Skip to content

The Sarah Palin Church Video (And Prophecy Sessions)

September 3, 2008


I will just let Governor Sarah Palin speak with her own words.   I could not undermine her more than she does for herself.   Wacky.  Does she really think that God likes war, and that God approves of the way the Republicans took the nation into a needless war?  And are people going to flock to Alaska in the ‘final days’?  WACKY!

And part two…..

Wasilla Church Has Kooky Prophecy Sessions….

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

17 Comments leave one →
  1. James permalink
    September 10, 2008 3:49 AM

    As a Nietzsche reader I am always interested in the debates where religion and political structures collide, especially so where the followers of religion adopt assumptions about their faith. One such is the assumption that religion is stable. A quick historical scan of the development of the Christian faith will reveal the myriad of changes—from the development of an afterlife to the invention of everlasting hell, many of which have their sources and dates of adoption.

    Currently I am reading a biography of Nietzsche by Curtis Cate and I was reading the following quote while waiting for the Palin video to load:

    “Nietzsche’s main quarrel with Plato was that in his neo-Socratic search for a ‘more truthful’ set of principles than the ramshackle ‘morality’ to which his fellow Athenians continued to adhere for reasons of slothful convenience, he had invented a series of abstract ideals — notions like ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’, ‘true’ and ‘false’ — which were supposed to have existed from time immemorial and to possess an immutable, everlasting validity. This modus cogitandi, Nietzsche felt, was every bit as arbitrary as had been the vanity of primitive Man in deciding that inanimate objects too should be accorded human genders — such as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. …Words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘honest’ and ‘dishonest’, ‘truthful’ and ‘mendacious’ were man-invented, shorthand abbreviations applied to individual relationships that were exceedingly complex.”

    By detaching the localized value of terms such as “morality” from their social context, Plato was able to solve the historical problem of the Judeo-Christians. Put another way, what was special about the Judeo-Christian movement was the importance of time and place, which is one argument for why Jesus must appear on Earth in history, a travesty to the Greeks who believe perfection could never be embodied (ladies this is where your evil bodies come into play).

    But for Greek rationalists—who are much more like modern scientists—the fashion after Plato was a belief in everlasting ‘forms,’ which exist outside of history, outside of time, and are thus not connected to local events and values and the pollution of embodiment. Plato redefined values based on eternal forms and, in the process, shifted Christian thinking to a non-Christian worldview that writers, philosophers and theologians have been fighting to correct ever since. The existential movement in Philosophy is largely a movement based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and a move to try and right the system back to the radical teachings of the Christ.

    Why am I saying all of this on such a forum? Precisely because the issues that have been raised here seem to dance about concepts of the eternal and the binary. To call on the remarks of one commenter, “What is so odd about the concept that my wetware-consciousness might need a belief in something far far beyond Obama or the latest and greatest socialist/collectivist messiah to stay healthy?”

    Now I’m not sure what a ‘wetware-consciousness’ might refer to, but there is the underlying belief here that liberals have no solid grounding, in contradistinction to the time-true beliefs of religion. This is not Christ but Plato who gives us such an understanding. Nietzsche would also make mention of the concept of the “far far beyond” as the pivotal Platonic search for a something or an everlasting ideal outside the physical present. This is a non-life affirming belief, a belief that can accept the present if only by attaching to it a belief in an eternal form or an essence.

    It is worthwhile to remember that Plato was perhaps among the most conservative thinkers in history. He forbade art in his Republic and believed in a philosopher-king who would generate all knowledge for the populace. (The original ‘trickle down’ theory of governance.) If you remove Plato from Christianity you seem to have a system of localized values that change and transform throughout history to suit the needs of the environment, which is why the bible has many books and many writers and each transforms our understanding in radically different ways. That beliefs and values change and that Christ can be understood by all is perhaps fundamental to the teachings of Christ who did not support the development of a church.

    But over the centuries belief has been hijacked by people claiming to understand the eternal Platonic ‘truth’ as supported by the establishment of a Church based on, to again quote Cate, “a doctrine of implicit self-abasement, thus robbing man of what should be his self-reliant dignity and independence. Thanks to the very notion of human sinfulness the all-perceiving, omniscient God of the Christians had been transformed into an omnipresent, intrusively obnoxious keyhole peeper, a divine Big Brother.”

    It was precisely because of the corruption of the church that Christ rose up to preach. In part he preached against the state and against politics and against the church. His approach was as a radical, a man who encouraged us to love our brothers like ourselves. I’m paraphrasing here. His wasn’t the philosophy where Christians seek to overcome their own shortcomings by displacing ‘a suspect charity to others’, but a most honest and most present love for fellow human beings. I simply cannot believe Christ would have been okay with war no matter the cause, nor would he be fine with the modern church and politicians using his good name for gains in the name of morality. This certainly is a travesty, and slinging around concepts of truth and belief and right and wrong and liberal this and Christian that is feeding into a political system that has everything to do with the philosophies of one man who believed in binaries (good/bad; light/dark) and autocratic rule, and autocratic rule combined with an ‘intrusively obnoxious keyhole peeper’ is gaining in similarity to the current state of affairs in America.

    My point is that we who call ourselves liberal must be wary of binaries; this is a fundamental lack of insight that was turned into an intellectual stance by a single man and has since become the staple of poor thinking and of politics. But we must also be wise to the insights of the framers of the bible, in particular to the shift in commandments where following the rule of law becomes a mandate, in the ninth commandment, to control not action but thought, and not simply thought but forethought. This is the insidious control the church wields over their lemming-like followers. Understanding this shift is understanding an entire history of political control by the church. This is a key area for focus by Nietzsche who reminds us of the un-historicizing of morality through eternal forms. In searching for the reasons why people vote republican or why the left cannot see how they have become little more than a marketing trend, we would perhaps do well to look at the systems that control our thoughts before we have them and expose the politics of persuasion in order to discover their motives.

    We must, all of us, if I can pontificate here for a moment, understand that the issues of the church and of concepts and beliefs about religion and life are far from reducible to positions on a blog or positions on a political bill. As I mentioned when I started this rant, positions change and beliefs change, even while the Christian right would have us think otherwise. (Understanding this makes a mockery of Christian radio hosts who fake a southern accent, republican politicians who play up the cowboy roll, and conservatives who play down their dressing habits all in order to adhere to systems of authenticity. If anything, liberals have to be praised for ousting the false belief in a state of authenticity.)

    The meaning of words changes all of the time, this is a fundamental insight afforded to us by philosophy and poetry. Taken at face value the parables of Christ mean little, it is only our knowledge that they signify something greater that we are able to allow for the malleability of language and make sense and meaning from his speech. Call it polysemantic information or relativity, but there is nothing in human experience or even science that backs up a binary system or a system of generalities. Whether we’re talking hydrogen atoms or morals there is no politics in general, and no market in general: there are only unique instances and relative states.

    That said, we can not put our trust into eternal truths; we must work together to understand how to love one another right here and now or else perhaps suffer the consequences of another political leader whose moral code allows him or her to be the self-appointed judge when the twofold reality of language and belief rears its indecisive head. We have seen this before with our current president and we will certainly see it again, but I fear the issue of morality becomes a crisis when tough decisions are on the line and the decision maker is faced not with people and lives but with immutable binary thinking and abstract ideals.

    If ever there were blind followers they are those who continue to believe in black and white in a word filled of gray; they are those who continue to believe in universal ideals despite the preponderance of anthropological and historical evidence to the contrary; and they are most certainly those who still do not know that lemmings jump from cliffs in order to swim to the safety of new habitats.

  2. Jennie permalink
    September 9, 2008 8:59 PM

    Sorry Sabina, there are right and wrong religions. Now I’m not going to split hairs over various denominations, but frankly I do believe there are some absolute fundamental truths and religions that adhere to theese truths. This country was founded on religious freedoms, not freedom from religion, but the freedom to worship God how they chose, not a government mandated church.

  3. Sabina permalink
    September 8, 2008 3:24 PM

    Religion has no place in politics. There is no right or wrong religion, but when people start thumping their bibles it becomes a question of who is more religious and whats wrong with that guy who doesnt say what he believes in, that becomes the contest, can a presidential candidate be an agnostic or atheist these days?nope.

  4. JRP permalink
    September 8, 2008 1:19 PM

    “Liberals set the bar far too low when they use each other as role models in a herd-like way.”
    “…Sarah Palin is not perfect, but at least she has chosen a worthy role model.”

    I think you’ll find that worshipping someone and chosing a role model are very, very different things. Look at the things that liberals do and say. Helping people: good. Making sacrifices for the good of others: good. War and torture: bad.

    Who does that sound like?

    Now listen to the conservatives: Be afraid of those people, we will kill them first so they don’t kill you. Your religion: good, their religion: bad. These people deserve rights, but these other people don’t. Making sacrifices for any reason aside from profits: bad. (Oh wait, did we say “profits?” of course we meant “patriotism”). Making sacrifices for any reason aside from patriotism: bad.

    Who does that sound like?

    Why aren’t all Christians liberal? I’ll never understand.

  5. tomb permalink
    September 7, 2008 7:25 AM

    Marty Galyean
    I appreciated your articulate feedback

  6. Marty Galyean permalink
    September 6, 2008 1:08 PM

    Thanks for posting this. It has revealed a side of Palin I’d not seen before. It also reveals a bit about you.

    So she makes time in her schedule at the last minute to give a talk to young people at a church she previously attended and has no prepared notes and wings it. So what? She speaks from the heart with a few hems and haws, but gets what she wants to say across and quite sincerely. I believe this country protects religious freedom and that is exactly what she was exercising.

    She didn’t say “God likes war”, she said that they should all pray that things go according to God’s plan. What is wrong with that? I’ll take her religious worldview over a militant izlamokazi’s anyday.

    I don’t know for a fact that God exists, but I do know for a fact that I don’t know that God doesn’t exist. I also know that in phases in my life that I behaved as if God didn’t exist, my life went to hell, literally, and when I behaved as if God did exist, my life came together. I *believe* God exists because I need to like a fish needs water. I am designed to. I need food, water, shelter, to stay healthy.

    What is so odd about the concept that my wetware-consciousness might need a belief in something far far beyond Obama or the latest and greatest socialist/collectivist messiah to stay healthy?

    The universe is much much bigger and deeper than we will ever imagine. Believers at least acknowledge this, while atheists (those who *believe* God doesn’t exist; but don’t know) can’t acknowledge there are limits to their ability to know. A believer, acknowledging they don’t know many things, often ends up more open-minded than those who somehow think they know, for a fact, that there is no God.
    Belief in God opens up the mind to a vaster range of possibilities. Combine this with a healthy rational outlook on the physical world that is reality based on the scientific method and one ends up with an open, but healthily skeptical mind. Without the above, science becomes a a mere de-facto religion full of emotional bias and mob consensus, and the mind is limited to what we currently understand scientifically and physically rather than what it truly is beyond our current understanding.

    Liberals set the bar far too low when they use each other as role models in a herd-like way. Lemmings running over a cliff is the image that comes to mind.

    Sarah Palin is not perfect, but at least she has chosen a worthy role model.

  7. 9intelligences permalink
    September 5, 2008 2:43 PM

    I am involved with the Assembly of God church in my community. It is founded by humble God-fearing people who respond to disasters with food and necessities (Convoy of Hope), who go to hospitals, prisons and jails and even night clubs to share the love of Christ. They help drug addicts get off drugs with a high success rate (Teen Challenge) and are opening a home for those who have been abused by sex trafficking. Prophecy in the church is to bring words of assurance, encouragement, and blessing to people -because we believe in a living, ressurrected Christ, we also believe He can still speak through us. It should never be done flippantly, and those listening are told to judge it. The church is not perfect- if it were my membership would have ended that. It does hold a worldview that is rational and satisfies the questions-Why am I here? Where will I go when I die? and How do we explain human nature and the evil in the world?

  8. Reverend Manny permalink
    September 3, 2008 7:04 PM

    thank you so much for posting these.. I will be linking to this post… Rock On

    Think Free or Die Stupid,
    –Reverend Manny and the Twilight Empire


  1. Holy Shit America: Climate Change vs Sarah Palin « Blast83
  2. The hypocrisy that is Sarah Palin and the McCain Campaign « unastronaut*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: