this statement of clerical merit one that is shared by your church?

"And what bearing, exactly, did their religious preference have on domestic or foreign policy?"

So it wouldn't bother you at all if the president was Hindu, Muslim, atheist or dare I say one of those wacky pagans? (just kidding about the 'wacky' thing). After all their religious preference shouldn't / wouldn't have any effect on policy...

If the US is built on the foundation of Christianity as Volkmare says, then let's stop supporting Isreal because Luke 8:12 says:

"The children of the Isreal shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

"I don’t care what his/her faith is, as long as it is Christian, and non-radical. Why Christian? Because that is the foundation this country is built upon."

No, the foundation of this country is equal, unalienable rights for all, and no religious requirements for public office, actually.

I may as well say I'd only vote for a classical Pagan cause our government is based on a classical Republic. I could make a better case for that, if I wanted to.

Having a person with a strong commitment to his/her faith, excluding radicals, is the type of person I would want in government. This is because that strong commitment includes a strong commitment to morality, truth, and justice.

I don’t care what his/her faith is, as long as it is Christian, and non-radical. Why Christian? Because that is the foundation this country is built upon.

From the book of Alma for Sarah Palin:

If you ask God to kill your enemies, he will do it for you. 33:10

From the Book of Mormon (Jacob 3:8) #

If you don't repent, God will make your skin even darker than that of the Lamanites (Native Americans).

Is that what Mormons think happened to Obama?

I mean, there's a *difference* between trying to smear Obama as something he's not, ...as a crypto-Muslim or crypto-Ganesh-worshipper or secretly 'Black Liberation thelogoy,' whatever scary thing that's supposed to be, even when he gets up and speaks *exactly* what his religion means to him, and his policies....

There's a *difference* between those smear tactics and actually being darn concerned about a woman who *runs on religion* and *actively supports positions from radical religion* and in fact *actively tries to hide them from everyone but those who are supposed to know the code-words.

If I were to stand for high office, the people would have *every right* to question me about my to-them-odd religious beliefs. How they might affect my judgement or view of what's going on. (Fear not: I wouldn't: unlike Mccain, I don't think the sort-of-damaged-goods factor is one to ignore. It's not his fault he was tortured for over five years, but that's real. It has effects. ) But in that situation, America *should* ask questions. We'd get more of smears than actual interest in my policies or what I think should guide the public discourse, of course, ...they'd get answers, too.

There's a big difference, here.

So, *now* the conservatives say 'butt out' when they have a radical conservative whose only 'qualifications' are appealing to the conservative religious.

Nope. I'd ask her questions that'd expose just how outside-the-mainstream her views are. I'd certainly ask about her belief in 'witches,' (and who gets called that) whether or not minority religions deserve equal protection under the law, whether she plans to impose her churches' views on the rest of us, ...how bout that 'spiritual warfare,' Dominionism, and 'Third Wave Fundamentalism.' ...all things with political ambitions to them.

Yes, if she still thinks Russia is flying over Alaska and might attack, I wanna *know* whether she sees all that's going on in the context of this End Times stuff... and how much that's gonna affect what she 'leaves behind' for our posterity.

Yes, I want to know what she plans to do to education and science pursuits our nation needs to survive and prosper in the world when she believes she's seen human footprints inside dinosaur ones.

This isn't a simple matter of privacy: she *makes* her religion, and McCain's judgment and intentions in choosing her when he knows his health is a real factor, ...they *make* this an issue just by thinking she has any business even standing for this office.

I want candidates who are men and women of faith. Their views are less important than their behavior. I am disgusted by the continual focus of religion as a governing factor on whether someone should be elected to office or not, however, that is prejudice pure and simple. We don't need to ask, if we can't decide on a candidate's qualities by how they comport themselves we need to leave the decisions to others. I do listen to others comments, I spend time with people who are looking at all sides of all kinds of questions and make up my own mind about what I think of someone's behavior. I wouldn't vote for someone who worships in a church with a pastor who damns America for twenty years and then leaves that church because he might lose votes. It is the lengthy association, that tacit consent of the philosophy that I find objectionable.

What a person believes is demonstrated by his/her actions, "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" and "by his fruits ye shall know him." You may not care about what your barber believes but if he went on a tirade about something and your haircut suffered you probably wouldn't go back! I want men/women with faith to be our leaders and while I believe that the press and hew and outcry over Romney's religion has been disgusting and vulgar, the point is that not all concern about someone's religion is invalid. It is different to worship, by choice, at a church led by a liberationist preacher who damns America, until you are criticized for it, etc., than it is to quietly go about your religious duties and promote the welfare of people around you.

Mr. Otterson,

You noted: "Personally, I give about the same weight to his (BO's) pastor's opinion as I do to that of my barber."

But your whole life and employment depends on the dictates of a con man named Joe Smith and a fictional "pretty, wingie thingie" named Moroni??

Senator Biden and Governor Palin,

Do you believe the Adam and Eve story?

Noah?

Abraham?

The "Prophets",

Fortune tellers?

"Pretty/ugly, wingie thingies aka angels/satans? aka Moroni, Gabriel, Beetlejuice

Heaven?

Hell?

Physically changing bread into human flesh via incantations?

Witches?

Reincarnation?

Holy cows?

Castes?

I agree, all candidates should run as atheists.