Will You Defend My Constitutional Rights?

Paganplace, I watched that entire video without seeing any of the particular things you’ve been asked about and that are also rather important to supporting your case. Unless I blinked and missed it, Gov. Palin did not actually make any remarks in it, nor did it enlighten us on her actual opinions regarding religious liberty and public policy. You’re providing evidence of what everyone already knows, which is that at least one figure with an occasional visiting role in a church to which Gov. Palin once belonged may appears to have what some would view as a morbid obsession with an ill-defined spiritual threat posed by something (also ill-defined) to which the name “witchcraft” has been attached.

I’m going to simplify this analysis by pointing out that the video is evidence of “A”. Unfortunately, a number of the assertions you’ve made here, in order to be taken seriously, depend on B and C as well, *plus* the existence of certain reliable relationships (causal and other) among A, B and C. When asked for a solid demonstration of how we get from A to C, your responses have tended to be along the lines “But look … A!” To be fair to you, most the presumably like-minded sources you've directed us to are also stuck in the same gear.

May we, your readers, safely assume that you’re never going to give due consideration to highly pertinent questions raised by your assertions (I need not repeat them all, but they include major ones about evidence of trends in neo-pagan religious liberties, about the constitutional situation in Alaska during the Palin governorship, and many others)?

PLEASE ANSWER those questions. Or, if you have no intention of answering (or don’t know the answers, or simply don’t like the answers), just say so. But even if you never answer in print here, I urge you to some introspection concerning why the questions are such a “distraction” for you. (What are they distracting you from – the certitude of your own opinions?) Remember the old adage about the “unexamined life”.

I’m not promoting/defending anyone or anything except the value of sound reasoning and rigorous thought.

But, if you insist.. How bout this?

It shows the original endorsement, and then a whole lot more what this pastor is all about.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/new-footage-from-inside-palins-church/#

The fact is, Climacus, given what you brought up was a distraction in the first place, I feel no such 'burden of documentation' on a blog. Showing you the first thing that turned up on an elementary Google search was just by way of illustrating that it's just not that hard to find very serious cause for concern.

If your point was simply to try and 'pick apart' the fact that yes, her associations and endorsements of 'witch-hunters' and Third Wave fundamentalism, are in fact troubling to those who end up targeted for hate crimes because of these teachings, then it doesn't matter what sources are quoted, cause you're not reading in the first place.

The whole *point* of her being selected by McCain out of nowhere as a running mate was to *appeal* to an alienated radical Christian *base,* ...she *does* speak things out of this 'End Times' narrative, and everyone can see that picture. That's why we would like her to answer some questions.

You don't seem to want them asked, never mind be bothered to find out what you're defending.

Paganplace,

1. "Frankly, I found the questions pretty irrelevant..."

I would say you have an unconventional notion of relevance, in that case. (Who really believes it's irrelevant here to wonder, just as one example, whether the Free Exercise rights of neo-pagans are in better or worse shape than 10, 25 or 50 years ago?) Yet perhaps you could explain why you found particular questions irrelevant, and by reference to what. Ignoring questions and then explaining later that you blew them off because you found them "pretty irrelevant" sounds for all the world like a dodge and a cop-out. I daresay I know how you would view it if you asked Gov. Palin your questions and she did the same thing.

2. "Contesting your dispute that there could possibly be any connection between putting up an intolerant Dominionist who's citing the blessings of 'witch-hunters' for her 'success' at 'God's plan' for her to take office... and a recent rise in attempted witch-burnings by people, however 'troubled,' ...just isn't about picking anything apart.""

Let's get a few things straight.

First of all, I did not dispute that there *could* be a connection, I am merely trying to determine whether there are reasonable, evidence-based grounds for thinking that there *is* such a connection.

Second, since you're the one who's asserting its existence (or likelihood), the burden is on you to demonstrate it.

Third, we haven't established, that Gov. Palin demonstrates intolerance. The question of whether she is intolerant is one of the very things we're supposed to be examining, and you're starting off from the assumption that it's the case (citing some acts of religious intolerance, particularly in her official capacity, would be helpful here).

Fourth, I already examined in an earlier post your suggestion that Gov. Palin credited anti-witch blessings for her political success, and showed that (at least on the record I could find) the allegation wasn't what it was cracked up to be (even if its relevance were clear, which it isn't). Why are you bringing it up again?

Fifth, stop stringing together words with 'scary quotes' around them in order to produce a vaguely negative assertion that masquerades as a relevant statement actually made by someone. If you have a statement of Gov. Palin's to cite, please cite it in full, giving context and source.

Sixth, would you PLEASE SHARE THE EVIDENCE on which your assertion of a recent rise in "attempted witch-burnings" in this country is based? Is it a statistically significant rise? What is your source for this, and what is the period of reference? If you don't have a good answer for this (or think it's "pretty irrelevant"), then you have no business making statements like this in the first place.

(By the way, were any of them carried out by agents of the state - thus implicating constitutional rights?)

And while we're on the subject, how many of those incidents took place in Alaska in the last couple of years? How have our neo-pagan concitizens in the Last Frontier State fared in the last few years? Do you even know?

3. "Whether you accept the connection or not, it's certainly a vallid concern for American Pagans, what Ms Palin's position would be on our civil rights."

I suppose its a valid concern for Americans of any religious persuasion what the positions of all candidates are on that subject. "Concern" in the sense of a matter for consideration, but not necessarily always in the sense of a well-founded reason for anxiety or apprehension.

4. "Oh, but if you want to check it out for yourself, Climacus, a quick Google turned up this link-filled blog page, scroll down a ways, and you'll surely find enough to see you on your way to satiating your intellectual curiosity on Ms. Palin's connections."

First you referred vaguely to earlier citations in the thread; now you appear to concede that there weren't any and prefer to send your readers on a tedious online fishing expedition. This isn't about the intellectual curiousity of your interlocutors here, it's about your burden of backing up some of your arguments by presenting persuasive evidence to our eyes, here in the thread. Still waiting on the relevant statements/policies from Gov. Palin, by the way - and if you don't actually know of any, you should just say so. Your resorting to Googling up some random anti-Palin blogger's turgid collection of links, post hoc, is just embarrassing.

We already know what the relatively tenuous connections between Palin and, say, Pastor Muthee are. Given some of the statements you've made, you really ought to be focusing on demonstrating a causal connection between Palin's gubernatorial (or probable VP policies, if Sen. McCain wins the election) and the end of the Free Exercise clause as we know it.

You know, if Sarah Palin poses some kind of stealthy threat to our constitutional order, she'd have at most four years for that threat to be unveiled and manifested before we all get to vote again. Yet she's almost halfway through her gubernatorial term now. The way you carry on about her, Paganplace, one would expect the *Alaskan* constitutional order to be in at least a moderately serious downward spiral by now. Has that happened? You referred earlier to neo-pagans as "canaries in the coal mine" (though you never managed to show that the health of their religious freedoms was in decline). Why aren't *Alaska* and its constitution the canaries in the coal mine here? We've got an actual experiment in the field underway at this VERY MOMENT to test what happens to religious freedoms if you place Sarah Palin in charge of a government - and the experiment is almost half over. Is that experiment bearing out your hypothesis so far?

Oh, but if you want to check it out for yourself, Climacus, a quick Google turned up this link-filled blog page, scroll down a ways, and you'll surely find enough to see you on your way to satiating your intellectual curiosity on Ms. Palin's connections.

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/29/1803647-sarah-palin-dominionist-stalking-horse

Frankly, I found the questions pretty irrelevant... Contesting your dispute that there could possibly be any connection between putting up an intolerant Dominionist who's citing the blessings of 'witch-hunters' for her 'success' at 'God's plan' for her to take office... and a recent rise in attempted witch-burnings by people, however 'troubled,' ...just isn't about picking anything apart.

Whether you accept the connection or not, it's certainly a vallid concern for American Pagans, what Ms Palin's position would be on our civil rights.

Paganplace,

What are you talking about? I've seen next to no Palin quotations in the thread, much less on relevant topics such as witches or the Free Exercise Clause. I also thought you might point out the objectionable parts of the materials on the governor's church's website that I linked. But it's a longish thread, and I may have overlooked what you're referring to. Would it be too much to ask for you to identify by date/time the post or posts with these citations you mention? I realize we're all busy, naturally.

Also, there were many other unanswered questions I posed that past citations wouldn't resolve; in order for those to be answered, you'd actually have to *answer* them.

I have no interest in disproving anything as such, but I do have an interest in holding these assertions up to a more rigorous standard of proof than simply naked allegations and vague associations. That's in your interest, as well.

Since there are citations above, and I'm busy, no, I didn't feel so inclined, ...you seem only bent on attempting to disprove somehow that the concerns exist.

Paganplace,

I get the sense that there is little point in posing specific questions to you, since you seem to be disinclined to answer.

Nevertheless:

1. "It's clear enough that the modern witch-hunt/Spiritual Warfare teachings she has espoused, endorsed, and yes, been associated, are a major factor in people thinking Pagans are the 'evil witches' of their imagination and Biblical literalism, ..."

I asked you to cite, using her own words to the fullest extent possible, exactly what endorsements you're referring to. Are you going to do that?

2. "...not to mention that presenting the witch hysteria in Salem as (apart from an obvious metaphor for MacCarthyism,) not the noble battle against 'evil witches' taught in radical churches, but, yes, a madness of sorts, ...was 'blasphemy' that needed to be 'purified...'"

Could you clarify what you are saying here and demonstrate its direct relation to Gov. Palin?

Really, Climacus. It's clear enough that the modern witch-hunt/Spiritual Warfare teachings she has espoused, endorsed, and yes, been associated, are a major factor in people thinking Pagans are the 'evil witches' of their imagination and Biblical literalism, ...not to mention that presenting the witch hysteria in Salem as (apart from an obvious metaphor for MacCarthyism,) not the noble battle against 'evil witches' taught in radical churches, but, yes, a madness of sorts, ...was 'blasphemy' that needed to be 'purified...'

Yeah, then you do wonder who's teaching each other, even and especially 'troubled' people these things about their fellow Americans, and even free speech and literature itself.

As someone who's had these ideas directed at her personally, I certainly don't find them so easy to dismiss as all that. Not when Palin's actually shown every sign of being a card-carrying Dominionist with ties to if not membership in Alaskan separatist groups, as well as churches the Assemblies of God considers too radical and right wing, as well as heretical.

Paganplace:

1. "Though, come to think of it, Climacus, I hope you do realize the irony that might come about of Palin-type churches trying to defend the lad based on 'insanity' for trying to or simulate trying to burn someone as a 'Blasphemer' for teaching an Arthur Miller play which contested that witch burning is insanity, ...and thus was a blasphemous witch who quite obviously needed premeditated 'burning' to 'purify?'"

"How they gonna play that? If anyone's looking?"

I'm not entirely sure what you think a "Palin-type church" is, or whether your characterization would be justified, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

The English teacher in me thinks it's also worth pointing out that The Crucible does not quite stand for the association between insanity and witches that you seem to be suggesting. Even sane and good characters in the play believe that witches are real (Proctor, if I recall correctly, asserts that he believes in witches - just not the ones on trial in his town). Indeed, it would have been awkward for Miller to make the play an argument for the insanity of believing in witches, since he was trying in large part to evoke the selfish motives, paranoia and procedural unfairness that tainted HUAC's investigations - and I doubt he would have wanted to suggest, by the analogy, that it's crazy to believe in the existence of Communists or that a real one might not be bad.

Anyhow, to turn to your main point there, to the extent that any church has an interest in defending this person, there's no contradiction in saying that the boy was insane or even just wrong or immoral in doing what he allegedly did, and at the same time believing in the possibility of witches. Insanity could cause me to become convinced that my retired neighbor is a dangerous Russian spy and that it is imperative that I shoot him. You could, without contradiction, (1) agree that I was insane and (2) hold the belief that Russian spies exist. You could also think that vigilante shootings are in any event not the proper procedure for dealing with suspected spies. Where's the irony you're anticipating?

2. "I mean, Climacus, that's really the crook of it. Is what Palin espouses 'insanity,' or does she actually believe in a premeditated way that some people in America are 'witches' in the Biblical sense?

"Can't have it both ways."

I think you meant "crux" (Christian symbolism not intended, naturally) rather than "crook". Well, before we determine whether she can have it both ways or not, let's figure out precisely what the first of those two ways is. What exactly are you talking about when you refer to what Palin "espouses"? Use her own words, if possible.

Paganplace,

1. “Was there another in California?”

Not that I know of. I had a mental lapse there; I meant Michigan, not California. I knew someone in the California town of the same name, and “California” crept into my head.

2. “I think it's about what churches and agendas like hers teach the 'troubled' people, actually.”

Let’s stick to her church and her agenda. In fact, let’s just stick to well-supported facts about her agenda, since her church is only relevant to the extent it contributes concretely to her agenda (I really have grown to hate that word) in areas that relate to her potential job duties.

Unless you can point to some compelling evidence to the contrary, I think it is not only safe but fair to assume that Gov. Palin’s “agenda” is, if anything, more aligned with preventing incidents like the one in your news story than it is about approving or encouraging them.

So what do you know about her agenda?

By the way, I just realized that Gov. Palin's church has a website, including plenty of sermons:

http://wasillabible.org

They probably bury the extremism in the back pages somewhere.

3. Lot of people seeming 'troubled' in that particular way, just lately.

In the assaulting teachers particular way? It is a rough school district, from what I hear. Or do you mean something else? If so, please provide some comparative statistics to back up your statement.

4. "That 'witches' are real in a Biblical sense? To be purged and burned like the pastor whose protection from 'Witches' she credits with her admittedly-unlikely rise to this prominence?”

Are you saying that you are concerned that somebody like the Ferndale student might think that is the message her candidacy sends? While I agree that only a seriously troubled individual would think that’s the message Gov. Palin’s candidacy sends, I’m inclined to think that even most of them would know better. The hypothetical remainder are so far gone that it’s probably unreasonable to blame the governor or anyone else for the messages those poor unfortunates think they’re receiving.

By the way, I think it is at the very least a greatly misleading exaggeration to say that Gov. Palin attributed her political success to Pastor Muthee’s protection from witches. I’m certain you’ll correct me if I misquote her, but I seem to recall that she stated “[Muthee] said ‘Lord make a way and let her do this next step.’ And that’s exactly what happened.” In other words, she thinks that the Lord effectively made a way and she did the next step. That seems to split credit in some proportion between God (for making the way) and herself (for doing the next step). No post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. She never suggested, in the quotes I’m familiar with, that God would not have made a way, or that she would not have taken the next step, absent Muthee or indeed any of the many well-wishers who no doubt prayed for her success. Nothing crediting Witch-B-Gone either.

5. “This 'troubled' individual seemed together enough to decide it was a great idea to say that teaching Arthur Miller was 'blasphemy' for not believing certain real people are evil Biblical characters, and that they had to be purified by attempted or simulated 'burning...'”

That’s “together enough”, in your view? Yikes.

6. “Yeah, there's a spike in that demographic, just lately. Extremists know Palin is one of them. But a lot of moderates are being bamboozled about what message she actually represents.”

That’s a bit patronizing. Maybe it’s the extremists who are being bamboozled. Maybe YOU’RE being bamboozled. But in any event, doesn’t what someone “represents” depend at least partly on the beholder, the one receiving the message?

By the way, who are the extremists and how do they know Palin is one of them? How do YOU know it (did you sneak into one of their meetings)? Why are the moderates apparently more easily fooled than the extremists? And does that include the extremists on the OTHER extreme (whatever that might be)?

I mean, Climacus, that's really the crook of it. Is what Palin espouses 'insanity,' or does she actually believe in a premeditated way that some people in America are 'witches' in the Biblical sense?

Can't have it both ways.

Though, come to think of it, Climacus, I hope you do realize the irony that might come about of Palin-type churches trying to defend the lad based on 'insanity' for trying to or simulate trying to burn someone as a 'Blasphemer' for teaching an Arthur Miller play which contested that witch burning is insanity, ...and thus was a blasphemous witch who quite obviously needed premeditated 'burning' to 'purify?'

How they gonna play that? If anyone's looking?

"Climacus "

"Paganplace, I'm sure we all agree that the incident involving the troubled youngster in California is not funny."

Was there another in California?

" Nevertheless, how you mean to relate it (which you never quite do, but suggest that there's a relation) plausibly to Gov. Palin is not clear."

I think it's about what churches and agendas like hers teach the 'troubled' people, actually.

Lot of people seeming 'troubled' in that particular way, just lately.

" What do you think is the "message" (relevant to that news story) that is being "sent by" Gov. Palin's candidacy?"

That 'witches' are real in a Biblical sense? To be purged and burned like the pastor whose protection from 'Witches' she credits with her admittedly-unlikely rise to this prominence?

This 'troubled' individual seemed together enough to decide it was a great idea to say that teaching Arthur Miller was 'blasphemy' for not believing certain real people are evil Biblical characters, and that they had to be purified by attempted or simulated 'burning...'

Yeah, there's a spike in that demographic, just lately. Extremists know Palin is one of them. But a lot of moderates are being bamboozled about what message she actually represents.

"Unfortunately, the boy arrested in the may-or-may-not-have-been-attempted-witch-burning"

Oh, come *on.* If I staged some whole thing and threw you to an amimatronic lion, would you just go, 'Haha, funny joke!' I don't think so.

"is up before a Christian Republican judge, so I suppose there's a decent chance that the defendant will be awarded a medal and sent home with the thanks of the court. Right?"

If the boy's insane, he's insane. I'm more concerned about what some folks teach their crazier brethren about me and my loved ones.

Paganplace, I'm sure we all agree that the incident involving the troubled youngster in California is not funny. Nevertheless, how you mean to relate it (which you never quite do, but suggest that there's a relation) plausibly to Gov. Palin is not clear. What do you think is the "message" (relevant to that news story) that is being "sent by" Gov. Palin's candidacy?

Unfortunately, the boy arrested in the may-or-may-not-have-been-attempted-witch-burning is up before a Christian Republican judge, so I suppose there's a decent chance that the defendant will be awarded a medal and sent home with the thanks of the court. Right?

Less funny, this... Another incident of 'Witch-burning' turned up, (this time either a fake one or the perp just didn't know the liquid he poured on a non-Pagan teacher for the 'blasphemy' of not believing in witchcraft and teaching 'The Crucible' in class wasn't actually flammable.) )

So again when we ask what message this Palin candidacy sends... Or McCain's choice of someone like that.

"http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2008/10/08/news/srv0000003699470.txt"

"Where were you for the Bush Administration?"

In the Nation-State of Maryland! Where their is corn, and lots of corn!

True, thinking this come to mind and I hope foe the sake of All that it stops at the "Communists" (and then turns right backa round to free the "communists") for us.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
First they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
First they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
-Niemöller

Well, I guess that explains the fearmongering, then.

Paganplace,

We are a major manufacturer of voodoo dolls, silver bullets, crucifixes with sharp points, stakes and werewolf brain bashers.

Uh, who's 'we' CCNL?

And, I really don't much care if Maher mentions modern Pagans, much less expect any adulation. From watching his comedy, I don't think he much cares, anyway, since we're not doing anything stupid with the government.

Paganplace,

We thought you would be ecstatic that Maher even mentioned paganism in any form where apparently he does not mention much larger groups like the Hindus and Buddhists. Maybe in his sequel (Religtupity??), he might "skewer" these also.

Enjoy the show and tell us what you think!!!

Starhawk can't 'censor the blogs here,' Astoria.' ...the moderators will cut stuff out, generally for good reason. Starhawk just submits columns.

"For Palin again-I think I am not too sure what she would do-it all depends if she even COULD do something that would violate the Constitution (as in anyone would allow her)."

Where have you been for the Bush administration? :)

I see no satire against *us* in that huge block of text from Roger Ebert you quoted, CCNL. Funny you should care, since you attempt to mock and defame everyone but presumably, whoever agrees your own beliefs, if there are any, ...now you have a problem with an atheist humorist?

We laugh at ourselves all the time... This doesn't mean a lot of non-Pagans don't end up backhandedly claiming what they think they're making fun of is the reality, when really they're making fun of characters from their own misinformed ideas. (particularly atheists who lump all kinds of religion together, despite the fact that Pagans have a lot of difficulty *for* not being very similar in a lot of key ways from most of the bigger religions. We have certain advantages in this regard, as a lot of the inertia of cultural baggage simply hasn't survived the wholesale historical suppression of Pagan traditions: we, collectively, have been able to look at other religions, and where they struggle with some of their big social 'flaws,' we've simply been able to avoid repeating them.

Saying Paganism is a 'cult' (as opposed to referring to ancient cults in the anthropological sense) is one of the signs they often don't know what they're trying to make fun of, for instance, ...basically, the problem of trying to mock people who are already misunderstood is that the humor's often off-base... when it goes from social critique to simply more misinformation about people who don't have mass-media networks to represent *themselves.*

Still. The role of a satirist is supposed to be to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. For a reason I mentioned above, I don't think most Pagans are interested in getting too *comfortable,* either.

CNNL-
Thats what you think, seems somewhat paranoid too.

I met a Muslim (three enfact) just yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I think I'm getting along in anot too bad fashion with my Arabic class-I just need to study some more.

---
The below link works for me but I don't see what it has to do with Starhawk.
----
For Palin again-I think I am not too sure what she would do-it all depends if she even COULD do something that would violate the Constitution (as in anyone would allow her).

wow starhawk is censoring her blogs here-

http://news.spreadit.org/thats-all-we-have-for-now-on-heather-mallick-cbc-palinheather-mallick-sarah-palin-blast/

let's see if this link works-

A minor point perhaps, Lepidopteryx and CCNL, but it is not true that most guns used in crimes are stolen guns.

According to the ATF, stolen guns account for only 10% to 15% of guns used in the commission of crimes.

Source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Attention all Pagans (and Pagan lovers), Bill Maher has included you in his satire of the global religions.

"Religulous

/ / / October 2, 2008

Cast & CreditsLionsgate presents a film directed by Larry Charles. Written by Bill Maher. Running time: 101 minutes. Rated R (for some language and sexual material). Opening today at local theaters.

By Roger Ebert

I'm going to try to review Bill Maher's "Religulous" without getting into religion. Is that OK with everybody? Good. I don't want to fan the flames of a holy war. The movie is about organized religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, TV evangelism and even Scientology, with detours into pagan cults and ancient Egypt. Bill Maher, host, writer and debater, believes they are all crazy. He fears they could lead us prayerfully into mutual nuclear doom. He doesn't get around to Hinduism or Buddhism, but he probably doesn't approve of them, either.

This review is going to depend on one of my own deeply held beliefs: It's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it. This movie is about Bill Maher's opinion of religion. He's very smart, quick and funny, and I found the movie entertaining, although sometimes he's a little mean to his targets. He visits holy places in Italy, Israel, Great Britain, Florida, Missouri and Utah, and talks with adherents of the religions he finds there, and others.

Or maybe "talks with" is not quite the right phrase. It's more that he lines them up and shoots them down. He interrupts, talks over, slaps on subtitles, edits in movie and TV clips, and doesn't play fair. Reader, I took a guilty pleasure in his misbehavior. The people he interviews are astonishingly forbearing, even most of the truckers in a chapel at a truck stop. I expected somebody to take a swing at Maher, but nobody did, although one trucker walked out on him. Elsewhere in the film, Maher walks out on a rabbi who approvingly attended a Holocaust denial conference in Iran.

Maher had a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, and was raised as a Catholic until he was 13, when his father stopped attending services. He speaks with his elderly mother, who tells him, "I don't know why he did that. We never discussed it." He asks her what the family believed, before and after that event. "I don't know what we believed," she says. No, she's not confused. She just doesn't know.

Most everybody else in the film knows what they believe. If they don't, Maher does. He impersonates a Scientologist at the Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park, and says Scientology teaches that there was a race of Thetans several trillion years old (older than the universe, which is only 13.73 billion years) and that we are born with Thetans inside us, which can be detected by an E-Meter, on sale at your local Scientology center, and driven out by "auditing," which takes a long time and unfortunately costs money.

Many of Maher's confrontations involve logical questions about holy books. For example, did Jonah really live for three days in the belly of a large fish? There are people who believe it. Is the End of Days at hand? A U.S. senator says he thinks so. Will the Rapture occur in our lifetimes? Widespread agreement. Mormons believe Missouri will be the paradise ("Branson, I hope," says Maher). There are even some people who believe Alaska has been chosen as a refuge for the Saved After Armageddon. In Kentucky, Maher visits the Creation Museum, which features a diorama of human children playing at the feet of dinosaurs.

His two most delightful guests, oddly enough, are priests stationed in the Vatican. Between them, they cheerfully dismiss wide swaths of what are widely thought to be Catholic teachings, including the existence of Hell. One of these priests almost dissolves in laughter as he mentions various beliefs that I, as a child, solemnly absorbed in Catholic schools. The other observes that when Italians were polled to discover who was the first person they would pray to in a crisis, Jesus placed sixth.

Maher meets two representations of Jesus. One is an actor at the Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando. He stars in a re-enactment of the Passion, complete with crown of thorns, wounds, a crucifix, and Roman soldiers with whips. I suppose I understand why Florida tourists would take snapshots of this ordeal, but when Jesus stumbles, falls and is whipped by soldiers, I was a little puzzled why they applauded. The other Jesus, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, believes he actually is the Second Coming -- i.e., Jesus made flesh in our time. He explains how the bloodline traveled from the Holy Land through France to Spain to Puerto Rico. He has 100,000 followers.

Why have I focused on the Christians? Maher also has interesting debates with Muslims about whether the Koran calls for the death of infidels. And he interviews an Israeli manufacturer who invents devices to sidestep the bans on Sabbath activity. Since the laws prohibit you from operating machines, for example, they've invented a "negative telephone." Here's how it works: All the numbers on the touchpad are constantly engaged. All you do is insert little sticks into holes beside the numbers you don't want to work.

I have done my job and described the movie. I report faithfully that I laughed frequently. You may very well hate it, but at least you've been informed. Perhaps you could enjoy the material about other religions, and tune out when yours is being discussed. That's only human nature."

Have we ever met a Muslim?? Of course. Apparently very nice.

Then we meet the not so nice ones every day in the newspaper and in the news blowing up their fellow Muslims and themselves all over the Middle East.

Then one ponders about the ones we meet physically. Are they as nice as they seem or are there bombs under those flowing robes????

Tell me CNNL, have you ever met a Muslim?

Ah and yes the Satanic Verses I have met that before and did believe them but of course you will find most of their info on Highly Antli-Muslim Fundie Christian sites.

Yes, I do not deny those things (Deaths) happen-but you are glossing and focusing too much in Muslim society- try the USA http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/unitedst/index.htm

White Picket Fences indeed.

The facts are Yes this world is full of evil and calamity, chaos and suffering but thats not the fault of the Gods, thats the fault of Humanity.
So what should we do? Use the Gods as our scapegoats or admit our own faults.

Oh and if you do want to look at religion and bloodshed-why don't you take a look at Revolutionary France during the 18th and 19th Century Hmmmm?

No new material today, CCNL?

One should be concerned about "holy" cows and basic sanitation when said cows deficate and pee all over the streets of India. And who cleans up after these dumb, dirty beasts??

With respect to Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography and Sir Salman Rusdie's satire, Satanic Verses, are necessary "reads" in order to understand the real Islam.

Some excerpts: From Infidel

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

From Sir Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses", p. 376, paperback issue - for those 1 billion Muslims out there to read as they are forbidden to purchase or read said book:

an excerpt:

"The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound - or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? - should one say Al-Lah? - became obsessed by law.

Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule
about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind.

It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free. The revelation - the recitation- told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which sexual
positions had received divine sanction, so that they leamed that sodomy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top.

Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch. He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they
might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand
that life has been real, and not a sort of dream.

And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that soundedso much like a businessman.

This was when he had the idea that
destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so
how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if noncorporeal, God."

More on Islam and farting: (i.e. Sir Rushdie and the Apostate got it right)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1503931/Prayer-Recitation-of-Quran-and-Ablution-or-Bath?query2=islam%20fart

"Farting is problematic in Islam. During prayer, a worshipper must not fart. Sahih Bukhari (1.4.137) writes that Allah will not accept a Muslim’s prayer if he/she passes wind during the ritual.

The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently, or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the prayer (ibid, 1.4.139).Sunaan Nasai (1.162) writes that if you fart during a prayer you must redo ablution. Sahih Bukhari (9.86.86) says that for a “farter” Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs another ablution."

Probably more important for purposes of this discussion, than exactly how to frame regulating weaponry in specific, is to really get over the notion that one party is really out to take away guns, and another is really out to un-restrict them. This is more about image than the substance of or horse-trading around any legislation and business about a 'wedge issue.'

To use the automotive metaphor, quite often what the gun lobby starts off arguing for is the right to drive a nitro-burning funny car in a school zone... by the time it gets hashed out, any regulation is usually designed to actually inconvenience legit gun owners as much as possible.... so they'll support the gun lobby and conservative candidates who may not have their best interestes at heart in the first place...

True, all of our rights have to be protected.

Ah and CCNL is it? Your religious post-Wow.
Oh, and I'm not saying that in a good way.

Specially when you talk about Islam and Hinduism.
If you look at the culture of India you will find two things concerning the cow
1. Is indeed Surabhi-The Cow Goddess and a symbol of nonviolence
2. You will find that not only do they worship Cows but the reason why is that a cow is so useful-do not take it as being simple idiocy as you seem to take it at as you do with most things in life.

Islam: You will actualy find the Prophet to be a much better manm you can not simply decide that a person is the opposite of what you hear.
I can go much further into this but I will so if you reply and invite me to-but at the momment on the subject of "Womanizing"
The culture of Arabia was already so-so was Western Civilization and Far Eastern- don't simply point out one person-and if you did not know this (try to read a Koran for yourself) the Prophet actually LIMITED THE # OF WIVES YOU COULD HAVE TO 4 (and this was after a especially bloody battle where Medinan Tribes lost a number of their menfolk and the women were left to grieve and without the men they would have no one to look after them-NOW THEY DID!).

I do suggest offhand here for you to go and look at a flower-admire it's beauty and simplicity- not the fact that the pollen it carries could kill you if you are allergic to pollen or their might be abee on it that could do similarly.

Hi, Lep,

You are right, and I can't believe I'm saying this - CCNL made some good points.

Total gun deaths for the United States in 2002: 30,242
***Unintentional deaths: 762
***Violent deaths: 29,237
***Unknown intent:: 243

The violent deaths can be further broken down as follows:
***Homicides: 11,829
***Suicides: 17,108
***Legal: 300

Source: CDC

I can't find stats on homicides, but apparently an alarming percent are domestic violence. The legal 300 are probably police. Self-defense stats I could not find.

CCNL:

I'm aware that most guns used in crimes are stolen - my point was that if your gun is registered, it makes it a lot easier to let the authorities know that it was stolen. It's hard to prove something was stolen if you can't prove you owned it in the first place.

I know that registration and training won't stop criminals from stealing guns and using them to commit other crimes, any more that registering my car will prevent her from being stolen and used to commit a crime.

But having to prove that I could safely operate her before being issued a license, and having to periodically repeat that demonstration when renewng my license reduces the chance that I will harm someone while driving due to ignorance. Accidents happen, sometimes due to circumstances beyond the driver's control - like the time we hydroplaned and went over the side of I-10. But the fact that my husband knew safety rules about driving in wet weather and had turned off the cruise control and was driving at a reduced speed when we hit the water meant that we at least became airborne at a lower velocity than if he had insisted on driving the speed limit with the cruise control on.

I think that people who own things that have great potential to do harm to others should be required to be trained in their proper use. If you're going to drive, you should not only know the rules of the road, you should know how to boost a dead battery, how to check and maintian fluids, and how to change a tire. You should have to demonstrate these abilities before being issued a license.

If you're going to own a gun, you should be required to pass a gun safety course and pass a target test before being allowed to take it home with you.

My parish requires that cats and dogs be vaccinated against rabies and that a current rabies tag be displayed on their collar. Unvaccinated pets are a public health risk.
We also have a leash law - stray animals are a public health risk.
If you're going to own a dog, I think you should also be required to complete a basic obedience class with the dog. An untrained dog is a menace.

lepidopteryx,

Good point!!

Guns, however, used in crimes are typically stolen guns. Same with cars i.e. the control and insurance aspects are therefore lost.

Guns made with features such as enabling only by the owner via microchip locks or his/her own fingerprint would help.

Hunting licenses should however be issued using your gun registration criteria i.e. passing tests and insurance on said hunting rifles.

My two cents on gun registration:

If you own a vehicle, you are required to register it with local governmental authoritutes. You are also required to demonstrate that you are familiar with the laws regarding its operation by passing a written test, and that you can competently operate it by passing a road test. Only if you pass both tests are you allowed to operate that vehicle. Why? Because a vehicle operated by an incompetent driver has the potential to kill, so it is in the public's best interest for the authorities to know who owns what vehicle, and to ensure that drivers are properly trained in the safe operation of a vehicle. If my vehicle is stolen, having it registered increases my chances of having it returned to me.
My state requires that if you own a vehicle, you must have liability insurance in order to drive it. If your operation of a vehicle causes harm to another person's body or property, you are held responsible for that damage. I only wish that the enforcement of insurance laws were better. If the police find you without an insurance card in a random stop, they impound your vehicle immediately, and you can't get it back until you provide documentation of coverage. But when my daughter was recently injured in a wreck caused by an uninsured driver, the police did not impound the woman's car because the wreck occurred on private property (a store parking lot). That meant that I had to cover towing and repairing the car, plus medical and physical therapy bills, and then contact an attorney to try to recoup those expenditures, plus her lost wages from the month that her injuries prevented her from being able to perform her job, directly from the other driver. Who knows how long that will take? These things sometimes drag on for years. Meanwhile, I'm looking for a second job to dig us out of the financial hole that someone else's irresponsible behavior put us in.
Vehicles aren't designed to kill or injure - they just have that potential. A gun's purpose is to kill or injure , and it has the capacity to do so from a distance. That doesn't make guns or people who own guns inherently bad - it just means that if you're going to own one, it's in the public's best interest for the authorities to know who owns what guns, and to ensure that people who own guns are properly trained in their safe use. I don't object to anyone owning a gun, or even carrying it concealed on their person. I would just like to know that if they do have one, that they know what to do and what not to do with it, that if it is stolen, the police have at least a chance of tracking it, and that if you cause unwarranted injury with it, you will be held responsible for that injury.

"Ain't" much left to religion or blogs about religion once you remove the flaws and errors from said religions.

Once again, as the lights dim on the On Faith blog:

A Synopsis - the Flaws and Errors of the Major Religions

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis (e.g. Rabbi Wolpe) have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:
Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. www. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html (not currently available due to server problems)

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology. .

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/ mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Arminius,

I'm glad you read it. I don't know anything about Bishop Spong, but he always seems to call it right.

Farnaz,

On your recommendation, I just read it. Your comment there sums it up, and is better than I could have done.

Arminius,

Did you read Bishop Spong's essay? If you did, please let me know what you thought.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

"Well maybe Sally Quinn will get the message and improve the quality of the questions."

Don't hold your breath.

Asking more substantive questions is a thing devoutly to be wished, but the blog has been this way for quite awhile now.

Well maybe Sally Quinn will get the message and improve the quality of the questions.

Whoops! Meant to write "Observer." Sorry!

Arminius, Obserber,

Excellent point, Arminius, IMHO. It really is getting old. For awhile the questions were close to inane. The thing is there were so many interesting, even brilliant bloggers that we could always go our own way once we'd exhausted the questions, which sometimes happened quickly.

Farnaz and Observer,

Another reason may be 'topic burnout'. Endless questions and essays about abortion and religion in politics. It's really getting old.

Arminius, Observer12,

Okay, but the three of us are still here as are many others. I think there may also be a kind of Domino effect. A few worthy stalworts continue on, but without sufficient stimulation since there are so few.

Maybe some of the others will return.

Arminius,

Yes, I was thinking about that. There was an awful lot of hate there, for awhile, hate, intransigence, militant ignorance. I confess I recall your thinking about leaving. I considered it myself, and took time off.

Hope the blog replenishes itself. Maybe the new policy will control some of the raving. T'would be best if the ravers could control it themselves.

Farnaz,

There are reasons some have left - the influx of haters, bigots, and infantile spammers. I very nearly left myself as you may remember. JJ was one reason, but at least he seems to have left. Yet, sadly, many of the great minds are no longer here.

Arminius,

Something is happening to this blog, and I think it pre-dates the new policy. It's getting limp, flaccid, etc. It's like pasta with no spice or cheese. Or tea that hasn't steeped long enough. Runny soup, etc.

The great poet Pseudo has vanished as have a whole host of others, such as Mr. Mark, Gerry, Wiglaf, et al.

Susan Jacoby's thread that had more than a thousand posts more than once is crawling along.

I am sad. What happened, do you think?

I too would like answers to these very important questions. I am fed up to the teeth with those who would slander Pagans and treat us as second class citizens… or worse as if we were uneducated “children” who need to be “shown the light” in order for us to fall at their feet and thank them for “the truth of their god”. My path is my path, it may not be your path but it is right for me.

I don’t think any of us are over stepping the boundaries of propriety in wishing to be left to worship in our own manner. I respect others right to their beliefs and don’t push my beliefs at others. I expect the same in return. I am very sure that if the tables were turned they would take great exception in having us shove our beliefs down their throats … and up their nose and in their ears … you get the idea. The only time I talk about my beliefs with others is if they ask and then I am honest and up front. I answer their questions truthfully and openly. Thus far I have had, for the most part, very positive experiences … there are always going to be a couple of people who will refuse to listen no matter what.

It comes down to something as simple and basic as stopping to think. If each person would take a moment to put themselves into the other persons shoes, consider how they would feel if things were reversed, I’m sure we could stop so much of the hatred. Regardless of what deity you look to or which belief system you follow we are all human and thus children of the Gods.

Let us walk our path in peace
Give us space to learn and grow
There is room enough for all
For with our faith we make it so

As each heart shines forth it’s light
With a gift of love to one and all
Hatred dims then fades away
Stifling the guns of war

Waves hi to Arminius, Wiccan, and Paganplace. Looks around to see if I missed anyone, I don’t think so.

In Her service
Rowen

Farnaz,

I can't claim that word as my own, alas.

Hi Arminius,

Very good! Has nuance. Is it your coinage?

Just found this:

logor·rheic adj. 1. an excessive or abnormal, sometimes incoherent talkativeness. — logorrheic, adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Farnaz,

Confused the Croissant Naturally Logodiarrheic

Arminius, Wiccan:

Confused Croissant Naturally Largiloquent*?

*It's a word:

largiloquent: talkative; full of words

Arminius, Wiccan:

Confused Croissant Nervously Leery?

Paganplace,

To address your second set of remarks on my response to the essay:

1. "Let's put it this way, though, Mr. C. You may not like us much, you may think we're a bunch of kooks who shouldn't even be allowed to name ourselves, ...you may think it's 'paranoid fantasy' when we say, 'Look. We've seen a lot of this in our lives, ...we're scared for our civil rights and liberties and, in fact, our safety in the climate these kinds of folks seek to generate.'"

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by "you may not like us much". For all you know, my pagan credentials – so to speak - is as genuine as yours. My specific religious beliefs are not relevant (neither are yours, frankly) to an evaluation of the objective plausibility of some of the claims made here – so I've tried not to interject them. Nor have I indicated that I don't "like" any particular group or individual at issue here, and whether I did or didn't would also be a poor basis on which to rest constitutional arguments.

2. "In what looks to be coming times of greater poverty and economic frustration, whether or not a candidate who thinks it's reasonable and acceptable and holy to 'blame witches' and keep doing the same things Bush did is allowed to stand for high office, Yeah. It does make us worry for our safety."

You know, I’m not sure whether your characterization of Gov. Palin or President Bush, or your attempt to kind of mash them together, is valid – but your apparent criticism of the notion that Gov. Palin should be "allowed to stand for high office" evinces possibly the most anti-constitutional attitude we've seen expressed in this discussion.

3. "The fact that people in America can be sincerely saying, 'We're watching things get worse for our civil rights,' ...and no one *cares,* ...that's a bad sign."

Your religious freedoms and related civil rights, as far as I can tell, are generally speaking on more solid footing now than at any time in the past 50 years – or than they would have been (had neo-paganism been around) 100, 150, or 200 years ago.

4. "These churches are willing to say things about us that'd make Goebbels blush... Now you don't want it questioned when their 'values' are supposed to be all anyone wants to consider?"

Leaving aside constitutional law for a moment, it's nice to know that at least Godwin's Law is doing very well.

Kind regards,

C.

Arminius:

Confused Croissant's Narcissism Loosed?

Paganplace,

In reply to your initial response to me:

1. "For starters, you'd seem to be unaware that it's very disrespectful to decide you know better what someone's name is, or how she'd prefer to be addressed."

I wasn't addressing you, was I? Nevertheless, since you've taken it upon yourself to respond in her place, I will say that in my experience, the default mode of respectful address, if possible, for a woman with whom one is not on familiar terms is "Ms." followed by surname. Pending a response from the author herself, disagreements may be taken up with Emily Post or my mother.

2. "I presume it'd be somewhere short of endorsing and supporting the 'witch hunters' and claiming their protections are responsible for her getting into office, amid all the scary 'witches' and 'spiritual warfare?'"

That doesn't really answer my question, I'm afraid, which in any event was not addressed to you, with all due respect.

3. "I think we can't. If she wants to curry favor with her fellows in the Religious Right, Dominionists and whatnot, then she ought to let the rest of the world know what she believes about people who worship otherwise."

First, the proposed debate question was directed at both candidates, not just Gov. Palin. Second, I'm not exceptionally preoccupied what she personally believes about people who worship otherwise, as long as she is not going to violate the Constitution about it. And if you think we can't take pretty much for granted that either candidate is going to answer any way but in the affirmative when basically asked whether they will respect Free Exercise rights in office, then I confess to being somewhat envious that you have escaped exposure to American politics for so long.

4. "I think we could take the time. Considering how much time the Republicans have wasted with smears and the like, at least. I know what Biden would say, ...I'd like to see Palin manage it. My guess is it'd be a non-reassuring non-answer."

Although it's certainly true that representatives of both parties have wasted time with smears, none of this really suggests that asking a candidate whether they intend to respect the Free Exercise Clause – which to my mind is up there with the softest of all softball questions (not far behind 'Do you intend to respect the Emancipation Proclamation?') - would have been an illuminating debate question.

(And really, no one knows for sure what Joe Biden will say at any given time; it's kind of a crapshoot.)

5. "She has supported Alaskan separatists and tried to pressure a librarian to censor books. I'm pretty sure she took an oath of office before, and that didn't stop her, then. Maybe she thinks, like most Dominionists, the Constitiution was only meant to apply to Christians, anyway."

Factcheck.org throws a fair bit of cold water on the separatism and censorship allegations. If you have evidence that she actually violated either the state or federal constitution, you should inform the news media and the ACLU immediately. Otherwise, don't say things like "that didn't stop her, then." It sounds defamatory.

Maybe Palin and/or Biden does think that the Constitution was only meant to apply to Christians – ludicrously unlikely, but theoretically possible – but even if it were true I think the odds of any candidate copping to it in a debate are negligible. Hence, a useless debate question for them in my opinion.

6. "Who says this was really a 'yes or no question' as you phrase? There are a lot of issues related to this."

Spoken like a recent previous occupant of the White House. Maybe you have been exposed to American politics after all. At any rate, do you know what the related issues are?

7. "In the sense that it's a Constitutional problem, well, we've just had eight years of a President, supported by the Religious Right without question, who's on record, along with Bob Barr, the Neocon, as claiming we aren't a 'real religion' and ought to be banned from worshiping when in the military, and presumably elsewhere."

I referred to an "actual constitutional problem", and you haven't actually pointed one out. Did then-Gov. Bush saying that result in a constitutional problem – especially one that the systemic safeguards failed to catch? (In fairness, of course, Bush immediately clarified that he respected and would continue to respect everyone's religious freedom, not excluding Wiccans, under the Constitution, and that his remark was not a statement of policy or constitutional opinion.)

To loosely paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are the Free Exercise Clause protections with regard to Wicca, and neo-paganism generally, in better shape now than they were eight years ago? Indeed, are they in better shape now than at any time in the almost 50-year history of Wicca in the United States? I think the answer to both questions is affirmative. If you disagree, please cite your basis for the comparison, and include some citations to caselaw if at all possible.

That being the case, I think the siege mentality doesn't help anyone. What about this trend is cause for pessimism, much less the "waves of alarm", the "fearing for our liberty and our lives" mentioned in the essay? Where is the evidence that our constitutional system is in danger of breaking down with regard to protecting people's Free Exercise rights regardless of their religious affiliation?

8. "Discrimination and violation of rights doesn't always come with a big, 'Hey, watch me violate the Constitution, by spirit or letter' sign."

Then we agree. This was more or less my observation regarding the apparent pointlessness of the proposed debate question.

9. "Yes. We'd know, wouldn't we?"

I think we do know, and the answer is "No".

10. "Let's see, reasonable basis... let's see.. She credits an African witch-persecutor for protecting her from the 'evil Witches' she apparently believes are running around Alaska trying to frustrate her pork projects?"

Assuming for the sake of argument that that's the case, it is not a reasonable basis for fearing that all our Free Exercise safeguards and the constitutional order are in the least danger of suddenly deteriorating to the point insinuated in that essay. This should come as good news, if it is news at all.

11. "Yes? For one you can have theocratic rule indirectly if you remove guarantees of individual liberty, which she certainly advocates on certain fronts, and which Bush&McCain have already given a good start on crippling?

Just how they stack the courts with ideologues, and have reduced our right to petition the government for redress of grievances, ...this can have effects."

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about what you’re referring to here. However, I assure you that the Constitution is not in any immediate danger of being crippled (although I believe "disabled" is considered the more sensitive term nowadays). No need to condescend to the Constitution in this way; it implies a somewhat low opinion of the thing to begin with.

12. "Why have chattel slavery when you can have debt and credit slavery by deregulation?

A bizarre non-sequitur with a racially insensitive equivalence thrown in for good measure. Nicely done.

13. "Most Pagans are aware from personal experience how third-class status in the minds of government can adversely affect our lives. Have you ever been detained by the police and interrogated just cause you looked a little different and some cop saw a pentacle? You become *very* aware of where your Constitutional rights are protecting you, and how an officer who would like to bring his right-wing beliefs into play feels his way around them looking for a way to abuse his power.

"It's not a paranoid fantasy when someone decides that your religion is 'child abuse' and calls in the cops or DSS... when in fact, your religion can be used against you in a custody case... when someone actually tried to burn a Pagan shopowner alive last week, and it's basically ignored."

I'm having trouble sifting through these vague statements for some hard evidence of unredressed constitutional violations that have occurred. Please help me out. Just the facts, ma'am.

Kind regards,

C.

Who needs guns, police forces, armies, navies and airforces when we have prayers, rosaries, prayer beads, pretty wingie thingies, patron saints, holy water, blessed virgins, fat buddhas, holy cows, voodoo dolls, Wiccan spells, vampires, witches, covens, and werewolves to defend us from terrorists and criminals????

I mean, seriously. Do you have any idea how completely off-scale it is to bellyache how big a gun the mighty warriors are 'allowed' to have while the LBGT girls get to run around under fire wiping noses? Give us a break.

I mean, yeah. I was fast. I could pick ya nose for ya in tense situations and resume the standoff.

'Scripture' divides the quick and the dead. I got this random notion we could do better.

"Only if you are bloody well fast..."

If you aren't fast, put up your hands, whatever you bought. Show and throw you money one way, and run the other.

"and the person with the gun beats everyone if he has the sense to stay about 10 feet back."

Ten's easy. Five's textbook. Six is problematic. Fifteen is 'dead to rights.'

Ain't about the gun, being the major point. Someone wants to try and shoot me, I'd want them to use the biggest, heaviest, longest thing they thought would make a man of em. All the better to strip out their hands, dearie.

Frankly, Arminius, nothing in your pocket is worth your life. Po' little me, I never had anything in my pocket worth any money, either, if you know what I mean.

Especially not when someone thinks they're being 'merciful' letting it go before 'death.' Kow what I'm saying?

Aint' about what gun it is. Unless you hired a choreographer.

Arminius, PaganPlace,

I'm only half-joking about paddle ball. Urban crime is often carried out by young men with excess energy needing to compete for place and honor. There is an inverse ratio between gun violence and athletics.

Sad part about gun registrations is that it doesn't reduce gun violence. This has been demonstrated in study after study.

OnFaith made me into Farnaz 2, but I am Farnaz with no number, haven't divided my self. They took part of my email address. Any idea as to how I can be Farnaz again?

Paganplace,

"Old street adage, 'Knives beat hands, sticks beat knives, guns beat sticks, hands beat guns.'"

Only if you are bloody well fast.... and the person with the gun beats everyone if he has the sense to stay about 10 feet back.

" Farnaz2"

"I don't know why, but I'm not good with a bow and arrow, and I've never tried a sword. "

Then, trust me, since I am and I have.

Old street adage, 'Knives beat hands, sticks beat knives, guns beat sticks, hands beat guns.'

Makes a circle, like so many important things.

I mean, hey Just in general. If you're voting your fear of government, on the grounds you fear government provided insufficient guarantees they won't take away your guns so you can feel better about fearing government with them....

Ummm....

Steven. The NRA line knows not of what it speaks. But, I promise... if we get to the point anyone cares what either of us thinks about firearms, I promise I will back any reasonable thing you want. To President Obama if I have to.

This election ain't about the guns.

Arminius: www.vpc.org is the "Violence Policy Center", and anti-gun propaganda machine. One that gets tax-exempt status, BTW, whereas the NRA does not. Go figure.

As for your numbers: even if they are correct, so what? The distinction proposed by those numbers is entirely fallacious. Here's another set of questions for your friends at VPC to answer, if you can get them to give you a straight answer.

For each self-defense *homicide*, how many criminals were *wounded*? How many were stopped by an armed victim *displaying his gun*? How many would-be criminals decided not to do the crime because of the possibility that they *might* get shot? This last question involves counting things that didn't happen, a difficult task, but there are techniques for doing it. What you see when you count up these numbers is a huge pyramid of *non-victims*, of law-abiding people who *didn't* get killed or maimed or robbed. The numbers VPC wants you to pay attention to pale in comparison, even when the numbers are counted up by people who don't like guns.

When it's dangerous to be a bad guy, the good guys don't have to pull the trigger very often. For the law-abiding, that's the goal.

I agree with you completely that education is a vital element in reducing accidents and crimes involving firearms. As for the grass-roots vs. management dichotomy you propose within NRA, that's a conspiracy theory worthy of Michael Moore.

Paganplace,

Hello, friend.

That may have been the best thing you ever posted.

'Open hand' - yes.

Thanks,

Arminius

I don't know why, but I'm not good with a bow and arrow, and I've never tried a sword.

My great talent is with paddle ball. Anyone who wants to engage me in mortal combat would have to find a four wall court.

What we need is education. Own guns, fine. But learn to respect them.

Arminius, agreed. Also we need to know how and why they get into the hands of criminals. In my city they are brought in from other states, for the most part. If they were illegal across the country they'd come be smuggled in over the borders.

Now, smuggling is an interesting phenomenon. Witness drug smuggling. Quiet as it's kept it is of course through connections here that drug carriers get across borders, into, and out of our airports, etc.

Still problems always have solutions. Airport security could of course be tightened. Genuine investigations could be conducted. When guns disappear from police property rooms, they could be found.

Police who are afraid to go into very high crime areas could be given the manpower they need. All of this could be done....

When BS is in the air, on the airwaves, in the street, stuck on the walls, always ask, "Who Benefits?"

Hi, Arminius!

So happens I can get by speaking 'Heathen warrior' when needs press. More's the pity Heathen and Pagan clergy can't get into the prisons to teach some kids about honor and all, of course. Handgun death statistics aren't really convincing to them, no matter how many kids get the wrong idea from TV how guns are talismans against evil, and not, like all weapons, devices to turn living humans into spurting gouts of meat-about-to-go-off...

A true warrior will fight with an open hand before putting a bystander at risk with it.

Does not whine about the weapon.

Rightseyness is a good thing for a people who still believe they have rights and can exercise them.

We've been that way during certain periods--the sixties, ah...other times?

StevenTAbell:

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—
* 1.3 unintentional deaths
* 4.6 criminal homicides
* 37 suicides
Source: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

What we need is education. Own guns, fine. But learn to respect them.

It is axiomatic among police that with an upsurge in gun ownership, one sees a decrease in robbery but a greater increase in homicide at home.

Get a grip, and learn. There is no silver bullet, no black and white. Incremental. Grass roots.

Hi, Steven.

" StevenTAbell"

"Paganplace: Yes, the conservative justices have done a reasonably good job. Scalia in particular has said quite a lot about his job not being about his personal beliefs, and backing that up with examples."

This *doesn't* mean that just because Republican ideologues have underestimated the professionalism of four out of nine judges, they should be allowed to continue to nominate them based on ideology and call it "Activist judges" when they say, "Hey, actually, these queer couples have a point."

"As for the purge of the Justice Department, you mean like when Clinton fired the *entire* rank of US Attorneys when he took office, then replaced them with people who agreed with him?"

Somehow, a conservative Democrat clearing house after Reagan/Bush wouldn't actually alarm me that much. If I were a conservative. If that happened. I'm talking about Bush, here, actually getting pretty Politboro while still talking 'small government.'

I'm sure it's 'all the same,' that's why we're in such great shape now.

" Fact is, the president gets to do that if he wants, with or without cause."

Is that how you vote?

May as well abandon the idea of democracy at all. Let me feed our ammo belt and I'll be on my way.

"WRT the Second Amendment and your club: you make my point. You should be able to carry such a thing, or even stronger medicine. Which "they" made your club illegal? The local Republicans? I doubt it!"

My point is that 'Cling to your guns!' hysteria has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Corporations want to dump military arms on the streets of the cities, and the NRA supports this. But it's not about rights. If it was about rights, I coulda had all the defense I needed, once. The same Republicans who make gun conrol as onerous and nonsensical as possible if it doesn't suit Smith&Wesson, ...yeah, they'll revive ordinances against 'truncheons' as long as they can force people to buy their stuff and blame the liberals for the damn inconvenience.

"Obama is saying all the right things about guns now to try to get elected."

As opposed to saying all the wrong things and expecting to get by on 'rightseyness?'

I will vouch for him on this. If he wants to take away your bangbangs, I will stand with you. If the Republicans want to take away your bangbangs, there really ain't much I can do.

See, in the Republican mind, bangbangs are for the rich, sticks are for unsavory types who take fighting as a sober possibility to be careful of, and don't think their home was scripted out of Miami Vice.

" His previous clear statements and his *voting record* show that he doesn't believe a word of it."

Do they.

" And a funny thing about "sensible": saying it is doesn't make it so, kind of like Peter Huff's claims about his viewpoint being "objective"."

That's no reason to presume everyone's like Peter Huff, either.

" Those laws only make it harder for good people to stay alive."

Someone presumed I was a devotee of the Morrigan recently. Not quite right, that.

I'll tell you this, though. Always could get by on that, on even a bad day.

Inadequate weaponry never killed me yet.

Staying alive is more about food and medicine and not fearing the next primate you meet.

"Not the intended target? You're talking only about drive-by shootings there,"

Any shootings.

If you need more than five rounds, you're probably not in your body anymore.

" a perversity that has far more to do with culture than technology."

My point exactly. Bigger guns.... Not so helpful.

" The thing that really scares me about the various "assault weapons" bans is that, if an underground arms manufacturing industry gets started here,"

Outsourced. Sorry. No jobs there.

" along the lines of the underground drug manufacturing industry"

Cottage insustry there, still, though. Check our Wasilia, Alaska.

" that we already have in spades, the semiautomatic weapons the media and the politicians like to crow about now will seem a fond memory:"

Shall we take a trip down memory lane, or can I point out that there's actually a point past which it's moot? If you know what guns do?

" it's actually easier to make a machine gun than a semi-auto in your automotive-machine-shop-by-day."

Which counts for little when they come from Brazil and Pakistan and can be bought at gun shows....

"Unfortunately, McCain has been an unreliable supporter of gun rights, too. This election sucks."

Has he somehow not put excessive firepower in your hands, yet? Maybe Bob Barr, who says you shouldn't, as a Heathen, be allowed in the military to play with *artillery* except in the name of Christ would suit you better?

"Meanwhile, good health and good luck to you and whatever weapon you happen to need to stay in one piece."

Getting old and arthritic, here, dear. Before my time. Any weapons I got aren't to stay in one piece, they're just to make a good show. Maybe buy some time, if that enters into it.

Weapons won't do it on this. Not like you could vote about, anyway.

" I trust you to know what you need better than somebody downtown."

Well, all that's not to say a small firearm mightn't seem *convenient, * some scary nights, but, a little thing would do, just in case some bunch of fine American folks decided neither me nor my partner should be 'suffered to live,' but it's one thing I've always taken as an axiom.

The bad guys always bring plenty of weapons. why bother.

Arminius,

My son is with you on the swords, but he prefers the Japanese katana. Did you know that the Chinese made a "submachine gun" crossbow? It shot bolts instead of arrows; the idea was quantity over quality. I've never shot a crossbow. I did have the chance to handle a longbow (it was at some event at Georgetown U, I think), and was speedily humbled.

Arminius: Yes, as a matter of fact. The consistent drop in violent crime, as indicated by government statistics, wherever and whenever concealed-carry laws are liberalized. The statistical conclusion by a government panel that the Clinton assault weapons ban did nothing worthwhile. The recent statistical history of violent crime in Britain, where self-defense in any form is frowned on by the government. Look at what the politicians said, and then look at the numbers. Laws whose only real effect is to make it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves have only one outcome: more law abiding people get killed and maimed. Counterarguments invariably involve statistical baloney and fairyland thinking. Deal with it.

Hi, Friend Wiccan,

Well met!

A strong crossbow is a powerful weapon. The problem with it is the reloading time. A good archer can shoot fast, but the learning curve is steep.

Ah, yes, the NRA. Apparently the grass roots of that org has the sense at least to teach gun safety. But the upper levels are simply power hungry to preserve their high standard of living. Which is why they promote fear-mongering worthy of Goebbels.

Weapons are seductive. Swords are, I know that from my heritage. Holding a well-balanced blade is a rush, as we said in the 60's. But this goes for firearms as well. Once, when young, I picked up a genuine German Luger. It felt like it had grown out of my hand. Even as a youngster I realized that this was a warning.

Aw shucks, Farnaz, you're making me blush... :-)

Hi, Arminius! My uncle used to say that the best defense against tyranny was a well-armed public. I've never had much use for guns; they seemed to me to be noisy and brutish. I preferred archery, and in my youth was fairly decent at it. But I've no desire to take away anyone's Second Amendment rights, in fact, McCain/Palin have been tempting me to exercise mine. I don't think that registration of weapons and the completion of a skill and safety course would deprive anybody of those rights. The NRA, if they weren't run by people who escaped the asylum on a day-pass, would be a perfect organization design such a course.

StevenTAbell:

"The history of gun laws and what some people think of as "reasonable" is far more persuasive than your name-calling."

You got something to back that up?

Arminius: Your failure to be persuasive is your problem, not mine. The history of gun laws and what some people think of as "reasonable" is far more persuasive than your name-calling.

Wiccan: Feel free to think so. We'll have to disagree on that point. As for the NRA, it does produce just the kinds of courses you suggest, and has done so for a very long time. They are excellent, and I recommend that anyone who buys a gun take at least one of them.

Aw shucks, Farnaz, you're making me blush... :-)

Hi, Arminius! My uncle used to say that the best defense against tyranny was a well-armed public. I've never had much use for guns; they seemed to me to be noisy and brutish. I preferred archery, and in my youth was fairly decent at it. But I've no desire to take away anyone's Second Amendment rights, in fact, McCain/Palin have been tempting me to exercise mine. I don't think that registration of weapons and the completion of a skill and safety course would deprive anybody of those rights. The NRA, if they weren't run by people who escaped the asylum on a day-pass, would be a perfect organization design such a course.

StevenTAbel:

You are consumed by fear, and have no courage to see the total picture. It is apparent now that you cannot be conversed with. Stop hiding in your gun-filled closet and get your ass out there and do what is right.

Arminius: "Utter horse poop. You are the victim of high-level NRA propaganda. We're talking grass roots here, because much of this will be in the urban or county realm. What's the beef about registration? Don't you realize that police departments around the country are crying aloud for gun registration?"

Me: Says who? You are the victim of high-level anti-gun propaganda. Some police chiefs want registration, but the guys on the street don't. Those police chiefs want it because the mayors to whom they are beholden want it. They guys on the street know better.

Arminius: "NOBODY is going to take away your weapon, the Supremes have said so."

Me: Yes, on a 5-4 decision. This doesn't exactly make me comfortable. That it was anything other than 9-0 is a really bad sign. Kinda like having a legislature that passes McCain's BCRA, a president that signs it, and a court that legitimizes any of it. BTW are you going out of your way to violate the BCRA this month? I hope so!

Arminius: "It is up to you and I to see that the police are supported, and that local idiots don't overtax it. Just like any other local ordinance."

Me: And the local idiots where I live overtax it. You can't get a carry license here unless you carry money for a living. And there's not a lot that can be done about it since it's at the local sheriff's discretion. That means that it's not a "right" in any sense that matters.

Arminius: "This BS about 'everybody wants to take away my precious gun' is simple-minded fearmongering."

Me: What would it take to make it legitimate in your eyes? Hearing Obama talk about "reasonable" gun laws is like hearing him talk about "change". Reaonable how? And change to what? What someone like Obama thinks is a reasonable law has been demonstrated quite well, and not just in the area of gun laws. No thank you. McCain is already more of a worry than I want to deal with. Obama is only worse.

I'm glad to know that *you* don't feel a need to disarm me. That's very decent of you. Not everyone feels that way.

StevenTAbell:

YOU:
Oversight? Registration? Mandatory training?

All of these put your ability to choose how to defend yourself at risk. The local "well-meaning" bureaucrats can simply price you out of gun ownership, or make ownership odiously picayune, without ever touching your "rights". Registration? Like when some "well-meaning" reporter publishes the list of concealed-carry holders in the local paper?

ME:
Utter horse poop. You are the victim of high-level NRA propaganda. We're talking grass roots here, because much of this will be in the urban or county realm. What's the beef about registration? Don't you realize that police departments around the country are crying aloud for gun registration? Are you going to support your local police or give them the single-finger salute? NOBODY is going to take away your weapon, the Supremes have said so. It is up to you and I to see that the police are supported, and that local idiots don't overtax it. Just like any other local ordinance. This BS about 'everybody wants to take away my precious gun' is simple-minded fearmongering.

Arminius: Oversight? Registration? Mandatory training?

All of these put your ability to choose how to defend yourself at risk. The local "well-meaning" bureaucrats can simply price you out of gun ownership, or make ownership odiously picayune, without ever touching your "rights". Registration? Like when some "well-meaning" reporter publishes the list of concealed-carry holders in the local paper? I lived in a town where that happened.

Does it scare me that, in the world I think should exist, most people could simply walk into a store and walk out with a gun? Of course it does. The alternative scares me worse, and by orders of magnitude. That Paganplace was denied the use of a *club* is a sign of just how weird this impulse to make the world "safe" can become.

As for your particular civil disobedience: hurray for you. Seriously. No one should be compelled to own a gun.

StevenTAbel -

Well, sir. Just how do you really define 'gun rights'?

Note well here. I am liberal, but support the 2nd amendment. I am also a Vet, and familiar with assorted firearms. I enjoyed firing them, and have a lifelong passion for the Model 1911 45. Yes, by damn, we can own such weapons. But... oversight? Registration? Mandatory training? What say you?

Also note that I currently do not own a firearm. And I live in that fabled Southern town that requires all citizens to own one....

Paganplace: Did I say I was happy about Palin? I'm not happy about any of this. They're all off the tracks!

I'll grant that Obama is more visibly "governmental", but where he goes with it is so consistently in the wrong direction. And, as I said, if he's elected, he'll *be* the president: no maybes about it.

Paganplace: Yes, the conservative justices have done a reasonably good job. Scalia in particular has said quite a lot about his job not being about his personal beliefs, and backing that up with examples.

As for the purge of the Justice Department, you mean like when Clinton fired the *entire* rank of US Attorneys when he took office, then replaced them with people who agreed with him? Fact is, the president gets to do that if he wants, with or without cause.

WRT the Second Amendment and your club: you make my point. You should be able to carry such a thing, or even stronger medicine. Which "they" made your club illegal? The local Republicans? I doubt it!

Obama is saying all the right things about guns now to try to get elected. His previous clear statements and his *voting record* show that he doesn't believe a word of it. And a funny thing about "sensible": saying it is doesn't make it so, kind of like Peter Huff's claims about his viewpoint being "objective". Those laws only make it harder for good people to stay alive.

Not the intended target? You're talking only about drive-by shootings there, a perversity that has far more to do with culture than technology. The thing that really scares me about the various "assault weapons" bans is that, if an underground arms manufacturing industry gets started here, along the lines of the underground drug manufacturing industry that we already have in spades, the semiautomatic weapons the media and the politicians like to crow about now will seem a fond memory: it's actually easier to make a machine gun than a semi-auto in your automotive-machine-shop-by-day.

Unfortunately, McCain has been an unreliable supporter of gun rights, too. This election sucks.

Meanwhile, good health and good luck to you and whatever weapon you happen to need to stay in one piece. I trust you to know what you need better than somebody downtown.

I mean, yaknow, Steven. So happens I'm a pretty good shot, myself. Or used to be, anyway. I'm just not seeing any way anyone could shoot their way out of what another four years of McCain/Bush policies with extra Dominionist on top would bring.

Anyway, Stephen, I don't know how you can even *compare* Palin's demonstrable lack of understanding of the job she's standing for, never mind the world or the Presidency, based on a very short career of Christian Right ideology, corruption, and nepotism, (not to mention, frankly, her sealed records at five different, frankly, colleges of no real name,) with, really, Obama's lifetime of community and legal and political experience. No insider by any means, but he's been in national government..or learning and doing things pertinent to it, all his life. As well as actually having studied the topics, he's been *aware* of the world when Palin being a local sportscaster, marrying an Alaskan separatist oil crony, and was having hands laid on her to banish all that Pagan evil I'm sure she'll exempt certain Heathens from being accused of... ...has been gearing up to pretend ignorance is strength. (to banish our Pagan evilness. I'm sure she will be nice to conservative one-issue Heathens, though. Really.)

Yeah, there's a big difference.

She doesn't think we have a right to *pray* without government suppression. You really think she's gonna trust you with a *gun?*

Arminius, from the brilliant Wiccan:

wiccan

Confused Croissant Nowhere Lucid?

Confused Croissant Nohow Leavened?

October 4, 2008 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
****************
Arminius,

Moi, Je recommend you put out one last call and then make a decision. Another possibility--Post what you consider to be the finalists, and give a few hours to vote. Maybe, you could put the finalists on a couple of threads.

What do you think? Maybe, WICCAN has some thoughts on this? How ought matters to proceed?

No, Steven, it's just not like that. Actually, I feel pretty lucky, so far, that so many of these judges appointed *based* on conservative ideological tests, with *expectation* that they would rule for conservative ideology, have turned out to mostly show character and professionalism. (On the big stuff. But let's not forget about the real and pressing cases they've simply *refused to hear* cause of their ideology.) This doesn't mean that there wasn't a purge of the Justice department on political grounds under the Right wing, which, well, largely un-covered despite the blatant corruption of Gonzalez.

As for being scared of Obama over... the...

Second Amendment? Really?

People don't want your guns that badly, Steven, nor has the Right exactly defended the Second Amendment when profits weren't at stake. I used to be able to carry a collapsible baton when I lived in rough neighborhoods. Just a stick. For a nervous girl who walked in some darker places trying to either do some good or just get home. Knowing, under the statutes of the time, that if it were ever used, I'd have to account for the fact it was a deadly weapon when used in certain ways, specifically, as a 'truncheon.'

They made it illegal. So I had to go to a knife. Which is a poor defensive weapon, and much more dangerous to all involved. Where was the Second Amendment then?

Worrying about how big a magazine petrified suburbanites could bring into my neighborhood. Even if it meant gangbangers could spray the more ammo. Nonsense. As gun laws go, the gun lobby usually ends up managing to mangle any regulation to be so much of a pain and nonsensical, it brings scared conservatives to the polls, but still doesn't solve the problem for those who know that if a country person were to come to the city and get shot, it wouldn't very likely be because anyone was aiming at them.

Obama has proposed sensible policies about gun trafficking and the right of cities to determine for themselves how much lead it's OK to spray around dense population centers.

The 'assault weapons ban' Bush and mccain let lapse has its nonsense about it. Banning one model of weapon that's the same as a hunting arm just cause of the style of stock, ...but it also kept the AKs and Uzis and such the eastern bloc was dumping on our neighborhoods... out of the wrong hands. And that's really the only issue Obama's even mentioned, about this.

Almost all defensive shootings occur at a range of less than five feet and with less than five rounds. And most gun casualties aren't an intended target. That's the reality in our cities.

Doesn't have to do with hunting rights, or if we can have a rifle when we're further from help. These laws have to do with trafficking.

If it was about the Second amendment, a poor girl could have a stick.

Wiccan -

You there? The Croissant Unleavened was yours?

Paganplace: A few points from someone who is definitely *not* from the Christian Right.

As for stacking the court with dangerous ideologues, the recent appointees are people who actually read the Constitution and try to care about what it *says*, not what they wish it said. The recent 5-4 decision on the DC Second Amendment case is a prime example of just how close we are to discarding significant rights in favor of some undefined notions of niceness that never worked and never will. I may not like the Christian Right, but I'd much rather have the judges McCain will nominate than those that Obama would.

As for the thinness of Palin's resume, I wonder why the Left makes such a stink about this !!!VP!!! candidate's resume, when Obama's resume is even less impressive. If McCain is elected, we *may* end up with Palin as president, but if Obama is elected, well then we *have* the skinny resume sitting the the high seat. Perhaps we could have a little consistency in the concern, please?

As I've said before, I'm much less than happy about the prospect of a McCain presidency. In this race, we have two candidates who have made it *very* clear that they don't understand what America is. The best I can hope for is a one-term president who doesn't do *too* much damage to us in his four years. The thing that matters is who the next president puts on the Supreme Court. On any other issue, it's just scrambled eggs, and we'll have to survive the confusion somehow.

Steven T Abell

Farnaz,

True, the reporting in 'Nam helped to bring that war to a close. Today - well, the Gummint does its best to control it, but stuff still leaks out. Actually, we hear more truth about Iraq and Afghanistan today than the American public did about WWII. Technology finds a way. Someone with a cell phone that can take pictures can instantly report something that would usually be censored by the powers-that-be.

The situation in Texas bothers me a lot. It simply is not apparent to anyone. I have done some web searches, as you may remember, but could only verify the rumors. Nothing solid.

Oh, yeah... the unleavened Croissant! Very good!

Arminius,

On a more important matter, what do you think of a slight modification of Wiccan's proposal?

Confused Croissant Not Leavened

Note the explanatory power. An unleavened croissant would have to be confused.

Arminius:

Yes, the media thing is horrible, almost unbearable.
Compare the "reporting" in Iraq with that in Vietnam. There is no "reporting" on Iraq.

One of the scariest "news" moments I've ever seen occurred a few weeks ago--I mean A FEW WEEKS AGO--when a "reporter" here queried one in Iraq, "I imagine there must be a refugee problem there...."

Ans. "Oh yes, there is a huge refugee problem here."

Overseas, some people refuse to believe the American people are as stupid and ignorant as we appear to be. This is where Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants prove helpful, as upon visiting home, they patiently explain to their friends and relatives that we DO NOT SEE, DO NOT LEARN WHAT THEY SEE AND LEARN.

Similarly, these same people, if they have any integrity, tell their countrymen, "YOU DO NOT SEE, DO NOT LEARN WHAT WE WHO LIVE IN AMERICA DO."

Most of these foreign countries are dictatorships of one sort or another, like Iran with the government controlling the media.

And here...?

"Confused Croissant Nohow Leavened?"

Good because predicate explains subject. An unleavened croissant would have to be confused, no?

Farnaz,

The problem with the media today is that journalism has been forgotten - it is only a business, presented as entertainment. Fox is the worst example.

IMHO, journalism in America reached its height in the early 70's. After all, it was WaPo that did the investigative journalism that began the fall of Nixon. And our Congress, acting pretty much in a bipartisan manner, brought him down. To give old Tricky Dick credit, he went out with as much grace as possible. It was a sad moment, but a just one. Ford's pardon of him, which angered me at the time, I now see as necessary. The media circus of a Nixon trial would have shredded a nation already weakened by Vietnam and Watergate.

Since then... journalism? What's that? Oh, yeah, soap operas and sitcoms arranged around whatever is happening. And Congress? A bad joke. 40 years ago, at least half of Congress could be called moderates. Now, maybe 5%. We are polarized. And paralyzed. It all began with Reagan, who did not mean this to happen. But it did.

Confused Croissant Nowhere Lucid?

Confused Croissant Nohow Leavened?

Arminius:

Confused Croissant Nicknamed Loopy?

PP:

On the media: Agreed 1,000 per cent. It's worse than most people know. The media, sponsors, advertisers are all intermingled and internationally owned. This mess affects "reporting," the ideology of entertainment, everything.

There is a book I've yet to read called "The Imperial Presidency." I've read reviews, seen the author interviewed. He bewails the end of an effective Congress, the coming of the savior/devil/celebrity president. What he seems to overlook is the role of the media in this process.

The first television elected president was John Kennedy, who also wasn't elected. (Recall Chicago vote shenanigans.) Nixon refused to call the fraud because he thought to do so would compromise the public's trust in government. I am forgoing comment on the irony and humbly ask that you do the same so that we can focus on the media.

The media was in the public domain until I believe the thirties. It was then that it was robbed from us in increments. Reagan was never held accountable for Iran Contra....Reagan, "the great communicator."

Witness the horror of Texas, which friends there tell me is near what occurred with Katrina. As you know there is a national news blackout. The prez doesn't want us to see the carnage, the result of his crippling of FEMA.

As things stand now, if the "Fourth Estate" should challenge Der Präsident, he will do what Giuliani did in New York, freeze them out.

Let's put it this way, though, Mr. C. You may not like us much, you may think we're a bunch of kooks who shouldn't even be allowed to name ourselves, ...you may think it's 'paranoid fantasy' when we say, 'Look. We've seen a lot of this in our lives, ...we're scared for our civil rights and liberties and, in fact, our safety in the climate these kinds of folks seek to generate.'

In what looks to be coming times of greater poverty and economic frustration, whether or not a candidate who thinks it's reasonable and acceptable and holy to 'blame witches' and keep doing the same things Bush did is allowed to stand for high office, Yeah. It does make us worry for our safety.

Frankly, it's not a job I think any of us asked for, but we Pagans are your canaries in the civil rights coal mine. We're not exactly singing, here. And when we stop chirping in alarm, that's time to be *really* worried.

The simple fact that we can point out some of what's done to us and no one *cares,* or in fact uses the occasions to say, 'That just shows you're paranoid, not like us. We can't let 'those people' 'do spells' or be somehow magically-responsible for someone at Wal-Mart not being forced to say 'Merry Christmas on Hannukah...' (When the real issue is probably 'Why is it we're running up debt to buy holiday gifts at Wal-Mart.' )

The fact that people in America can be sincerely saying, 'We're watching things get worse for our civil rights,' ...and no one *cares,* ...that's a bad sign.

These churches are willing to say things about us that'd make Goebbels blush... Now you don't want it questioned when their 'values' are supposed to be all anyone wants to consider?

" Debates are not merely limited in value but dangerously deceptive."

Can be. If only there was... Some kind of profession of people who could... Ask the questions *for* us, and then present, oh, I don't know, some kind of substantive fact-checking and analysis, while we're being distracted by such spectacles and staged opportunities for deception...

The first thing Reagan really deregulated, you know, was the notion that the media had civic obligations, and instead set up this profit-driven and unaccountable situation we have today. The simple fact that news departments are struggling to make a profit instead of being the price networks paid for free use of the public airwaves and infrastructure... corrupts the political process toward personality, and in fact a constant focus on gaffes and whatever advantage can be had, however trivial:

The fact is, if they don't manipulate every election to be as close as possible, whoever is thrown up by the GOP for thinking Americans to gape incredulously at.... Well, they lose advertising revenue. So they try to make it as much of a horse race as they can, whatever material is in play.

And this has been a major contributor to the decline of civility, even sanity, in our politics.

And, Climacus, the whole question of 'Why not assume the oath of office means she intends to be honest?'

She repeatedly lies about the 'Bridge To Nowhere' money, even about the notion she sold a state-owned Jet over Ebay for a profit, when it was actually sold at a six hundred thousand dollar loss to one of her campaign supporters.

She lies that she's against pork and wasting the taxpayers' money, when in fact as mayor of Wasilia her prime accomplishment was putting in a twenty five million dollar hockey rink, ...on land that the state didn't own again, which cost near million dollars *more* just cause she didn't have that sorted: in fact, she left her town in terrible debt. Several of her accusations *in* the debate were proven falsehoods.

So, no, I'd like to at least hear some more answers, rather than let everyone keep assuming.

I mean, the simple fact people are *entertaining* the idea of supporting this dangerously-unqualified character, and McCain who misrepresents himself as a 'Maverick' ...who chose her over better-qualified Republicans, women included, just to curry favor with the Christian Right...

That simple fact actually scares me. That so many are so willing to buy it. Shouldn't America be learning by now?

This is different from the irrational fear-and-smear tactics directed at Obama *by* the Religious Right, lately. That's claiming he *doesn't* represent what he's always represented, claiming prejudices and fears and smears from that quarter actually *override* the reality of the man. Whatever he says.

Whereas Palin's very short record speaks for itself. The fact that her churches and (multiple) Dominionist pastors have been called dangerous extremists by the *Assemblies of God* ought to give *anyone* pause. Especially if they keep her away from hard questions.

I mean, I would like to know if she knows the *difference* between my little sister and whatever people in Africa those people do to deserve getting burned in a stack of Michellins.

Confused Croissant:

Not being of Pastryan type, I find it odd to be in--dare I say it--agreement with your doughy self. Debates are not merely limited in value but dangerously deceptive. A case in point is the Reagan Carter debate, with Reagan's killing refrain "There you go," consistently blanketing Carter's truthful assertions with doubt. Aware that Reagan's lying was effectively coming across as fact, but unable to compete rhetorically, Carter could only look panic stricken.

Incompetent though that Born Again Jimmy was, he might not have gone along with dereg so cheerfully as Reagan did since for Jimmy it was not an article of faith. Free market Reagan won not the debate and maybe, therefore, the election through the miracle of television.

I saw the video years after the frightening fact. Friends who saw the debate live recall their own panic as they watched their candidate, their only choice, dismal though he was, witnessed the inarticulate Carter go down in flames.

Well, Climacus, I think you have a few misconceptions, here:

"Climacus

"Dear Ms. Simos:"

For starters, you'd seem to be unaware that it's very disrespectful to decide you know better what someone's name is, or how she'd prefer to be addressed.

Starhawk's question:

"1. "Will you repudiate the 'witchhunting' activities of Pastor Muthee and other evangelicals? Will you intervene to protect these living children with as much zeal as you champion the rights of fetuses? Will you act to stop this persecution and the extortion?""

"I'd be curious to know, Ms. Simos, what level of intervention on behalf of these unfortunate African children you think is appropriate for a Vice President, as the upholder of the U.S. Constitution, and what priority it is entitled to among the Vice President's preoccupations in office."

I presume it'd be somewhere short of endorsing and supporting the 'witch hunters' and claiming their protections are responsible for her getting into office, amid all the scary "witches" and "spiritual warfare?"

Just for a start?

"2. "Should you be elected, will you defend my Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Will you defend the rights of all Americans to worship as we please, whether we worship Jesus or Diana, Allah or the Virgin Mary, the Lord God as King or the Queen of Heaven?""

"It hardly seems worth the trouble of asking a question like this during the sole Vice Presidential debate (which is not to say that the subject matter is not important), because we can just about take the response for granted."

I think we can't. If she wants to curry favor with her fellows in the Religious Right, Dominionists and whatnot, then she ought to let the rest of the world know what she believes about people who worship otherwise.

Not that I presume she'd be above lying, but when asked about tolerance, Palin's answer wasn't of any substance, just claiming that what she believes isn't intolerance, essentially. I'd have liked to see her answer a more direct question. More directly.

" What is the likelihood that either candidate would have answered “No”? Effectively zero, thus a waste of breath and of valuable debate time."

I think we could take the time. Considering how much time the Republicans have wasted with smears and the like, at least. I know what Biden would say, ...I'd like to see Palin manage it. My guess is it'd be a non-reassuring non-answer.

"Moreover, the mere fact that a candidate is running is an indication that he or she is willing to take the oath of office, which incorporates a pledge to defend the integrity of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution."

She has supported Alaskan separatists and tried to pressure a librarian to censor books. I'm pretty sure she took an oath of office before, and that didn't stop her, then. Maybe she thinks, like most Dominionists, the Constitiution was only meant to apply to Christians, anyway.

So, yeah, I'd like to see her answer that publicly.

""Finally, do you perceive that our system of justice is not doing an adequate job of enforcing Americans' constitutional right to the free exercise of religion?""

"If yes, why is your question such a "burning question"? If not, specifically why not, and what exactly is the Executive Branch's proper response?"

Who says this was really a 'yes or no question' as you phrase? There are a lot of issues related to this.

"3. "Will you meet with Pagan and Wiccan religious leaders and educate yourself about our spiritual traditions, which are rooted in the love of nature and the respect for the interconnectedness of all life?""

"This is a nice thought, but is it intended to address an actual constitutional problem for neo-pagans? If so, what problem and how?"

In the sense that it's a Constitutional problem, well, we've just had eight years of a President, supported by the Religious Right without question, who's on record, along with Bob Barr, the Neocon, as claiming we aren't a 'real religion' and ought to be banned from worshiping when in the military, and presumably elsewhere.

Certainly, trying to get a decent burial for our soldiers, and the bureaucratic shuffling done to keep Pagan chaplains out of the military, (In one case playing a bookkeeping trick to kick one of the best-rated chaplains in Iraq *out* for 'converting.'

People come after our Constitutional rights all the time, if not our lives and property. If a President lets on that 'If they don't worship our God, then they're fair game,' all manner of things end up happening.

Discrimination and violation of rights doesn't always come with a big, 'Hey, watch me violate the Constitution, by spirit or letter' sign.

Especially if you can't be bothered to look.

"4. "I think it's obvious why these questions are important to those of us in the Wiccan, Pagan, and Goddess communities. We fear for our liberty and possibly even our lives under a theocratic rule of Palin's coreligionists.""

"Is there any realistic basis for such a fear?"

Yes. We'd know, wouldn't we?

Let's see, reasonable basis... let's see.. She credits an African witch-persecutor for protecting her from the 'evil Witches' she apparently believes are running around Alaska trying to frustrate her pork projects?

"Can you look at the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in this country and say with a straight face that there's any reasonable grounds for fearing the overthrow of the Constitution and the introduction of theocratic rule?"

Yes? For one you can have theocratic rule indirectly if you remove guarantees of individual liberty, which she certainly advocates on certain fronts, and which Bush&McCain have already given a good start on crippling?

Just how they stack the courts with ideologues, and have reduced our right to petition the government for redress of grievances, ...this can have effects.

"(For that matter, is there theocratic rule in countries, such as the United Kingdom or Norway, that have far less formal separation of church and state than is ever likely to be the case in the United States?)"

Well, maybe that's why religion is so lamented as a mere government formality over there, as compared to *this* beautiful scenario.

" Or is this just a paranoid fantasy the likelihood of realization of which is somewhere below the likelihood of the repeal of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the reintroduction of chattel slavery in the United States?"

Why have chattel slavery when you can have debt and credit slavery by deregulation?

But your assertion is disingenuous. Most Pagans are aware from personal experience how third-class status in the minds of government can adversely affect our lives. Have you ever been detained by the police and interrogated just cause you looked a little different and some cop saw a pentacle? You become *very* aware of where your Constitutional rights are protecting you, and how an officer who would like to bring his right-wing beliefs into play feels his way around them looking for a way to abuse his power.

It's not a paranoid fantasy when someone decides that your religion is 'child abuse' and calls in the cops or DSS... when in fact, your religion can be used against you in a custody case... when someone actually tried to burn a Pagan shopowner alive last week, and it's basically ignored.

I know some Christians think they're 'persecuted' if Wal-Mart cashiers aren't obligated to say 'Merry Christmas,' but we're talking about the real deal, here, not some 'paranoid fantasy.'

"5. "But these questions should be vitally important to all Americans. For unless all of our rights are protected, no one is safe. If Witches can be targeted, so can Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans who maintain their indigenous spirituality, Catholics who venerate Mary, even rival evangelical churches.""

"Again, except for some examples that do not have to do with the United States, have you any basis for insinuating that Free Exercise rights are in any danger or are not being adequately safeguarded in our constitutional order?"

Yes. And there's a difference between Obama saying 'All religions' and Bush/Mccain deliberately excluding anyone but 'Judeo-Christians,' from any positive mention or reference to our rights and dignity as Americans.

You notice.

"6. "Barack Obama was pressured to repudiate his minister because Wright expressed anger at white people. Sarah Palin's religious associations are much, much more scary.""

"First of all, Wright did not merely express anger at white people. He expressed unpatriotic contempt for the country and also promoted racially charged, violent paranoid-delusional political conspiracy theories. That's pretty scary, especially in a political context."

In context, Wright's remarks were specifically in regards to racism that remains in America.

And Obama *did* repudiate the man's statements, when he flaked out, and *did* actually specifically address the nation to say what he thought about his religion and how it had affected his policies, not to mention what those policies *are.*

But when the *Republicans* nominate someone who thinks she needs protection from 'evil witches,' well, hands off the topic, *now.*

Dominionists actually *do* want to overthrow the Constitution, eventually, at least, in favor of a country that'll stone nonbelievers and gay people in the streets.

" But regardless of whether Palin's religious associations are more or less scary than Obama's politico-religious ones, they are also much, much more flimsy."

No, they're not. It's not just a 'gaffe' by one pastor, ...its the churches and ideology she has chosen and in fact credited with her 'success' in politics.

" If the witch-hunting preacher had been Palin’s pastor for 20 years, officiated at her wedding and baptized her children – instead of showing up once as a foreign visitor to her church - we might have cause to think the associations were comparable to Obama’s associations with Wright. As it is, why should we?"

Cause it's not just that one pastor, it's the whole ideology. She posed for a formal portrait pointing at a Lyndon LaRouche newsletter. ...and this pastor, let's not forget, didn't just say something inflammatory when Obama wasn't even *there,* but in fact, Palin *participated in* and *praised* the witch-hysteria.

So, yeah, I'd kinda like to know what she thinks of me, my Pagan friends and family and loved ones.

If it's not too much trouble to indulge me on this.

But, I suppose that if a religious minority for some reason feels routinely intimidated, assaulted, defamed, and excluded in this nation, well, we wouldn't want to pay any attention to 'irrational fears' would we? Why, Putin might 'rear his head' over the Bering Straits.

"7. "[Palin should] affirm her intention to uphold the Constitution and the rights of all Americans. Or she should step down.""

"You can be absolutely certain that she will affirm her intention to uphold the Constitution, before she even steps up. As I pointed out earlier, it's called the oath of office."

Bush took that oath, too. Doesn't help if you want to *creatively redefine it while actively assaulting that Constitution.*

"Whether Palin would live up to that affirmation is another matter,"

That's why we have this funny way of liking to ask *questions,* in person, and preferably not just put up a platform to read coached statements. Someone with the radical Right connections and stated positions that Palin does, *definitely* ought to at least be put on the spot. If she ever did get elected, she'd certainly say, 'America chose me, knowing all this,' ...Or maybe she'd just credit God for stopping we 'evil witches' from 'annoying her' with questions she doesn't want to answer.

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

Afraid not. All it is is that they hide Palin's extreme views from the public.

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Not one debate question about Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies (Gabriels), 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!!!!!!

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Debates only show the important abilities of being able to speak, to think quickly and to look good in front of a TV camera.

For a review of the candidates background and deeper thinking, peruse web sites such as:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama to educate yourself about BO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain to educate yourself about JM.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden to educate yourself about JB.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin to educate yourself about SP.

Then and only then should you vote!!!!

Climacus: The reason for asking such a question is to put the person being asked on notice that the public is going to hear the answer right out loud. Whether the answer is waffling or evasive, or direct and clear, the answer is on the record.

I won't be voting for either "realistic" candidate. I'm hoping that Sarah is our next VP, but not because I'm enthusiastic about her or her running mate. Once again, I have to hope someone I really don't like is elected because the alternative is so very much worse.

As for oaths of office and defending the Constitution: with only rare exceptions, we haven't had anybody in Washington pay serious attention to the Constitution or their oath in about a hundred years. Still, it's a nice bit of theater that does serve a purpose: it puts people on notice that they've been heard saying it. The Constitution would be even more a thing of shreds and patches without it.

Being heathen myself, the notion of swearing oaths carries a lot of weight. It would be nice if others felt that weight when they swear.

Dear Ms. Simos:

Your essay in response to this week’s question prompts a number of questions of its own.

1. "Will you repudiate the 'witchhunting' activities of Pastor Muthee and other evangelicals? Will you intervene to protect these living children with as much zeal as you champion the rights of fetuses? Will you act to stop this persecution and the extortion?"

I'd be curious to know, Ms. Simos, what level of intervention on behalf of these unfortunate African children you think is appropriate for a Vice President, as the upholder of the U.S. Constitution, and what priority it is entitled to among the Vice President's preoccupations in office.

2. "Should you be elected, will you defend my Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Will you defend the rights of all Americans to worship as we please, whether we worship Jesus or Diana, Allah or the Virgin Mary, the Lord God as King or the Queen of Heaven?"

It hardly seems worth the trouble of asking a question like this during the sole Vice Presidential debate (which is not to say that the subject matter is not important), because we can just about take the response for granted. What is the likelihood that either candidate would have answered “No”? Effectively zero, thus a waste of breath and of valuable debate time.
Moreover, the mere fact that a candidate is running is an indication that he or she is willing to take the oath of office, which incorporates a pledge to defend the integrity of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Granted, a candidate could take that oath in bad faith without meaning it. However, the successful candidate is certain effectively to answer "Yes" to your question under oath anyway, so if that answer is not good enough for us, what value is there in asking your question in a debate? The most you can expect is the same answer, only without an oath.

Finally, do you perceive that our system of justice is not doing an adequate job of enforcing Americans' constitutional right to the free exercise of religion? If yes, why is your question such a "burning question"? If not, specifically why not, and what exactly is the Executive Branch's proper response?

3. "Will you meet with Pagan and Wiccan religious leaders and educate yourself about our spiritual traditions, which are rooted in the love of nature and the respect for the interconnectedness of all life?"

This is a nice thought, but is it intended to address an actual constitutional problem for neo-pagans? If so, what problem and how?

4. "I think it's obvious why these questions are important to those of us in the Wiccan, Pagan, and Goddess communities. We fear for our liberty and possibly even our lives under a theocratic rule of Palin's coreligionists."

Is there any realistic basis for such a fear? Can you look at the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in this country and say with a straight face that there's any reasonable grounds for fearing the overthrow of the Constitution and the introduction of theocratic rule? (For that matter, is there theocratic rule in countries, such as the United Kingdom or Norway, that have far less formal separation of church and state than is ever likely to be the case in the United States?) Or is this just a paranoid fantasy the likelihood of realization of which is somewhere below the likelihood of the repeal of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the reintroduction of chattel slavery in the United States?

5. "But these questions should be vitally important to all Americans. For unless all of our rights are protected, no one is safe. If Witches can be targeted, so can Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans who maintain their indigenous spirituality, Catholics who venerate Mary, even rival evangelical churches."

Again, except for some examples that do not have to do with the United States, have you any basis for insinuating that Free Exercise rights are in any danger or are not being adequately safeguarded in our constitutional order?

6. "Barack Obama was pressured to repudiate his minister because Wright expressed anger at white people. Sarah Palin's religious associations are much, much more scary."

First of all, Wright did not merely express anger at white people. He expressed unpatriotic contempt for the country and also promoted racially charged, violent paranoid-delusional political conspiracy theories. That's pretty scary, especially in a political context. But regardless of whether Palin's religious associations are more or less scary than Obama's politico-religious ones, they are also much, much more flimsy. If the witch-hunting preacher had been Palin’s pastor for 20 years, officiated at her wedding and baptized her children – instead of showing up once as a foreign visitor to her church - we might have cause to think the associations were comparable to Obama’s associations with Wright. As it is, why should we?

7. "[Palin should] affirm her intention to uphold the Constitution and the rights of all Americans. Or she should step down."

You can be absolutely certain that she will affirm her intention to uphold the Constitution, before she even steps up. As I pointed out earlier, it's called the oath of office. Whether Palin would live up to that affirmation is another matter, but regardless, it's difficult to see how any of your questions would have added any value whatsoever to the vice presidential debate.

* * * * * * * * * *

Very truly yours,

Climacus

Farnaz,

You haven't passed out on us, have you?

We forgot the L.

Confused Croissant Near Lithuania

Arminius, all excellent:

One more

Confused Croissant Never Confiscated

Farnaz, try these out:

Confused the Croissant NOT Liberated
Confused the Croissant Now Confusticated
Confused the Croissant Never Concise
Confused the Croissant Now Condemned
Confused the Croissant Now Cooked
Confused the Croissant Noodled Crookedly

Confused Croissant Nuts over Latvia

Confused Croissant Noggin Lost

Confused Croissant Noodles near Lavatory

(I had too much wine.)

ConfusedCroissant Noodles from Labrador

Arminius:

Croissant Confused, Noodle Limited (LTD)

Farnaz,

The NL of CCNL is up for discussion. Please submit your suggestions. I'll do some thinking.

BTW, please beware of Spidey. He makes our beloved Perplexed Pastry look like a saint.

Very wise, Arminius, truly. I'm research Les Croissants political Palinism, and need to know what the NL of CCNL stands for. Can you tell me again?

Many thanks.

Farnaz

Farnaz -

Please read my post about internet trolls.

Not one question during the VP debate about Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies, Ascending/Descending Bodies, Wine to Blood and Bread to Flesh i.e. all that ancient Voodoo with some first century Palestine Hoodoo!!

Very disappointing that JB and SP and were not asked about these so "very important questions" :))

CCNL:

Wasn't Palin involved in the famous illiterate hallucinating Fluff Muffinist Fiasco of 1994?

Of course he's a troll, Arminius. Just happened to have a substantive answer to a trollish question. Apparently CCNL didn't hear it the previous five times he asked it, admittedly.

Everybody,

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

This definition is from Wikipedia. Does it sound like anybody we know, like the Confused Croissant?

" CCNL Author Profile Page:

"The Democratic Party members of the local covens have spoken!! Or are all witches Democrats???"

Nope. Though actually those of a conservative bent generally have run Libertarian. Unfortunately Bob Barr, who is pretty notorious for trying to dishonor Pagan soldiers and prevent the free exercise of our religion, kinda swooped in and bought out that party, in the name of 'I don't think the Republicans are bad enough Neocons.'

It's kind of a hard sell, conservative parties, under the circumstances. Me, I'm actually a Green at heart, but Nader seems to have gone off his noodle about what's worth what.

The Democratic Party members of the local covens have spoken!! Or are all witches Democrats???

ASTORIA
"Paganplace-
I don't know what state you are in, but you can register for advance voting-"

Thanks, I'm aware. I'm actually doing that, for a number of practical reasons, some health-related and some cause I'm new here an there's homework to do with some of the local stuff. The fact that the machines are unreliable is just the kicker. I actually like to go down to the polls. I get a nice little patriotic glow and meet people. :)

You might not know it from here when stuff like Palin comes up, but I'm actually a 'people person.' :)

I still don't know why they call *her* 'personable,' though. I find her abrasive and nasty, and rather like those condescending gussied-up ladies who sell insurance or Mary Kay or bank accounts or real estate, (Or religion, come to think of it) and think you must clearly be stupid if you're actually *dressed* for where the moose walk.

I mean, she *talks down* to people. People who actually know what's going on, for one.

I just find her irritating. I thought I even saw the Bush family quirk of a self-superior smirk after some particular instances of well-briefed demagoguery.

She's got that very schooled 'sports and weather' newsreader way about her. It's designed to *seem* engaging, whatever's actually being said, but, no, there's no real empathy or engagedness there.

I'm not really too big on 'personality politics,' myself, especially not when the personalities are so crafted... Maybe she doesn't think much of the 'East Coast,' certainly she supports Alaskan separatists enthusiastically-enough, but before she as so many Republicans before writes us out of the Union, maybe she ought to consider that if we come off stiff, maybe it's cause there's a lot of modulating real emotion, not trying to sugar-coat the shrill tones of the undeservedly self-superior.

I mean, can't you see she doesn't *think* much of most of us down here in the Lower 48?

Starhawk's question, well, almost answered, 'What I am about isn't to be called, 'intolerant,' let's call it 'Toleranceyness:' ...would she defend our civil rights?

Give me a break. She seems to think it's presumptuous of us even to ask.

It's like McCain trying to say to a gay magazine, 'Vote for me. I'll deny any connection to those who I let refuse you your rights, if I don't have to personally say I'm doing it.'

Yeeeah.... Good one, Senator.

MM, Wiccan!

Hey, did you the the SNL clip where they parodied the Couric/Palin interview? It's hilarious!!!

They got her down to a tee!!!

Gaby

Well, have at it! !and the Nobel Prize too! Find a different place for it though!

Gaby

Hi all,

Since I could not believe my eyes and ears when McCain selected Caribou Barbie, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. He is going to divorse wife #2 and plans on marrying Barbie.

2. He has either Alzheimers, has gone insane, or is on drugs.

3. He really is a maverick and selected Caribou Bimbo because he knows that Obama is the better choice. He doesn't really want to be president and made sure that he loses by selecting someone totally unqualified. That is his clandestine agenda.

I kind of like #3.

Not one question during the VP debate about Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies, Ascending/Descending Bodies, Wine to Blood and Bread to Flesh i.e. all that ancient Voodoo with some first century Palestine Hoodoo!!

Very disappointing that JB and SP and were not asked about these so "very important questions" :))

Hi Sparrow,

Yes, I agree with you about the debate. IMO there was no contest to begin with. Palin is not in Biden's league as we know. It's still hard for me to understand why McCain picked her. Surely, there are female fundamentalists with stronger credentials.

Given the limitations of her experience, I thought she did rather well. That may also a function of Biden's civility, which was to his credit. I envisioned bloodshed, and was glad there was none.

The big question for me is how there can still be a contest, but there is. The more I learn about McCain, the more nerve-wracking this becomes. And gone is the McCain of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the McCain who supported gay marriage. Wiccan thinks he may have been turned into a pod person.

Hi Farnaz- you still up?

watched the debate too. I really was glad she didn't embarrass herself- I don't like to watch that for anyone. I wasn't surprised she held up well but I hope people realize her answers were, as some reporter wrote, an inch deep and a mile wide.

It was almost impossible for Biden to match someone as telegenic as Palin but I found her eternal perkiness disconcerting.

biden spoke very movingly about his trips to Darfur, he was passionate about it- I was almost in tears and I think he was too. Yet Palin chirped a response, completely blowing off the depth of the genocide and its horror. That told me everything I needed to know- she lacks the education, the experience and the emotional depth of someone at that level of government. She speaks in catch phrases and sound bites and refused to go off point because she really doesn't have the knowledge to expand on them. It was debate by cue card.

Biden came off as knowledgeable, warm, and solid as a rock.

Yes. Not only that, but she couldn't look us straight in the 'eye' when trying to claim she represented otherwise. Didn't you notice?

Now that you mention it....I guess I thought she was being defensive, but who knows.

Speaking of tolerance, I have to tell you that I get a irate about refusals to endorse gay marriage. I can't comprehend gobbledygook deference to faith groups on this matter, which I think Biden actually did. At bottom, marriage is a legal,not a religious matter. Moreover, I think marriage laws should come under federal jurisdiction, and if gay people can't have full rights of citizenship, then let's reduce their taxes.

Presidents and presidential candidates have influence. I understand that people make compromises. Still, I wonder when we're going to recognize that prohibiting gay marriage is institutionalizing discrimination. Pandering is a dangerous thing.

I'm just venting. Probably, no one here would disagree.

Paganplace-
I don't know what state you are in, but you can register for advance voting-

http://www.rockthevote.com/electioncenter/

It is all paper.

"Maybe a stupid question, but aside from her fundamentalism, which for many classifies her as bigoted de facto, has she said anything overtly intolerant?"

Yes. Not only that, but she couldn't look us straight in the 'eye' when trying to claim she represented otherwise. Didn't you notice?

"Anyway, as the debate goes, few surprises, there... except that she had the brass to claim she stood for 'tolerance.'"

Maybe a stupid question, but aside from her fundamentalism, which for many classifies her as bigoted de facto, has she said anything overtly intolerant?

You know, she lost this one. It had to happen that way. She was a bad pick, ridiculous, for this office. The surprise is she came out in tact.

Eh, Farnaz, the question's been in the past couple elections, 'Can we keep it out of GOP cheating range, and not be too exhausted to want to question why the voting machines from Cheney's company flip the votes from poor black districts to the exact opposite of what you'd expect...
The electoral map says we shouldn't even have to worry. Reality, though... Well, let's just say my vote won't go on a machine this time.

Or maybe I could build a houseboat since how could we afford it. Then, too, there's the rest of the world. Maybe we should build an ark....

Anyway, as the debate goes, few surprises, there... except that she had the brass to claim she stood for 'tolerance.' Though it may run contrary to anything she's ever said before, well, hope someone has the tape and is willing to hold her to it, should we be crazy enough to put her in office.

Mokey, The Henson exhibit is worth it! They have Fraggles, too. And yeah, Yoda was a Muppet. His floating chair in RotS was stolen from Rygel XVI of "Farscape", which was also a Henson production.

Caribou Barbie did all right for the first half hour or so. When they got to the question about climate change, she melted like an Alaska glacier in August.

Dunno. Keep thinking it's impossible the GOP can win this, but friends recall the day they woke up to what they were certain could not happen: Reagan got elected. Then I saw Bush II elected (or not), which I hadn't thought possible. Then the unimaginable happened again (or not).

Mebbe there is an evil eye, so I'm not going to say a word, not even to myself. Meanwhile, I wonder if one could purchase a small houseboat for oneself and family, just in case.

Eh. Did she. I might have been a little too cheesed how she implied the 'East Coast' wasn't actually part of America, thanks very much, while she was faking the wrong accent. How they say she's 'personable' when she acts so... fake, I dunno, in the first place. Before we get anywhere near the fact she actually said nothing.

Don't know if anyone noticed but she included the Taliban among our allies. Biden did a double take, but kept silent.

Loving the Talib shows tolerance, IMHO. :-)

Anyway, now she has claimed to speak for tolerance in several ways I hope someone videotaped, just in case.

"Ms Palin, in closing, would you like to degenerate into utter incoherence?"

"OK."

And here we are. May sanity return.

Pardonnez moi. 'Twas Winthrop, as in the Massachusetts Bay Colony who pronounced his folks' future as a "city on a hill." He preceded Reagan. Maybe I should text-message Biden, but I'll bet he knows.

Biden comes out ahead because he has to. He plays in the major league. I keep wondering why Obama's camp never mentions Phil Gramm.

I only mildly cringed listening to the gov. I made it through...Phew! Will be fine as long as she doesn't get to be VP.

Could it be that he was told it's important for men to act polite to women? True as we saw in the New York senate race where Lazio blue it with bullying Clinton. Or was it Lazzo.

Or could he be distracted. I would have expected her to be history by now. Biden, from what I've read, is a very tough customer.

PP:

I'm talking about back in the day, before he became a pod person. He said contra Clinton, btw., that he supported gay marriage.

No, a president can't make gay marriage the law of the land or even DC. By that reasoning, they could just as well say they have not position, could they not?

Candidates always take positions on issues they may not be able to control, as do presidents. What a prez says carries, IMHO.

On another note, amazingly, she's still standing.
I'm glad, really. Don't support McCain, of course, but hate bloodshed.

In terms of the VP debate, as the question was asked, gay marriage is not something that is in the purview of the VP, or prez, to seek to impose. There's a difference, there. McCain, in an interview with the Blade, asked gays to vote for him on the grounds he would stand up for LBGT people on no grounds, but deny responsibility for it any time he could.

Gay marriage is not going to come about by popular referendum, right now. Thus, it's not a Presidential job. But the hate crimes laws, ENDA, ''Don' as don't tell,' well, that makes a difference in the Oval office.

Who'll try to amend the Constitution so that states who recognize my partnership can be overruled?

That's where the difference is.

Back in the day, John McCain supported gay marriage.

Now they've both copped out. There's a word for that, maybe several.

VP debate in progress. St Sarah winning on emotion. Biden winning strongly on factual points. Unfortunately, given the sheep-like nature of the public......

Yes, btw, Keir=Terra. :) At least as the name goes.

As for McCain, and his image as of 2000, it's clear he went back on about all of the positions which he still claims make him a 'maverick,' (though in the recent debate no one called him on the fact that though he still promotes himself as having been against torture, that that's not how he's spoken or voted since then)

...Well, I admit, again, I was wrong about the guy. I'd been saying he'd at least be a respectable opposition candidate, and at least not be in lockstep with Bush and the Neocons, even if I sincerely disagreed with him on a lot of things.

Unfotunately, he's turned himself into both a hypocrite and kind of a joke to get as far as he has.

This, unfortunately, isn't the path he's chosen, since then.

Arminius,

I've not only known Yoda was a muppet.. but I got to meet the maker.

There's a convention dealing with all things Faerie- and Brian Froud (who was the inspiration and art director responsible for the look and story of the Dark Crystal and Labyrinth) and his wife Wendy (a master dollmaker/puppetbuilder who helped build Yoda among others) were there. We got autographs.. and were like such little kids with them there. In absolute awe. It's about as close to Henson himself I'll probably ever be.

They presented a slideshow of their work, along with shots of Yoda, as well as an original piece honoring a friend of theirs who passed away who was a Celtic Musician. The piece was the Frouds' take on Peter Pan. It was so gorgeous we cried.

They're coming back in two weeks and we're going again. I'm so excited I can't stand it. :)

Mokey2 and Athena,

I have been a Henson fan since the Muppet Show. That guy was a genius. I hope that stuff comes to my area.

Did you know that in the 2nd Star Wars movie (Episode 5), that Yoda was a muppet? There was a wonderful outtake of Luke and Yoda in the swamp, where, instead of Yoda, out popped Miss Piggy, who proceeded to gripe about the horrible marshy conditions, and eventually sung a duet with Luke!

Athena,

I heard about the Henson exhibit on NPR and nearly drove off the road. I've been studying the guy's work for years and think that he was VASTLY underrated. Who else these days can say 'let's create a children's show that brings peace to the world?' and get away with it AND bring lots of people on board the way he did?

That exhibit is going to come around to an area that's really close to where I live next year. I can't WAIT. :)

Wiccan,

I watched the morning news and saw McCain, and I think someone should check under his bed for pods. That is not the same man who ran for President eight years ago. I could respect that man, even if I didn't agree with everything he said. This one just stone cold creeps me out.

Pods! Brilliant. It would explain a great deal. Have you noticed Palin's frequent lack of facial expression? And, perhaps, a savage Barbie quality? Pods, as well?

KeirGazelle:

I think you are Terra, but I have already been wrong once today already....

Anyway, I have never voted for a GOP president in a long life. I have voted for a republican governor (Alexander) and senator (Baker) in Tennessee, when I lived there. Both were moderates. I don't regret those votes, they were decent public servants, and at the time the democrat alternatives were wretched.

Ah, yes, St Sarah Mooseslayer, the champion of Fred Flintstone history. Well, of all the presidential elections, for the most part I was disappointed. Until 2000, when I was angry. And in 2004, I was very angry. If McWorse and his ignorance-in-action sidekick win, I will be furious.

I voted once for a republican...Reagan the first time he ran, I learned my lession. If McCain joined me in circle and invoked Hecate I would not vote for him or Failin.

As far as McCain, he is a angry old man that feels that he has the right to be president. Did anyone see him on the floor yesterday in the Senate? Obama took the time to walk across the room to shake McCain's hand and say Hi, and give one of those amazing smiles. Just like at the Debate, McLame could not look at him, and could not even turn around to face him as he (kinda)shook Obama's hand. I have a feeling about what it is, but I am not sure. It just seems odd that McCain has been in the Senate a long time...he has had disagreements with others before, and not been so rude. I used to respect McCain until I did some research... he is not a good man, neither does he "Put America First". I do not like him...at all.

Palin,needs a translator to translate her gibberish. I would not want her to be a subsitute teacher. She believes dinasaurs and men walked this earth at the same time! Maybe they had saddles for the Big Horsies? Did anyone think to teach her there was something like 65 million years between man and the last of nonavain dinasaurs, then 200,000 years since humans started looking like we do now. Please...we have an idiot in office, do we need another one. I mean really can this nation stand it?

I would ask both McCain and Palin if they would agree with George Bush and Bob Barr in 1999 at Fort Hood, that my religion is not a religion...and what criteria would they say makes a protected religion?

terra

Hi Lep and Wiccan,

Sorry for the mistaken identity! (blush!)

McCain, the real maverick of 2000, has truly degenerated into a political zombie. Bush backstabbed him in SC in the 2000 primary - so what does McCain now do? Grovel before the Shrub. And the man who in 2000 rightly called the ultra-religious right Agents of Intolerance is now freely prostituting himself to them. He has made himself unclean, and now has a possibly dominionist choice for VP. This is madness. If he wins, darkness will increase over America.

Arminius :
That you, Lep?
"I watched the morning news and saw McCain, and I think someone should check under his bed for pods. That is not the same man who ran for President eight years ago. I could respect that man, even if I didn't agree with everything he said. This one just stone cold creeps me out."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't me, but I couldn't have said it better. I'm not sure which is more frightening - the thought of McCain in the Oval Office, or the thought of Palin taking over the job if something happens to him. That woman scares the Skittles out of me.

Merry Meet, dear Arminius! Twas me, wiccan, trying to rationalize the changes in McCain since 2000. You can't be a maverick and a panderer at the same time. And his choice of Palin proves his desire for the presidency is greater than his sense of honor. Damn shame too, I liked the 2000 McCain.

That you, Lep?
"I watched the morning news and saw McCain, and I think someone should check under his bed for pods. That is not the same man who ran for President eight years ago. I could respect that man, even if I didn't agree with everything he said. This one just stone cold creeps me out."

Yes. If that sad changeling wins, the result will truly be ignorant armies clashing by night on that darkling plain.. Let us all vote for a true new sunrise - Obama.

Farnaz,

I watched the morning news and saw McCain, and I think someone should check under his bed for pods. That is not the same man who ran for President eight years ago. I could respect that man, even if I didn't agree with everything he said. This one just stone cold creeps me out.

wiccan

I don't understand McCain. More and more he's making himself look worse and worse. How did a man who supported gay marriage turn into what we see?
McCain Feingold? Mcain Kennedy?

Of course, I had no illusion that he was a "liberal," and no I never would have voted for him under any circumstances. Some things I learned about, some associations like that with Phil Gramm just confirm the unfortunate stuff that despite everything, I always suspected was there.

But the man has sold out to some of the most reactionary elements in this country. He wants above all things to be president and will do or say anything to win, even that Obama is responsible for the economy, a comment so silly that no one but an American "witch hunter," or worse,could buy.

But, you know, we are not watching "The Crucible" here. We're watching "Doctor Faustus." And...we know how that ends.

I think that McCain won the nomination because he was the most "Presidential" of all of the Republicans that were running for President. But compared to any one of the Dem candidates, he looks petty and downright nasty. Yes, there are plenty of qualified Republican women that he could have chosen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe come immediately to mind. The difference between them and Caribou Barbie is that they're all pro-choice. McCain was pretty much trapped into picking someone who was against abortion rights.

Arminius, Mokey/Priver, Nevermore, et al, we'd rather have you guys as our neighbors any day of the week!

BTW, Mokey... if you're in the DC area, you should check out the Jim Henson exhibit at the Smithsonian. It closes this weekend. http://www.jimhensonlegacy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=1&ed=1

Ok, I said good night a couple of posts ago, but, Arminius:

"But now he has morphed into McWorse. I fear for my country if he wins."

I don't think any idea he's going to win, not fairly, anyway, is what's literally keeping me up nights. I think it's some of what's happening to us in the process.

I think the big corporations are doing that final looting I expected, even if there's no alternative but this bailout at this late date...
And that they want to turn Obama into another Jimmy Carter. We sure can't afford a Goldwater, in the person of his once-protege McCain, but... we also can't afford to *not* take the chance of an Obama administration to make *good* on what we've so-grudgingly learned in the past century, and take it *forward.*

He's not going to do this for us. We have to want it. Want better than these fears and divisions that the GOP has created... Hec, *nominated.*

Some things we must say no to. Also, we must save something for the actual work we want a leader for. For once.

We need a President... Full stop.

If we can remember what that's like. :)

But, really, long after this election stops scaring even thinking conservatives, I think it'll still be scaring me that so many were willing to not-look at or not care, or even support, exactly how scary Palin, and the guy who supposedly chose her so carefully to back up his ticker, really are.

Unless, maybe, we as Americans, remember ourselves. Some say that this is a 'Christian Nation' founded on the ideals of witch-burners.

I say it's an American nation founded after a hundred some-odd years of looking at those witch-burnings and going, 'Whoa. That was messed-up.'

Lest we forget.

At least if you're a 'Witch.'

Well, not to end on an even scarier note that witch-hunts in America, but you do realize the common sted objective between the Religious Right and the GOP is in fact the notion of completely undermining any notion the people of the United States might entertain that it's possible for anyone to govern us bu Big money and big religion? At whatever cost and by whatever means?

I don't believe that MCcain himself actually set out to do this, but apparently Rove's playing Wormtongue on this one. 'It's for the good of America and 'small government.'

But that's what they try and tell us all, ennit?

On the below, of course, maybe I give Rove too much credit. But, the GOP, if they could run a country anywhere near like they can run a scam, the *incompetence* wouldn't be even more of a concern as it is than the wrong-headedness and malice. :)

Good night, and good luck.

On this, though, Farnaz:

"Thinking that women can't tell the difference between Palin and Clinton is a process I cannot understand and will, therefore, leave alone."

There are intellectually-lazy women who can't be bothered to look too deep at what they're told thie situation is, too. Hence the stunt of nominating Palin in hopes her first-blush appeal wouldn't implode before the election.

There were Republican women much better qualified than Palin, which isn't saying 'good enough,' but at least not completely insulting America's intelligence to nominate... only problem is, most Republican women *don't get far without demonstrating their anti-feminism,* any further than Palin did, as soon as anyone looked and, well, she opened her mouth.

But, at least according to *someone's* idea of what's profitable in one way or another, there *are* a lot of executives out there who think there's a female audience out there that is gonna really think they 'know' Palin if they talk enough about what she wears.

Not that this is any time to presume the 'free market' knows what it's doing, but certainly some are trying to create some perceptions with someone, if only to try and get McCain some corporate sponsorship.

And get back the radical Fundie vote. Cause they didn't like him at all not too long ago, as willing as they seem to be to forget that, now. Maybe the righteous 'Spiritual Warriors' can't pass up the notion they could pray for McCain to croak and put a Dominionist in the Oval Office.

Any supposed 'feminist' votes they can pick up in the confusion are probably just gravy.

Well, a lot here. I've treated on this a bit before in recent threads, but remember, what African traditionals have had translated for them by missionaries as 'Witchcraft' is not necessarily the insular European notion the Christians stuck on the Biblical characters. Same reason they can't get their 'witches and warlocks' straight, so to speak. Not that Ms Palin knows any of this detail any more than she knows a darn thing.

You can see it on her face and all when asked by Katie Couric, 'What do you read,' ...(As good as) 'All that stuff, whatever.'

These things are important, though. These exploitive missionary pastors are keying into old traditions of a sort of ritual scapegoating that isn't meant to end in lethality by tire-firing or permanent destitution. The notion is that essentially when everyone's freaking out cause bad juju seems to be afoot, they find whoever ends up the focus of the anxiety and *ritually clear the air and re-accept them into the community,* ...that's presuming they don't actually find a malicious practitioner about.

This is very different from the eternal damnation and resultant terminal expiation of the Christian view, ....but it's a very toxic mix, just as in older times in Europe. They still believe in 'witchcraft,' but the *context* is lost.

Beauty when they reimport that nightmare to the West and cook it up in Alaska with cold war fears and vested interests in finding any reason but fossil fuels for the oil-drilling Fundie Texan settlers to blame for any woes whatsoever, eh?

It's a very lethal mixture. And this is where the blade's double-edged about reclaiming the word 'Witch.' If you run into people of other ethnic backgrounds, things are gonna be read a bit differently. To them, it *is* 'What English calls a malificent practitioner.' Heck, it's kind of like that in Italy, even, not too long ago. Modesty's usually in order, in societies like that. You don't walk into someone else's territory and posture: that's often a challenge. Anyone that needs to know will recognize the Stuff, and it's really only polite to let them say what they will about it, especially when language barriers are involved.

You might learn something, that way. Now'n again. :)

Meanwhile, back in the West, yes, there's a lot of money and power in trying to paint some folks as 'Witches' and 'Witches' as the same thing they translated a Saxon word for, err, witches, into the Bible about.

Yeah, the Palin 'spiritual warfare types' need to believe in their demons and evil witches, and someone attacking them to validate whatever random experience their politics will contextualize as 'righteous combat against an 'enemy' that doesn't want them to 'receive' random release from whatever internal 'battles' they've been stoking up.

It'd be funnier if they didn't also seem to have a pressing need to apply these dark fantasies to living, breathing, and, thank you very much, good-willed Americans.

I do not laugh at people who feel they have spiritual nastiness going on in their lives. Those who profit from trying to make it worse and say the answer is acting against their own interests and those of the people they purport to serve, even spiritually 'guide,' never mind *rule,* ...Well, they're about the closest thing to their own 'Devil' I ever mischanced to see in this world or any other local.

'Demons?' Well, probably everyone claims to relate to that in one way or another. Usually not to the point of burning others alive, but often to the point of calling their neighbors baby-killers, and thinking they're civilized and righteous right up until they wonder why it is they just killed someone among some mob.

Somehow, the lot of Palin's churches and politics came around to the notion that 'casting out demons' is the work of 'the bad guys.'

Seems they're the ones making a lot of hay out of the idea of *demons,* though. Maybe they're *right* not to like Witches, much.

If you believe in that sort of thing, I guess.

"Evil." What would she know of it. By the time you get round to reliving the Cold War and preaching the world's gotta end... profitably, for the rich, for 'Good to Come Back,' what's the difference? These are things done by *people,* ...And if we can see it, and seek the good, for what it is, not out of the lenses of our fear, then we will kick the sorry illusory arse of 'Evil' back to the next object lesson. Together. All of us.

Great irony is they call Palin the 'Witch of Wasllia' Probably in the sense of 'Moral' America where they censor the Breakfast Club and substitute 'Witch' as a slur when not too long ago you could say the 'b-word' about someone who takes her nepotism with relish...

Anyway, this is a long way around saying, it's a proud word to us, ...plays differently in Soweto, or certain neighborhoods right here in America.

But that may be just another thing Ms. Palin doesn't feel she has to know.

And you bet it's scary. In a real and present and all too material sense. Not so much for myself... But for my sister, my stepdaughter, my dear one, so many I love... The future. Yeah, maybe we ought to be clear on this.

This *unutterably-unqualified candidate* doesn't only not know the American people, nation, law, tradition, or posterity she is intended to represent, when she's not praising radicals who want Alaska to secede, she comes down here and think she thinks her 'constituency' to credit for success is 'Not witches.'

Whoever that is.

Thinking that women can't tell the difference between Palin and Clinton is a process I cannot understand and will, therefore, leave alone.

If she's doing M some good, it's hard for me to see how. Thursday's debate will nevertheless be a scary thing. Even a well qualified candidate would have a lot to do to keep up with Biden.

Meanwhile M continues with the most absurd accusations as more and more unpleasant nonsense becomes known about him. How does the infernal duo maintain support? Magic, maybe. Maybe, this is where a true witch detector could come in handy.

Arminius,

It's a bit odd for me, too, with these new names and things. It's good to see that the folks are still here who can be.

I would have seriously considered voting for McCain in 2000 too. I distinctly remember being in my apartment (I was in college at the time in an apartment with several other folks) watching Shrub on TV. I turned to someone and said "we'll be at war with somebody if he's president". I'd been thinking probably Iraq, because his dad never finished the job in office.

I was hoping McCain would win on the Republican side. He seemed to be more moderate in his views and willing to stand up to anybody.

The weird thing about the whole thing is- I'd actually consider a Republican point of view if I didn't have to be a homophobe, racist or religious bigot. If I thought they had any idea of what a middle class life like mine might be like, I'd consider going their way. I'm for smarter government, smaller whenever possible, but with programs that.. I don't know.. actually WORK when put into place. Balanced budgets, investments in innovation, infrastructure. Common sense to benefit the common man.

McCain has sold out, gone against everything he ever stood for. Didn't even stand up to Bush when he treats the Constitution like toilet paper.

And has proven a willingness to be completely reckless in choosing someone like Palin, who he obviously didn't know a lot about beforehand. I can't help but wonder if his advanced years have addled his brain or if it's just the people guiding his campaign. For the good of the country he should ask her to step down. Then and only then, I'd reconsider.

Hi Mokey2/Priver,

It's gonna take a while to adjust to the new handles.

A pity now that Hillary is not the VP dem candidate. A debate between Hillary and St Sarah would have been the gop's worst nightmare come true, the lamb led to the slaughter. The election would have been decided for the dems on the spot.

I might have voted for McCain in 2000 if he had not been backstabbed by the Shrub. But now he has morphed into McWorse. I fear for my country if he wins.

Hi Arminius,

You're certainly welcome to attend. Come with us. Bring the gay bishop. I'd like to see her head explode. :)

What really bothers me is that she was tossed out there because McCain needed to pander to those 'agents of intolerance' he once repudiated. As if intelligent women cannot tell the difference between someone who is highly qualified like Clinton and someone who is just.. well.. posing. It's an insult to female intelligence. It's a slap in the face to Hillary and all that she did and does for women and children and this country.

I've had illnesses longer than Palin's been in office.

It's pretty telling that three out of four of the candidates are working their butts off trying to figure out how best to save the country from the economic disaster that is Bush's presidency and she's doing.. what?

If this is indicative of McCain's judgement.. we're all in trouble. The truth is, I used to actually have respect for Mr. McCain, who used to stand up to bigotry and intolerance- and I thought that he was someone who wouldn't stoop to such tactics. So much for 'not taking the low road to the highest office in the land'.

Hi, Wiccan and Priver,

Well, I'd tell the Moose Slayer that I am a proud veteran, an Episcopalian, we have a gay bishop, and I have Pagan friends - you got a problem with that?

By the way, hunting moose has been described by other hunters as like shooting a parked car.

Arminius

MM, Priver. My brother heard "Caribou Barbie" on a news radio program and hasn't called Palin anything else since.

Yep, lets get a bunch of Wiccans, Asatru, Druids, Animists, and other fine Pagan folk to attend one of her appearances. Now that would be some photo-op! :-)

MMA Wiccan,

'Caribou Barbie'? Hadn't heard that one before. I love it. :)

I would pay to see that too. I just had an image in my mind of a group of Pagans sitting in that room all standing up after you say that and saying 'me too'.. 'what about me?', etc.

That would be a snapshot if ever I saw one. :)

(AKA wiccan)

Merry Meet, friends! As usual, Starhawk has hit the nail on the head. If I were allowed into Caribou Barbie's presence, I would say, "I am a Wiccan. I am Pagan. I do not believe that Jesus is my personal saviour. Do you believe I am an American? Should I enjoy the same rights as you?"

Watching the squirming she would have to do not to antagonize her rabid base while not scaring the rest of America into the Democrat's arms would be priceless.

Hi all,

Though I an agnostic, I'm with Arminius. Give me a pagan any time before one of those sanctimonious holy rollers.

I too believe in the interconnectivity of all things animate and inanimate.

Sarah Palin is downright scary to me if the gist what has been written about her is even remotely true.

Don't know which handle will be assigned to me with this new sign in process, so I'll sign out with

Gaby

"Will you defend the rights of all Americans to worship as we please, whether we worship Jesus or Diana, Allah or the Virgin Mary, the Lord God as King or the Queen of Heaven?"

My addendum: And would you defend the rights of those of us who do not worship any of the above?

We agnostics (and even atheists like CCNL) do not experience the level of violence visited upon the Pagan community, but we certainly are likely candidates for the next in line.

Hi, Pagan Friends,

This election just keeps getting scarier by the day. Now we have St Sarah Mooseslayer's church warning against demons and witches. This is MADNESS! Demons? Give me a break. Witches? Love to have 'em as my neighbors, I know I could depend on them, and they could depend on me.

Witches, Holy Cows, Holy Ghosts/Spirits, Pretty Thingies, Ascending/Descending Bodies, Wine to Blood and Bread to Flesh, it is all ancient Voodoo with some first century Palestine Hoodoo!!

Hopefully, JM, BO, SP, and JB don't buy into any of it, but they should at least be asked about it.

ATHENA4,

Go Baltimore/DC I just moved from there. it's good to see Becoming getting involved in this. They can be a pretty powerful force when they put their minds to it.
~ ProudPagan

Yeah, Priver, I agree. This sign-on process stinks. But if it keeps JJ out, I'll live with it.

The subject of witchcraft accusations in Africa is really something that needs to be addressed, both by Pagans and Christians. There are a lot of problems in Africa - violence, rape, HIV/AIDS, environmental devastation, you name it. There are also a lot of manipulative pastors like this Rev. Muthee who are going around looking for scapegoats. I'm willing to bet the remains of my 401k (which should be about $10 by now) that the "witch" that Muthee drove out of that village in Kenya was a elderly woman who had no children to support her, and was sitting on a nice piece of property that Muthee wanted. So, like they did back in the Bad Old Days, they claimed that she was a "witch" and incited a mob against her.

For those of you who are in the DC/Baltimore area, two of our local groups - Becoming and the Chesapeake Pagan Community - are working with a group that helps children who have been branded as witches in Nigeria. The group is called Stepping Stones Nigeria, and is incorporated in the UK. And yes, we checked them out thoroughly, to make sure that they weren't a 419 scam. For more information on this, go to http://www.becomingdc.org/get-involved/witchchildren/. So far, we have over $2000 pledged to help these children. Please help us reach our goal of $8000 by the end of the year!

What an odd signing in process. This is actually Priver. Happen to be a big fan of the Fraggles, though. I like the new name. :)

As to the question at hand..

What alarms me most about Palin being 'protected' from someone else's version of witchcraft is that a lot of people seem to take it in stride or don't know that the person administering the 'blessing' actually did run someone out of their town. This is a guy who is using something he really knows nothing about to actually hurt women. And people just gloss it over.

And this is from a possible leader of our country?

I never understand why people seem to feel that they need 'protection' from Pagans.. when we're the ones getting blamed for everything from 9/11 to the financial disaster. We would be more than willing to stand up for others not of our beliefs and fight for their right to worship as they please. It's what America is supposed to be about. But that stops when people's lives hang in the balance.