Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Sarah Palin and Character Assassination

James wrote about the human experience, "For we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2). Yet, to listen to some of the political pundits and media experts, Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin is the only one who has ever run for national office and had family problems, personal problems, or conflict of interest problems. Sadly, some who lean left have even suggested she is a bad mother, deceitful, and vindictive.

It is almost an axiom of human nature that when you disagree with one's positions, are fearful of the effect your opponent may have on altering the big picture, you attack the character of the person you wish to defeat. Unfortunately, the art of character assassination in Christian circles is alive and well. Whether it be from the one end of the spectrum of an issue under debate or the opposite end (i.e. "the IMB policies," "sole membership," "Resolution 5," etc . . . ), there is a tendency within the Southern Baptist Convention to castigate the character of the person who disagrees with you. After I wrote a post about leading a woman and her husband to faith in Jesus Christ and the resultant restoration of their marriage, my worship pastor, Dan Heath, told me he ran into one of our Southern Baptist conservative leaders at the airport who asked Dan what it was like to to work with a pastor who advocated drinking. According to Dan, the intonation in which this was said, in the presence of others, gave the impression I was some kind of drunk. Never mind the fact that the post is self-explanatory, never mind the fact that this woman came to faith in Christ and is now an active, serving member of our fellowship who herself abstains from drunkenness, and never mind the fact that this Conservative leader has never spoken to me about the issue, the fact of the matter is, when other people are being influenced to take a different position than your's, it is tempting to attack the character of your opponent.

So it is with the Democrat leadership. They must be afraid of Sarah Palin. They must recognize that a large number of their female constintuency with Lieberman's conservative leanings will vote for Palin because they like her, and they like what she is saying on the issues. What then can those Democratic strategists do? Well, after softening their plank to advocate homosexual marriage, condone late term abortions, and proffer other immoral issues as their official platform, they will attack Palin's character - because her seventeen year old daughter is pregnant. Somehow, there is humor in all this.

May all of us involved with political processess, whether they be national and secular, or denominational and religious, focus on the issues and leave the character attacks at home.

In His Grace,



Anonymous said...


Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

Jeff said...

Preach it, brotha!

Anonymous said...

I believe there are other more subtle character assassinations coming from the Patriarchal wing of Christendom. One is from a popular speaker on the evangelical circuit:

Here is an excerpt:

"My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family."


Anonymous said...

In the interest of being "fair and balanced" (a much ballyhooed claim by Fox News, in which it is neither!), the very same point about character assassination can be made regarding the Rebuplicans toward Obama. I know that you and many of your readers have recieved the shameful email forwards accusing Obama of being too black, not black enough, a Muslim, anti-patriotic, a non-citizen, etc..etc..etc.... It breaks my heart to see so many Christians revelling in this kind of character assissination. The fact that many of these same people are calling out the Dem's on the same issue rings hollow to me.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting, but predictable, that some of the most fierce criticsim of Ms. Palin is coming from women. Liberal women, that is.

It was predictable. You could see it the moment Palin was introduced to the public.

She's pretty, she hunts, she has 5 children (how irresponsible!), she actually competed in sports, she was in beauty contests etc. Liberal women resent all of this in a big way, especially the fact that Ms. Palin is attractive.

My guess is that the liberal women opinion makers (and liberals in general) will never get around to discussing Palin's accomplishments or positions. They will continue to talk about her family, how was she vetted, her lack (supposed) of experience etc.

Of course, Palin will eventually do something that is not perfect or make a gaffe. Then they will talk about that endlessly.

Palin will have to respond by ignoring all this stuff. Otherwise, she'll get off message and spend all of her time defending herself, and then, she won't be getting her message out. She be talking about all the things the big media want to fixate on.

There are two lessons in this that I see regarding human nature:

1. We are never that far from first grade. All of us at one time or another have resented people who were prettier than we, or who could do things better than we could do them. In the looks department, that applies especially to the fairer sex.

2. When we resent others, we rarely say that openly. Instead, we ignore the accomplishments and talents of others, and we harp on endlessly about something negative that really doesn't matter.

Louis said...



I am working on a patriarchal post, attempting to focus on what I believe to be a very serious issue confronting our SBC.

Patriarchism is what many SBC leaders hold to in terms of the family, but "compromise" their language with complementarianism so as not to reveal their true position of patriarchy.

I would like to be able to discuss this issue without those who oppose patriarchism being called liberal. said...


I don't know that I would disagree at all with your statement.

For instance, to attack Obama's character for his pastor's mistakes is as wrong as attacking Falin's for her daughter's mistakes.

Now, the positions on the issues to which Obama holds are fair game.

Anonymous said...

"asked Dan what it was like to to work with a pastor who advocated drinking."


Character assassination argument aside, I believe this is a twisting of your argument on alcohol itself.

If Bob said "it's OK to play Super Mario Brothers" to Dan, that does not necessarily mean that Bob is advocating playing the game. Bob might HATE the game. Bob might simply be saying it's ethically alright to play Super Mario Brothers.

For all we know, Pac man might be what thrills his soul.

I think you would have to say something like "you ought to drink alcohol" or come across like "Hey, alcohol is soooooooo good, wanna try some?" in order to A D V O C A T E drinking alcohol.

And from what I know of your argument, you have not communicated these kinds of things.

I know what I have said is off topic, but I have heard of someone characterizing you as advocating alcohol as well and I believe it is wrong.



Anonymous said...

"May all of us involved with political processess, whether they be national and secular, or denominational and religious, focus on the issues and leave the character attacks at home."

-Well said.

Anonymous said...

Louis, What would be your view if Gov Palin were found to be leading/teaching a bible study for her staff which includes males? Would that be ok...for her to be teaching men in that venue?

Just curious. :o)


Anonymous said...

It would be funny if not for the sad effects such convoluted reasonings by those in power have:

They have no problem with her being in a position to possibly run the country someday, but condemn the idea of women leading (not ruling, though some who hold this view advocate pastors ruling rather than leading) a church. Or sharing leadership of a family. In fact, if you can believe some reports, one who holds such anti-women (well, what else would you call it) views concerning church and family even suggested her nomination.

Good question, Lydia.


John Daly said...

President Palin--Sounds good and I'm all for it. Pastor Palin--Doesn't sound so good and I'm afraid I could never support it. Whatever that makes me, I'm cool with it.

Anonymous said...

don't forget the speck or the beam in the religious right's eye on this issue.
I do agree with you in principle- but as you know first hand- political machines love to attack the percieved threat with character assisinations. issues are rarely dealt with- that is why I will vote, but i will not participate with any polital party because most if not all are corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Compare the tactics, reactions, writings of this current political election to the tactics, reactions, writings, before, during, and after each SB Convention. That's all I'm saying.

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, I find the Patriarchs more consistent on this issue of women. Of course I disagree with them but they are consistent. It is just that their views would not be palatable to the masses in Christendom so we have those who have to develop a Christian Talmud. Yes, she can be president but no, she cannot teach men scripture. Yes, she can teach boys up to age__? but no she cannot serve communion...and so on.

Some of the 'rules' are bizarre. Such as she should not look like she is 'teaching' a man when giving him directions.

But I always wonder if comp wives would be allowed to run for office? How would that work out? She would be his 'civil' authority but not his 'Christian' equal in role. :o)

Wayne Smith said...


You seem to be a supporter of Barack Hussein Obama and I wonder where you stand on what God’s Word says and or about what the believes of Barack are???

Why would Barack Hussein Obama who is be Trusted with being the President of the US have such Poor Judgement???

Barack and His Wife were members of Rev Jeremiam Wright’s church for 20 years.

I would like to know why did Obama join Rev Jeremian Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Ill???

Obama was educated around the world, but never took on a formal religion until he was baptized in Rev Jeremian Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Ill. Obama has been an active member for two decades, regularly attending services with his family under Wright's spiritual mentorship.

Wayne Smith

Mike said...

"...after softening their plank to advocate homosexual marriage, condone late term abortions, and proffer other immoral issues as their official platform..."

Wade, question for you...what immoral issues do the Republicans support? could they be akin to late-term abortions or homosexual marriage?

I really wish evangelical christians would get out of bed with the Republican party and start seeing politics for what it is...politics pure and simple. Our allegiance to the Republican part has not serve us well. Are late-term abortions any more or less immoral than going to war and killing millions on false pretenses? I really believe there is much more to being pro-life (which I am) than being anti-abortion.

Mike K said...

Mike K.

I can assure you that if recognizing homosexual marriages, condoning late term abortions and any other immoral issues were planks in the Repbulican platform, I would speak against it as well.

Mike said...


The whole Barack "Hussein" Obama thing...give it up man. No one goes around calling John McCain John "Sidney" McCain. What difference does it make if his middle name is Hussein or not....really.

Mike K

Mike said...


Thanks for the response but it wasn't my question...are there issues that the Republicans support that you think are immoral? I think there are.

Mike K said...


I have not seen or read the Republican platform, but if you would be specific with your question, I will be specific with my answer.



Mike said...

Fair is the link to the 2008 Republican Platform if you would like to read it for yourself.

For example, read the section called "Defending Our Nation" to see how the War in Iraq has been treated in this document.

"All Americans should affirm that our first obligation is the security of our country." As Christians can we support this? Does this mean the government has carte blanche over the rule of law like in Gitmo? To date an estimated 87,000-94,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Even in the most liberal reading of a Just War Theory this was not a just war. Isn't this injustice? isn't this immoral? Why aren't Christians being the first ones standing up and saying "enough!"

What I also find immoral is what they say versus what they do...i.e fulfilling our commitment to our veterans (also in this document) has been abysmal.

It is well known that McCain favors the Reaganomic policies of "trickle down" economics. This, while not explicitly stated as such in the platform, will be McCain's approach. This was an approach that was devestating to those most vulnerable at the low end of the socioeconimic scale. Isn't that immoral?

I am sure some on this blog will write me off as just another rabid Democrat (in fact I would more likely characterize myself as a very disappointed Republican). I voted for McCain over Bush when they faced each other in the Rep. primaries and voted for Bush...twice!

The point I would really like to make is that when you align yourself with a particular political persuasion it makes you blind to other perspectives...then the other perspective becomes demonzied. I am all for Christians having a voice in politics but we have to be very, very careful lest we be led away by political pied pipers who just want our vote....D or R. said...


I agree that Christians should not align with a part in "blanket" terms, but should vote based upon issues.

After reviewing both platforms (thanks for the link), I agree with the Republican platform on just about every plank - even the "security" issue you raise.

Mike said...

"...even the "security" issue you raise."

May God forgive us.... said...

I can assure you He has me, and am confident He has you as well - even though we may differ on using military force in Iraq.



Anonymous said...

Let's go shoot (assassinate) some character!

My full name is John Hiriam Fariss, II. "Fariss" is an Arabic word, and according to at least one geneaology web site, the Fariss's originally came from Lebanon. And Hiriam, of course, was the King of Tyre who sent cedars to Solomon to build the temple. I must surely be Arabic, at least Middle Eastern, and maybe another of those "closet Muslims." Wow!

Now the truth: note my name ends in "II," because I was named after my father (OK, it should have been "Junior," but they were uneducated folks from east Alabama, and didn't know any better). And Daddy as the seciond son was named, following Scottish tradition, for his two grandfathers, John Curtis Fariss and Hiriam H. Holmes, so the "Hiriam" didn't come from the Fariss side. And as to family origin, well, we have been in this country since at least the 1760s (great-great-great-grandaddy Fariss fought in the Revolution, on the American side), and another story is the we came as the Farrah's to Virginia, where we lived on a little peninsula in the James River which became known as Farrah's Island, and was eventually slurred to Fariss. And Muslim? Hey, I'm a Baptist preacher!

So I agree with Wade: whether it's Obama or Palin, let's be careful and stick to the facts!

Anonymous said...

The staff at did this after the theologically-conservative MBC executive board majority voted in 2001 to grant a severance package for its resigning executive director as recommended by the board's administrative committee. First we became "moderates" and then we became "liberals"--but I didn't know I was either until told so by the mbcpathway staff. No reporter spoke with me or any of the board members I knew, and no investigative journalism was done that I've heard of since.

Interesting that mbcpathway's staff--or anyone--gets to place the labels on folk.

Bill said...

Wayne: Just curious. Do you use the middle name of all politicians you refer to or does Senator Obama's middle name have some particular significance for you that you use it repeatedly?

Wayne Smith said...

Is this your real name or just a name you picked up for Blogging. I Don’t see where you Identify Yourself in your profile. Is not this the name of Senator Barack Hussein Obama who is running for President.

Wayne Smith

Only By His Grace said...

Yea, let us preach it, Brother, the whole of it.

Now who was that guy who was wounded in three different battles, received three Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars and one Silver Star; yet was maligned by the crookedist crooks in the world called "Swift Boaters for Truth?" I like this word "crookedist."

And shall I quote a few lines from Governor Palin's pastor's sermons? I can do that and you would be amazed how far off in the sunset he is. According to this paragon of virtue, Jesus Christ drew up the battle plans against Iraq and anyone "who does not support the Iraq War is going straight to Hell."

And what political party does Governor Palin's husband belong to? It is not the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party, butttt? And by the way who is his employer? Ever hear of BP.

How about talking about the issues such as the national debt compared to eight years ago, one million dead Iraqis compared to eight years ago, over six thousand dead Americans compared to eight years ago, the price of gas compared to eight years ago, respect among nations compared to eight years ago, believability of government compared to eight years ago (Valerie Plame affair, Iraq's advanced nuclear weapons program with coming mushroom clouds over L.A, mountains of weapons of mass destruction, yellow cake uranium, forged letters), The Katrina fiasco-- "I think Brown is doing a great job in New Orleans," torture of helpless prisoners under our care compared to any time past not just eight years ago, suspension of Habeas Corpus, warrantless search warrants and on and on? Obama will be the next President.

Wayne, would you do a Google search? When you are finished, would you give us a detailed report on these good Republican national office holders?
Senator Larry "Men'sRestRoom Footsie" Craig, Rep. Mark Folley (the emails to young pages), Rep Jon Hansen ("Men's RestRoom Footise 2), Rep. Dan Crane and his seventeen year old boy friend and what were they caught in the act doing? Rep Jack Ryan of the sex clubs performance with his wife, Rep Bob Bauman with his sixteen year old boy friend, Senator Jesse Helms and his "youthful discreation" of course he was only forty-three years old, Senator Strom Thurman the father of the Black sixteen year old girl's baby-hmm, Rep Robert Livingston- how many women with whom did he have affairs, even while he was attacking President Clinton? Senator Bob Packwood, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator David Vitter, Rep Henry Hyde, Rep Dan Burton, Rep Helen Chenoweth, Rep Sue Myrick, Rep Don Buzz Lukens, Rep John Doolittle, Rep Jim West, Rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Rep Tom Noe,.......... These were all reported in syndicated national news papers.

Now in the Democrat Party we have William Jefferson Clinton and John Edwards. You may continue with the list. If we go back to Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick Affair with Mary Jo Kopechne, I guess we have to go back to Dick Nixon and then to Vice President Spiro Agnew caught on camera with taking bribes literally under the table. Remember, Agnew was asked to resign by Nixon.

I think we do best when we stick to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stay as far away from the entanglement of worldly politics as possible.

Kevin said...

Interesting post. I watched her speech here in Manila (CNN). Like her or not, she's definitely not "charismatically challenged."

Bill said...

Wayne: I will answer your questions with direct answers instead of more questions. I would appreciate the same. My real name is William, but most people call me Bill.

Yes, that is the Senator's name as far as I know.

Does the Sentator's middle name have some specific significance for you (and us) or do you refer to all politicians by their full names?

Bryan Riley said...

charismatically challenged - LOL.

Alan Paul said...

Pretty tired of idealogues (i.e. Wayne Smith) calling into question whether or not a person is a Christian based upon which person he votes for. Had enough of it - mainly because there is no logic to it.

Wayne Smith said...

Alan Paul,

You Said, Pretty tired of idealogues (i.e. Wayne Smith) calling into question whether or not a person is a Christian based upon which person he votes for.

Where did I do what you accuse me of with this statement? Where do you stand on this statement by me on another Blog?
Voting or supporting any Political Party or Candidates comes down to How and Where they stand on what God’s Word Says.
We are all accountable for what we do in this Life. I always compare everyone to the Highest Standard, Jesus Christ. We all fail and come up short in the comparison, BUT we should never give up the GOOD FIGHT and strive to be more like Jesus Christ.

Wayne Smith

Tom Parker said...


Do Republicans always stand on God's word?

Wayne Smith said...

Can you read LIPS.
Voting or supporting any Political Party or Candidates comes down to How and Where they stand on what God’s Word Says.

We are all accountable for what we do in this Life. I always compare everyone to the Highest Standard, Jesus Christ. We all fail and come up short in the comparison, BUT we should never give up the GOOD FIGHT and strive to be more like Jesus Christ.

Wayne Smith

Wayne Smith said...

Alan Paul and Tom Parker,

Born, Blessed, Raised by a Mother who was a devout Christian, who also was a Democratic Committee Woman, for many years in Pa. I live in Sam Rayburn’s Hometown here in Bonham, Texas. I would think that all So Called Christians would vote according to what God’s Word Says in weighing the Issues and the Character of the Candidates running for office, wouldn’t you agree.

Wayne Smith

Tom Parker said...


Why so much sarcasm? I may be slow, but I do not have to have something typed twice to get it. And you did not answer my very simple question.

Anonymous said...

I am very tired of people saying you can't be a Christian and vote for a certain party or candidate. GOP does not stand for God's Own Party, and though I plan to put a "Christian and a Democrat" bumper sticker (partly to combat that idea) on my car tomorrow (I finally found one) I will not doubt another's faith because of such things.

Tony Campolo wrote a book awhile back titled "Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?" and his answer was "neither". Both parties and their candidates (and candidates connected to neither party) have good and not so good ideas, and conscientious voters study issues and candidates carefully. Often several candidates for a position have stands such that neither/none is a perfect fit with our own beliefs and we must simply choose the best fit of the available choices.

I often have strong feelings about a particular issue or candidate, but try not to let it influence how I feel about someone who votes differently since these things are usually complex. It's a free country, and let's give others the benefit of the doubt - that they may also care for our city, state, or country, and just think differently about the solution to those needs.


Anonymous said...

I liked Sarah Palin's family, especially the seven-year old daughter Piper who held her little Down Syndrome brother and smoothed his hair down. That was a blessing to see. Today, I read that, before Sarah Palin knew she was having a special-needs child, she cut funding for special-needs Alaskans by over 60%. I do not know if this is true but during Sarah's speech, she promised to be an advocate for special-needs people and their families, if elected to high office. I suppose she has had a change of heart, and the reason is her own little one. God sends angels into this world to help all of us. This little baby is already helping his mom to see things differently. As the mother of a Down Syndrome child myself, I am glad that Sarah has said she would strongly advocate for special-needs. God is merciful and his gifts to us come in the most unanticipated ways.

I will be voting for Barack Obama because of the economy, but if Sarah wins, I will not be frightened that my Down Syndrome child's needs will be forgotten.

Patrick's mom

Anonymous said...

Patrick's mom said "I will be voting for Barack Obama because of the economy, but if Sarah wins, I will not be frightened that my Down Syndrome child's needs will be forgotten."

It seems odd to me that you have concern for the economy and special needs children, but no regard for those children (special needs and healthy children) that Obama would allow women to kill while they are still being nurtured in the womb.

God help us all by empowering the people in charge to continue to make decisions that cause a dramatic downward spiral to our finances until our attention is gained in trying to realize how and why we will support the killing of babies as long as it makes our pocket books grow.

Wade - Forgive me here, and I personally agree with the guidelines you have laid out regarding avoiding personal attacks and sticking to the issues. I hope I haven't attacked personally as I lay out the details of what seems to be an odd position here from Patrick's mom. I am also ultra sensitive to this issue as I have grown so tired of this attitude of finances ruling over everything else...including babies.


Charles Barton said...

Sarah Palin has already been elevated by the Christian right wing to the level of a saint beyond reproach. Any criticism of Palin is "character assination" and sacrilege. Of course if a Democrat had done some of the things that Palin is reported to have done, it would be an entirely different issue. Democrats, of course, must be judged by a different set of standards.

Tom Parker said...


It seems odd to me that the Republicans have been in office for the last 8 years and I really have not seen a lot of concerted effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Republicans have been in the White House for 8 years and may end up having even more years. I think what some people have been saying is that the Republican Party uses Christians to get elected and then it is only lip service about abortion.

Bill said...

To echo Tom: Republicans have ruled this country for 20 of the last 28 years, and abortion is still the law of the land. I firmly believe that opposition to abortion is an essential plank in the Republican platform for election purposes so they very much want to be seen to oppose it, but need to take steps to not eliminate it. This is why they always pass anti-abortion legislation with no provisions for "life of the mother" so that they will get shot down in court.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to elect someone who is pro-choice who would genuinely work to reduce the number of abortions than to keep electing pro-life people who take an all or nothing approach and always end up with nothing. (note: the previous was a hypothetical statement. I am making no claims that Sen. Obama is such a person)

Here's the point. If you are a one issue voter, fine. But please don't suggest that all Christians must be.

John Daly said...

Are we not one just one justice away from overturning? Who would appoint that justice?

Anonymous said...

Native Vermonter stole my thunder.

Tom and Bill - I hear your point.

One must also wonder if it's okay for a Christian to support someone who says it's okay to kill your baby "just because" (abortion on demand is Obama's documented position) rather than support someone who "says" that they are actually against abortion (certainly against abortion on demand which is the Republican platform) even though nothing may be done about overturning it.

It's really not a political issue, but an issue of the heart...a moral issue if you will. It's the kind of position that could lead to...oh, I don't know...maybe men marrying men. Only one side of that debate supports that one as well.

It makes me contemplate the dilema that some folks would find themselves in if we were all given a written guarantee that stated that the dollar would stabilize, gas would be $1 a gallon, our salaries would double, and there would be a job available for everyone...but the new leader demands that you support gay marriage and abortion on demand.

My position would be clear and my stand would be firm. But I can't help but wonder about other "christians".


Tom Parker said...


As Bill pointed out the Republicans have been in control for 20 of the last 28 years and yet Roe vs. Wade still stands. I hear what you are saying but I do not believe that if their is the change of 1 Supreme Court Justice that it will be that easy for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. I am just saying that Republicans have made abortion a one issue item and after they get elected nothing changes about abortion.

Bill said...

SL1M: Should we be willing to stand on ideology over actually saving babies? Again, this is hypothetical, but voting for a pro-choice person who works to reduce abortions vs a pro-lifer who either will not or cannot do so. Do we stand on principle with the pro-lifer or we go with the pro-choicer and actually save some babies?

Are there really pro-choicers out there who will work hard to reduce the number of abortions? I don't know. Maybe. But we have a long historical record of proof that there are ideologically pure pro-lifers who haven't accomplished squat as far as saving babies is concerned.

Anonymous said...

Hi, as Patrick's mom, may I respond to SL1M?
You need to know that I have another son in uniform. You need to know that my dear niece is a Navy trauma surgical nurse in Iraq. I have heard first-hand of the the suffering and dying of our soldiers. My freedom to vote my conscience is paid for by the blood of these dear Americans. I am honoring their sacrifice by studying ALL of the issues. Our country is in trouble now. We need to be vigilant and prayerful. I can no longer support a party that has fielded an administration that practices the torture of prisoners. That is not the America I grew up with. If you are a Christian person, and I believe that you are, please think about all the issues we are facing. God be with you and with all of us as we try to make the right decisions for our beloved country.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Patrick's mom...I do believe that there are MANY more issues than abortion and homosexuality. In fact, I actually think that there are MANY more important issues than these two.

A 10-40 Windows Missionary

Anonymous said...

Patrick's Mom,

Do you trust this man to be president of our country?

David's Dad

John Daly said...


Hey I'm with you 100% when you say this administration has done nothing about giving people a chance to live, they don't talk about it, they don't keep it in the public square...nuthin. The ONLY thing that COULD help is the appointment of those two justices. Now that would not have happened other a Democratic presidency. That's all I'm saying.

I'm also with you on the war. I think 1.5 million Americans dying each year is also a horrific number to try and imagine. Hey mom, you're a okay in my book but 10-40 scares me when he/she says there are many more important uses than life. Would you like to retract that statement?


You got me if one more justice will swing the vote but I know it won't happen under an Obama administration. I know I'm a one issue voter but man it's a big'un.

While my first goal in this vapor of a life is the Gospel, as it should be...I just have to think that allowing God's creation to have a chance at life is also important. Sadly, I'm not sure how much of an Amen that gets now-a-days.

Bill said...

I could be wrong but I believe both of the new justices said that Roe V Wade was "settled law." Outlawing abortion is not the same as stopping it. See the "war on drugs" for more info.

Anonymous said...

Dear David's Dad,

I trust this man to be the greater servant of the people.

Patrick's Mom

Tom Parker said...


It sure must make voting easier, when your vote only depends on one issue. I think Republicans use that sort of mind set to get elected, and make no effort to change anything.

Anonymous said...

Way off the original subject, but...

Say what you will about overturning Roe v. Wade, it's presently the law and not likely to be overturned anytime soon. It seems much more productive to work to prevent the need/desire for abortions.

There are many people who seem to think life begins at conception and ends at birth. So they are against health care for those who cannot afford it, especially children. They are against contraception and sex education. (If kids don't learn this from their parents, the school - well the church, but how many churches teach this? - is the next best thing. What they learn from their peers is likely to be misinformation.) They are against money for education, preferring lowering taxes for the rich to helping schools so young people can be able to provide well for their children, whether they have them early or later. They don't care about poor families - opposing raising the minimum wage, sending jobs overseas, cutting programs that help people on the lower end of the economic scale get by.

And how can anyone who claims to be pro-life be for an unnecessary war, where those who can do it make or waste millions while soldiers must depend on their families back home to supply their body armor? (Not to mention the returning veterans who are not provided for.)

Sorry to get wound up, but don't tell me you are pro-life if you don't care about life after birth. If children can be wanted and provided for there will be much less demand for abortions.


Only By His Grace said...

Let me get this straight.

If an American girl is seventeen years old, gets pregnant with an African Muslim in America, has the baby in America, the father disappears from his life when the baby is two years old, and from her life leaving her a single mother to rear her child on her own; the mother works to keep her child in school where he excels to the place he graduates with a law degree from Harvard University, is elected to the State Senate of Illinois from the district of one of the most populated cites in the United States, is elected to the United States Senate, but is now not competent to be President of the United States because of his Muslim father and maybe because being half Black with a middle name of Hussein which he received at birth and not of his choosing. Maybe his mother should have aborted him rather then he be allowed to become President of the United States. How uppity can he get?

Wayne, maybe he should have told his mother and father not to name him Hussein. Was this his unpardonable sin? You think? After all Hussein is a Royal Name of long standing in Jordan, Iraq and Syria. I bet he secretly wants to overthrow the Constitutional Democracy of America to set up a monarchy and become the First President of the United States.

Talk about character assassination of Governor Palin, how about of Senator Obama? Oh, I forgot, you cannot assassinate the character of a Democrat. They have no character. Right?

Isn't it amazing how politics turns Christian brother against brother?


Mike said...


What I find interesting is the statement "I would think that all So Called Christians would vote according to what God’s Word Says in weighing the Issues and the Character of the Candidates running for office, wouldn’t you agree."

As if we all agree what God's Word says....maybe there is some agreement within the SBC (I don't know I am not a member) but I can assure you those who would call themselves evangelicals vary widely on this issue...

Mike said...


I couldn't agree more with this..." I think Republicans use that sort of mind set to get elected, and make no effort to change anything."

I don't think the Republicans have any intention of overturning Roe v. Wade and they know it. Being anti-abortion gets votes among conservatives but there is no such effort to really outlaw's not gonna happen.

So I think the question becomes...if you have a Democrat who supports abortion (and says so) versus a Republican who does not support abortion rights but has no real intention of doing anything about it...who has more integrity?

Anonymous said...

Nativevermonter said..."but 10-40 scares me when he/she says there are many more important uses than life. Would you like to retract that statement?"

Nice spin, but what I said is that there are MANY more important issues...An economy which is terrible, unemployment, a war based on lies, etc. etc.

Life is very important to me, I just do not think that the USA will fall because of Roe vs. Wade, but could fall economically when we are dependent on foreign oil, spend billions prosecuting a war that we started and did not know how to conduct. Those, to me are a wee bit more pressing.

A 10-40 Window Missionary

Anonymous said...

Ummmm....10 40 -

Do you know what spin means?

All you did is say exactly what Native said.

You are both saying that according to you there are many more important issues than life.

I think you were intent on finding spin when there was nothing spinning.

Why? Well, because I think you would gladly take a candidate that would give you more money in your wallet, stop any "fake" wars that you happen to disagree with, lower gas prices, and strengthen the dollar. Sure you would have to support gay marriage and sacrifice the unborn, but you gotta give in order to get...right?

God help us to not choose comfort over life.

Anonymous said...

Considering the following hypothetical situation:

Suppose a pregnant mother is in an accident. In order for her life to be saved, she will have to undergo treatment that will very likely cause her pregnancy to terminate. In this hypothetical, she is told that if she is not treated, both she and her unborn will perish.

How is life best served in a case like this? I suppose this is a question that brings medical ethics in line with faith, now; but someday may also involve the law of the land.

Anonymous said...

I don't usually reply to hypotheticals brought up on a week old post with only 3 people still reading the comment section...but here it goes.

I would say that all pro-life people would gladly allow for this instance (which can't be more than .00001 of the time), if that were the only issue.

The problem is that ridiculously small percentage is not the issue. They want much more. Surely you know this.

Do you know that there are 20 abortions for every 1000 women in America of child bearing age? (15-44 years)

So pro-life will allow for perhaps 500 abortions in your extreme example (I don't know...I'm guessing here), if pro choicer's will give us the other 1.2 million.


And that 1.2 million lives saved is from only the first year!!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was looking more for commentary on the principles at stake here, not so much the number of chance occurences.

Soon, our pluralistic national culture may require that we examine difficult ethical choices. What are the principles involved in situations that may not be typical?

Our nation is home to many different religions who have their own treasured traditions and beliefs. What is considered acceptable to a Southern Baptist may be totally against the religion of another faith. At the present time, all of us are still allowed religious freedom in this country. There is still much debate about the sacred ground of when life begins. Ancient Christian and Judaic commentaries show that there has always been controversy about when life begins in the womb. In short, Americans don't agree on the issue. I'm not sure we ever will, but I want understand where my fellow countrymen are coming from.

Would it not be better to at least try to see where we do agree as a people? I believe we are only cursing the darkness by seeing abortion as the cause. Perhaps more ground can be gained by seeing increasing numbers of abortions as a symptom of much deeper problems to be solved in our land.

Honestly, although it would be harder to dialogue, we might end up saving more lives.

Anonymous said...

I hope you see my point though. Giving pro-abortion people these very few extreme examples our approval to abort would not result in them letting us have the one's because the mother thinks she is too young to have a baby...or doesn't want a girl...or doesn't want a boy...or doesn't want to deal with Down Syndrome...or doesn't make enough money...or...

There is certainly much personal sway that comes into the battle. The root of the problem is that everyone thinks they are right. Including me.

For example, you say there is still much debate about when life actually begins. To me this is a non-issue personally because I have no doubt when life begins. This is so easily and readily answered from scripture that I find myself not even wanting to talk about it. Why? Because if someone is hung up on that issue, then they are miles away from the heart change that is necessary to overcome the power they have given themselves.

And that is what is really at issue here. This is a matter of the heart, and not a matter of the head. I don't want to yell and scream in someone's face as they haul me to jail so as to try and convince them to change their mind about going into an abortion clinic and killing their baby.

Their heart needs to be changed...not their mind.

This comment stream couldn't be further off target. I think I'll move on.

Anonymous said...

I thank you for responding. I know the topic is painful for you. I did try to understand you and I hope I have been respectful in my comments.

Only By His Grace said...

I realize it has been ten days since this article was posted; however, I have tried to do some background check on Governor Palin.

I found a NY Times article that was very detailed and very informative about Governor Palin and her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God church.

The Wasilla AofG church is not just an average AofG church. Here are a few things the article pointed out.

This church was declared heretical in 1949 by the Assemblies of God Church and was reaffirmed as heretical in 2000.

Governor Palin's family started attending this church when she was ten years old and was baptized when she twelve years old with her whole family.

On July 8, 2008, Sarah Palin was publicly blessed with the laying on of hands before Wasilla area church members by the Head Wasilla Assembly of God pastor Ed Kalnins. There were five thousand in attendance at this "blessing."

The Wasilla Assembly of God Church is part of the "Spiritual Warfare Movement" that was featured in the award winning movie "Jesus Camp" showing children being trained to do physical battle.

It is part of the "Third Wave Movement of the Holy Spirit" otherwise known as the "New Apostolic Reformation."

The movement is training "Joel's Army" to take over the United States and the world during the Great Tribulation.

The New York Times article mentions some things that we would do well to follow up on to find details. I will just mention some of them and let your own research do the rest:

1. Third Wave Movement of the Holy Spirit.
2. New Apostolic Reformation.
3. One Lord Sunday.
4. Geographical territories domination by Demons.
5. "The Queen of Heaven" being "Diana of the Ephesians," "the Whore of Babylon," and "the most powerful Demon in the heavens" and is in charge of the earth and veneration of the Mary cult.
5. Inter-generational transmission of family curses.
6. The Masters Commission- three year program for high school graduates on prophecy, Biblical exegesis, intercessory prayer, authority and leadership.
7. Morningstar Ministries.
8. Becky Fisher.
9. Steve Thompson.
10. The African Minister who laid hands on Governor Palin and is known for casting out demons of whole villages.
11. Rick Joyner.
12. Todd Bentley-- Lakeland Healing Revival.
13. Mike Rose-- Pastor of Juneau Christian Center.
14. Rodney Howard-Browne creator of Holy Laughter and the Toronto Airport Revival.
15. Thomas Muthee-- World of Faith Church.
16. Peter Wagneer (or Wagner)- founder of World Prayer Center which those in this movement call the "Pentagon of Spiritual Warfare.
17. Ted Haggard (before he lost his reputation with a male prostitute)and his New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
18. Operation Ice Castle.
19. Hagge's Christians United for Israel.
20. David Pepper-- the Church of the Rock and "The Call, Nashville."
21. Lou Engle.

I think these twenty-one can keep us busy. Remember, Governor Sarah Palin is not just a member of the Wasilla Assembly of God; she lives and breathes that church and has been an extremely faithful member for thirty-two years.

You can Google in some of these, Wikipedia others, and many of these inner connected organizations have films on Utube.

With a seventy-two year old President who has had two bouts with cancer, we need to know who is just one of his heart beats away from becoming the most powerful head of state in all history.

Here are four web sites I hope can help us. Many times I find these web sites so prejudice they negate what they say. I intend to follow up on them Monday, but tonight I must prepare my heart and mind to teach a Sunday School lesson, preach a children's and an adult sermon, and present a power point presentation of the Gospel (EE) Sunday evening after running two van routes in the morning, and two tomorrow evening.

Another thing is to realize this movement came out of the 50's and 60's "Latter Rain Movement" led by William Branham.

While some of these are part of every Pentcostal movement, this movement was declared heretical by the "General Council of the Assemblies of God" in 1949 and again "condemned in Resolution 16" 2000.

Phil in Norman

Anonymous said...

Dear Phil in Norman,

Has Sarah personally avowed any of these strange religious beliefs in a political context?

If so, where can we find out about this?


Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that Sarah has been poorly advised not to cooperate with the "trooper-gate" investigation. People around here are beginning to question her judgment on this decision. What will happen from this, I wonder?

Que Sarah, Sarah . . .

Jesse said...

I could probably support the Junior Senator from Illinois (Obama) if it weren’t for just a few disagreements I have with him.

I disagree with his views on abortion including his opposition to ‘Born Alive’ legislation and his support of the horrendous procedure known as partial birth abortion.

I disagree with his support of homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage.

I disagree with his stance (read opposition) on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I disagree with his views on wealth redistribution as this is socialism at best and communism at worst. In other words I am not “patriotic” as his running mate, Biden, suggests and oppose their plan to raise taxes. Raising taxes on one segment of society affects all of society. If they wish to pay more taxes, they are free to do so.

I disagree with his opposition to the U.S.A. utilizing its own natural resources (off-shore drilling, ANWAR, etc.).

I disagree with his foreign policy position which would have the U.S.A. not facing and fighting those who would destroy us (Islamic facists).

I disagree with his universalist position on salvation. He does NOT believe that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.

Actually, I do not really agree with the Junior Senator, Obama, from Illinois on anything of substance. I do agree with the earlier statements of his running mate and others in their party when they said that Obama was NOT ready to be President of the U.S.A.