All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others

Sarah Palin is a women! At the point where you attempt in your fourth paragraph to put a line down whos a "real women" and who is not, shows a clear and deep flaw in your ideological approach to women. All women are women regardless of wether they decied to be a working women, working mom, or stay at home mom-regardless of their stance on abortion rights. When you try and claim who is a real women and who is not you are disempowering women everywhere. Now not only do you expect me to be a mother, wife, sister, daughter,and a worker now to be a women I must be pro-choice and anti-gun. You are a victim to that which you atempt to critise in this articel: you are attempting to force your opinon on what makes a women off on those who read this artical. Am I to not a women because I am pro-life?? That is exactly what this article says. That those WOMEN who are pro-life or against anything modern feminist decied to label as important to women are not women. Also just because Palin herself is pro-life does not mean she will actually make abortion illegal- if you know anything about the government you would know that if she is elected she herself could not do that.

Now next being pro-life is not forcing your beliefs on anyone. There is an agreement among americans that murder is wrong-thus murder is illegal. to those who think life begins upon conseption, abortion is murder-so those who do it are murderers. by being pro-life you are not forcing your beliefs on other-but trying to save lives of others. Just as those who are pro-choice are saying because we think life begins after birth abortion is not murder.

And finally this article presumes that Palin made her daughters pregancy public to help her politically-but it is not so. She released the information to avoid lies being linked to the american people.We need to know where candadites stand morally so we can make decisions and vote in leaders whom we believe will make the rights choice for us individually.

Wendy, you are a professor at a very fine institution. This is unfortunate. Can you not see that you are pushing your view that no one should push their views on other people? Your claim is a contradiction in and of itself. In fact, your article, despite what you claim, really says that Palin should not push her views on people. But it is ok for others as long as you like what they have to say. Don't hide behind poor language as a sound argument for your claims. I think she is an extremist to be sure, but so are you in the opposite direction, and neither is practical nor efficient in contributing positively to society. The government, if we are to let it stand, Democrat or Republican, needs to insist on some views. Your talking about abortion and saying it is up to women to choose is a very good point if the story ended there, but as some people see it who is there to protect the unborn? Don't we have some obligation to decide when life is worth protecting? Can a mother of an unwanted one day old just kill the baby, or what about during birth, before the head comes out? What is the difference? Obviously this question really can't be answered. But the fact remains you have opposing views to Palin but you should not claim to have no views yourself, or one's that you feel other people should follow. You are ignorant and it is sad.

Skeptic-
I just asked a question.

You said, you support her because he constituents like her-
I pointed out there was a 500 million dollar surplus not of her making, what is not to like?

And the current situation would not afford such ready acceptance-

The rest of your reply- God help you.

Peace

My guess as to why Palin causes the Donigers of the world to go berzerk has nothing to do with her politics. They hate her because she reminds these would-be "shapers of public opinion"--journalists, mainstream newscasters, big city yuppies, "public intellectuals", university professors, NOW, Hollywood celebrities, etc.--that they no longer shape anybody's opinion but their own.

In the past, when they disliked someone (e.g., Goldwater, Nixon) it *mattered*. When they liked something (e.g., affirmative action) it was automatically adopted. By no means all such policies were bad (the civil rights movement, in particular, was a good thing) but the point is, *they* determined what was acceptable and what was not.

This is no longer true. To their despair, they discover not only that a major party's presidental candidate not only totally ignores them in choosing his VP, caring not one whit that his choice is someone they strongly disagree with--something that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago--but his party is, mirablis dictu, *not* punished by a decline in the polls! How can this be?

This--after eight years of "Bush lied" and "get out of Iraq NOW!" resulted in no tangible changes in American voting or policy--is the final insult, as it were; the final proof they no longer determine anything. It is this, not anything about Palin's character or policies as such, that drives them to a frenzy.

Victoria:

You're changing the subject. I answered once or twice to be civil, but, seriously, let us get back to the subject, which is Wendy Doniger's claims about Palin. We *are* replying to her essay, are we not?

I must say t seems to me that your criticism of Palin is, in effect, listing the problems the country is facing and just expecting me to believe (sneer) that SHE (sneer, sneer) *OF COURSE* (sneer) could not handle (sneer) something that important (sneer, sneer sneer) -- I'm sorry, I'm running out of sneers.

Why do liberals tend to write in such an off-putting, I-know-so-much-more-than-you, shut-up-and-listen-to-the-truth manner?

But I digress. Again, my point is that whatever one thinks of Palin is not the point here. Rather, our subject here is the vile, indeed unhinged, attack by Doniger on Palin, culminating in the bizzare claim that she is "not a woman".

More generally our subject is the general derangement among certain sections of the left, in particular in academia, of which Doniger is a sad example.

So please let's talk about *that*, our original subject. Let's see. Here are a few questions on the issue of Doniger & her pals which I would like answered.

Why is it that such criticism of the opponents as subhuman, retarded, debased, evil, etc. is almost entirely done by the left? Why is it the the more someone is supposed to "multicultural" and "open-minded to other ideas" in theory, the more likely it is that they are in fact totalitarian bullies in practice (like Doniger)?

Why is it that political paranoia in America is now, apart from the fringes, almost completely on the side of the left? For example, why is it that "Bush is responsible for 9/11" conspiracy theorist Michael Moore, or "CIA killed Kennedy" conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone, are not only not ignored by the mainstream left, but actually lionized by them? Why are these cynical multi-millionaire liars seen by the left as some sort of "freedom fighters" who are "speaking truth to power"?

Why is the same true for political antisemitism? Why are the "the Jews control the world" and "kill the Jews" folks on the left (in their thinly-disguised "the zionists control the world" and "let's help the PLO destroy Israel" guise) not denounced as the Jew-haters they are by their fellow leftists, but called "human rights" activist and "peace activists"? We can well imagine what human rights Jews will have if their "peace" plan comes to pass.

Similary, why is hatered of America--I don't mean criticism of it, I mean visceral, actual *HATERED* of anything and everything American--respectable on the left? Why do leftist not renounced those of their number who openly support the killing of their fellow Americans in acts of "resistance" (read: terrorism)? Why are they called "activists" instead of what they really are: traitors?

Actually, the issue has been dealt with for over 900 posts.
And that is your personal issue with the panelist.
The post is about Palin, so it is odd that none of her supporters can find logical and compelling arguments.

Haven't we had enough of persoanl attacks?

So, your answer is, that such a simple request is beyond the scope of a post about Palin?

How is a question about Palin, on a post about Palin, not relevant?

Wouldn't you be somewhat suspicious of democrats who couldn't elucidate why they are for Obama?

I think you would.

I'm trying to raise the conversation out of the gutter of vitriol- to the realm of reason.

Are you saying that no one here is interested in reasonble dialogue?

Frankly, attacks on the panelist- after 900 of them- are pretty repetitve, require no constructive intelligence, and are boring.
But if you are satisfied with that- fine.
I give people the benefit of the doubt that some may want to elevate the conversation at some point- but maybe I'm wrong about that.

More attacks (now on my time?) still are not a substitute for an answer worthy of consideration.

Once again Victoria, way to divert the core issue here.

Considering you seem to have so much free time, you'll probably be on your computer many more hours than I can. So you'll obviously get in the last word. Just not the best one.

The real issue here is Doniger's obvious smear against Palin. Once again, you don't have to have a positive view on Palin's politics in order to have some common decency.

Criticism is one thing. The character assassination and vitriol towards Palin is the problem with Doniger and this article - and that is something your repetitive, "Why do YOU support Palin, huh?" attempts at drawing attention from the core issue here will never work.

Good day. And get a life!

Oh dear, I forgot about the 200 and 85 billion bailout for Fannie-Mae and AIG_ last week-

So that is 1,57,000,000,000 PLUS 285,000,000,000

$1,342,000,000,000.00

it is hard to keep up-

Palin solutions, anyone?

From a logical standpoint: you should realize that Palin doesn't even have to "appeal" to someone in order for them not to smear her in the fashion Doniger has. Whether or not you support Palin and/or her political stance is irrelevant to the aforementioned point.

You're obviously trying to divert attention away from the core issue here. Nice try (not really).

Sorry- I have to revise those figures-
357 billion dollar deficit plus 700 billion dollar bailout just announced by Bush =

$1 Thousand 57 billion dollar deficit now-

$157,000,000,000.00

So, what IS Palin's answer?

Well, I'm not a smug arrogant liberal elitist Mike and Skeptic- and logic and objectivity is exactly what I am asking for!

You'll notice my posts have no personal aspersion cast- and contain facts, figures and stances with neutral links to attest totheir truth.

Not blogs- or opinions- but impartial, objective sites.
So, what can you tell us about the stances on issues that Palin holds that appeals to you?

From a purely logical, non-emotional perpsective?

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"?

Well, it's my firm belief you are a smug, arrogant liberal elitist that will never be able to truly think logically and objectively about any subject.

I don't think I have to force anyone else in to believing that.

Skeptic-
I understand you do not care for Doniger- but I asked the question, in earnest.

As you railed against the value of polls quite recently- do you really think a poll is your best argument?

Again, you revert to emotional reasons- which are fine if they are yours.
You, and the people of Alaska are certainly entitled to like or dislike anyone.

For instance, the people of Alaska have a substantial reason to like Palin. When she took office oil was down to $9. a barrel.
In her tenure as gov- it has risen to over $130. a barrel- resulting in an ecnomic boom and a state budget that has gone to 500 million- and is projected to go to 700 million next year- WITH or WITHOUT Palin at the helm.

Now, I cannot imagine that you are going to credit Palin with the world market adjustments that have led to $130 a barrel prices.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/index.htm

So, that is a pretty substantial reason to like someone.

But it isn't about liking or not liking someone.
it's not about a 'gut reaction'.

If Palin is so privileged as to be voted in- she will be inheriting a $9.7 TRILLION dollar debt-
numbers beyond imagining.

$9,700,000,000,000.00

And a $357. Million dollar deficit-

$357,000,000,000.00

And an economy that hs collapsed because of the removing of the rules to protect us by Gramm-
deredulation has been McCain's call for decades.
(Can you say Keating 5 S&L bailout?- the first in our history?)
You are aware that McCain was one of the 5 charged, right?

So, what, in particular, about Palin's stance on ISSUES appeals to you?
What issues, proposals, repsonses to the current climate- numbers, facts, specifics-

You are welcome to support her from a purely emotional POV- as long as we are clear that is your criteria.

But from a reasoned and logical POV- as an academician- what issues do you point to?
Thanks.

>>>>>>>Why do you think she would be an effective leader?

Gee, I dunno. Having a 86% or so approval rating in the largest, and surely the toughest, state in the Union? Managing to do that despite raising five kids? Being faithful to her children and family for decades, showing her ability to stick to her word (you know, words such as "I do")?

Certainly she beats Obama, whose "leadership skills" consist of writing books about his favorite subject (himself), blabbering about "hope and change" (how original), and being a "community organizer" in that cess-pool of Democratic Party politics, Chicago--a city whose very name is synonymous with political corruption?

But hey, he has an Ivy-league degree, and comes from a big city, so he just *HAS* to be a better leader, right?

Wrong.

I can't believe a bunch of "Intellectuals" gave this woman a degree. I could show a picture of Sarah Palin to a bunch of first graders and they could identify which bathroom she should use. For heaven's sake Forrest Gump is smarter than this. Why do you intellectuals allow people like this to disparage your good reputation regardless of your political views? No wonder the "Bubba's" vote for Republicans like Bush. Way to go Doniger I sure as hell know who I'm voting for. The debate is over for me if the Ivy League intellectuals "Like Obama" believe this trash. I will take personal satisfaction of knowing my 1 vote will cancel this imbeciles vote out. See you in November

Hey Jennifer

I couldn't agree with you more. I am voting MCcain/Palin for exactly that reason. See you November 4th.

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.

By Ms. Doniger:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

This statement proves how far haters will go to demonize people when they don't agree with them. Attempting to redefine someone as a "non-woman" because you disagree with her demonstrates nothing more clearly than blind hatred.

It also demonstrates that Ms. Doniger doesn't seek equality for women, but only for those women with whom she agrees. It reveals Ms. Doniger's sexism, a willingness to subordinate femininity to ideology, and is reminiscent of Stalin's redefining political enemies as "non-persons."

Doniger then engages in flat-out lies:

"I am on record in this blog (and have not budged an inch) as not objecting to any candidate's religious views."

Really, Ms. Doniger? Then what is the point of this entire article, but to condemn Mrs. Palin for the way she lives her personal and family life?

"But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people."

What evidence do you have that Mrs. Palin intends to do so? Do you present any facts? Mrs. Palin has expressly stated that she would not do so, and as you well know, the Constitution prohibits it. So what is your evidence, other than the way Mrs. Palin lives her personal life, which you so obsess upon?

The heart of Ms. Doniger's case against Ms. Palin is a series of fevered imaginings that have nothing to do with reality or anything Sarah Palin has ever said:

"I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who), the lives of untold thousands of soldiers and innocent bystanders (He is apparently rooting for this, too, she says), and, incidentally, a lot of polar bears and wolves, not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have."

That Newsweek and the Washington Post consider Ms. Doniger's lunatic ravings to be responsible spiritual opinion worthy of publication (this is the "On Faith" column), reveals how benighted these news outlets have become.

And for the parents of University of Chicago divinity students, remember that this is the "education" you are providing your children. The faculty need not demonstrate critical thinking skills or even basic factual research; instead, your children's professors may regale them with ideological screeds utterly unhinged from any objective reality -- on your nickel.

>>>>>>>Besides sardonic attempts to discredit the panelist- do you actually have anything of value to add to the conversation about the subject of the topic?

Doniger doesn't deserve a serious discussion. What she deserves is charitable silence which ignores her obvious mental incapacitation, in the same way one should politely ignore somebody's clubbed foot. As Virgil said to Dante, "Speak not of them, but look, and pass them by."

But while Prof. Doniger deserves pity and silence for her obvious mental illness, if I *am* going to comment about her nevertheless, surely the only appropriate comment is to point and laugh, or, as you call it, a "sardonic attempt to discredit the panelist".

I know, I know--making fun of the insane is not nice. But most insane people don't get to write columns for the "Washington Post" or "Newsweek" in an attempt to sway a national election. If she gets to *be* a lunatic in such a high-visibility forum, why can't I *say* she's one in the same forum?

So, while I admit that, if I were more charitable, I would have simply said nothing about poor Prof. Doniger, at least I know I'm doing no harm. However much I "attempt to discredit" Doniger by pointing and laughing, I surely cannot do her crediblity any more damage than she's already done herself, with her own words.

Skeptic-
Besides sardonic attempts to discredit the panelist- do you actually have anything of value to add to the conversation about the subject of the topic?

The really interesting question is, exactly why- besides a rudimentary emotional connection- you are a fan of Palin's.

Why do you think she would be an effective leader?

Other than having a distaste for the author- do you actually have a compelling reason for your support?
You seem to avoid the actual subject-

Could it be that there is no real reason?

In general about the Obama-McCain race, I think it will be close, contrary to pundits on both sides who claim their favorite will blow the other guy out of the water. I do not think all the claims about either the Democrats or the Republicans being in "panic mode" or "losing it" because the other guy gained 2% in recent polls mean much.

The intersting question is: how could the Democrats blow it so badly--have the race this close after 8 years of a president who, for a long while, had worse performance ratings than Nixon during Watergate, leading an unpolular war, and so on? (I do not *agree* with this assessment of Bush or Iraq, but nevertheless it's the case.)

The reason, I think, is that Obama is such an incredibly weak candidate for the presidency. He has no real experience, no significant laws to his credit, no clear views about anything (and being for "hope and change" doesn't count.) McCain is not perfect by any means--nobody is--but nobody can say he is unqualified for the job.

Obama has--in effect--only three things going for him: (1) He's black; (2) he's from an immigrant single-parent family; (3) he's not G. W. Bush. Well, that's nice, but what else has he done? What were the democrats thinking choosing him, when so many others were better qualified, I can't imagine.

It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita - it't in Your sick brain ! ! !

IF "It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita" - it'

Folks --

Mike is quite correct in his description of how 95% of academics are like. The problem is perception, not reality.

On any given day in my alma mater, you'd have hundred of instructors and professors honestly teaching thousands of students everything from engineering to Greek classics to the best of their ability. Just like Mike said.

Unfortunately, you'd also have two professors out on the lawn joining 50 pathetic "activists" "protesting" the evil USA's Zionist-Capitalistic-Imperialist-Racist-Whatever latest nefarious plot, or else shouting "RACIST!" at everybody who passes by who doesn't agree with them 100% about everything.

Those professors, incidentally, were *never* from, say, Engineering or Philosophy or Law or History or any other real department. They were always ALWAYS *ALWAYS* from some fake, B.S. department like "gay studies"--or else they were professors of literature, which were just as bad.

(Yes, unlike "black studies" and similar fake "scholarly" fields, literature *is* of course a real discipline. But for complicated reasons, the post-modernist "activism" plague managed to take over many literature departments, naturally enough completely destroying any scholarship, replacing it with vague left-wing resentment politics.)

Guess which ones get all the attention in the press?

I--and it seems that Mike as well--are begging you folks: PLEASE do not judge all academics by the like of Doniger.

Mike --

I *am* an academic, and I agree with you that academics are not useless. But we are hardly innocent in making it look that we are.

When--unfortunately--entire departments (fortunately, only pathetic, faux-academic departments such as "spiritual theology", "gay studies", etc.) are staffed with the likes of Doniger, and it is just those folks who keep ranting in the media (real scholars have better things to do), it is not surpirising this perception of academics is common.

It's a bit like the way young black men are seen. It is not that most of them are criminals or gang members--only a small percentage is. But when that percentage gets all the attention, the stereotype against them persists. This is unfair, but still the Black community is not free of blame: if it took better care to stop young people from joining gangs, the stereotype wouldn't exist.

In response to those who think academics are useless: Do you know any? Have you been to college? I've been an academic for years and we do such stupid, useless, and dangerous things as help young adults learn critical thinking, communication, and research skills; sometimes we even attempt to do REALLY destructive things like take students on mission trips and encourage other forms of public service. Our students also get the specific education and training they need for those "real" jobs that we all benefit from--teachers, physicians, nurses, librarians, police officers, and yes even garbage collectors. And gosh, just the other day at my state university we discussed MATTERS of FAITH!! and not once did the elites from around campus come and berate me or my students. Believe it or not (and I'm guessing many of you will choose the "not" option here) most academics, in addition to having the luxury to explore and debate the big questions that civilizations have faced for centuries, expend considerable energy and time trying to find the most effective ways to engage and teach students and to help them develop the tools they need to succeed professionally and personally outside of college, to be active members in our civic life, and, in the words of the mission statement from another college I was on the faculty of, "To live lives of meaning and purpose." Of course, maybe those of you among the non-intellectual elite find this offensive, stupid, lazy, dangerous, and whatever other criticisms you like to throw at academics.

Wow, abortion is a right in the constitution? No hardly. No where do you find it mentioned in the constitution. This is an issue of the 20th /21st century not the 18th.

Its ok to lean on Roe vs Wade, but when you lean on the constitution for this one, all you'll do is fall down.

Interesting how the numbers are suddenly meaningless when they disprove the GOP (false) contention that Palin effectively influenced women voters.

She influenced them all right- but NOT as has been asserted ad nauseum, postively.

So, I guess while you ignore the numbers- (which wer eposted simply to disprove lies as opposed to prove anything)

I suppose you feel comfortable ignoring McCain's demntia moments where he basically insults (by saying he doesnt know if he would invite him to the Whitehouse)the president of a country who is our NATO ally,
has sent troops to Afghanistan-
and heads an improtant and pwoerful European democracy- because he

1) Doesn't even recognize his name.
2) Seems to believe heis Zapata, references Mexico- and I suppose also thinks its 1919 because tat is when Zapata died.
3) Doesn't realize that the subject is Spain even thought it was the lead in question
4) Thinks the interviewer is asking about Latin America??

Yes, you can ignore that too-

Also you can ignore the fact that McCain would fire Cox- although that is NOT one of the presidential privleges- as he heads an INDEPENDENT Regulatory Commission and the President cannot fire him!

Hence the word INDEPENDENT!!!!!

In other words, he doesn't even know what the Presidents job is either!

I wouldn't hire him.
You keep ignoring the facts and talking about distractions while the rest of us pay attention to the real issues and make our informed decisions from those.
4)

>>>>>..Statistics are interesting, and numbers just don't lie.

Actually, there are numerous ways to lie with numbers and statistics. There is even an excellent book, "How to Lie with Statistics", about this.

Polling numbers, in particular, can be ignored. They are so easily manipulated--intentionally or unintentionally--they are practically useless. Remember, for instance, how virtually every poll predicted Kerry will win?

Besides, there is a moral issue: you should vote for the candidate you consider best, not for the candidate the polls say is most likely to win, just so you could feel you "picked a winner".

Is McCain operating on all cylinders?
Is this the man you want to entrust foreign policy to?

Is McCain aware that Spain is our trusted ally and meber of NATO- and a strong democracy?
Does he know that Spain is in Europe?

Does he know that Spain has allied troops in Afghanistan?
Does he know that Zapatero is the President of Spain, or does he think the interviewer is talking about Zapata?
You know, Zapata- one of the leaders of the Mexican Revolution in 1910?

Does he know what continent, or even hemisphere that Spain is located?
Does he even knwo the NAME of the President of Spain?
iS HE SERIOUSLY snubbing THE PRESDIENT OF OUR ALLY? FOR NO DISCERNIBLE REASON???

Here are the words from his interview today on Florida radio station WASA 1260-

Q: Senator, finally, let's talk about SPAIN. If you are elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

McCain: I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calderon of MEXICO is fighting a very, very tough fight against the drug cartels. I am glad we are now working in cooperation with the MEXICAN government on the Merida plan. And I intend to move forward with relations and invite as many of them as I can, of THOSE leaders to the White House.

Q: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president himself?

McCain: I don't, I, you know, honestly, I have to look at relations, and the situations, and the priorities but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. I know how to do both.

Q: So you have to wait and see if he is willing to meet with you, will you be able to do it in the White House?

McCain: Well, again, I don't. All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the HEMISPHERE that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with LATIN AMERICA and the ENTIRE REGION.

Q: Okay, what about you? I'M talking about the PRESDIENT of SPAIN.

McCain: WHAT ABOUT ME WHAT?

Q: Okay, are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

McCain: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy, and freedom. And I will stand up to those that do not.
_______________________________

Does he even know who they are talking about?

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION-

Statistics are interesting, and numbers just don't lie.

Yes, people can interpret them and try to twist them- but the simpler they are- the harder it is to lie about them.

Amazingly- there has been a myth going around since Palin was introduced at the RNC, propogated by Fox news and picked up by others.
That Palin would siphon off women voters (especially white women like me, and my guess is just about every single woman here) and that Obama was losing support from that femographic.

This just in- as of September 18-

Obama- McCain numbers among only white women-

I choose to focus on white- because that is the supposed demographic that was claimed Obama has been losing in droves.

Keep in mind that the conventions get a bounce right after they occur.
Enough time has passed for the numbers to stabilize.

These are PRE-CONVENTION figures-

MCCAIN 45%
OBAMA 44%

POST CONVENTION (TODAY)

MCCAIN 37%
OBAMA 47%

McCain has LOST a whopping 12 points since Palin has been added to his ticket! LOST!!!

While Obama has gained and held!

In all women- Obama has gotten a superbounce of 21 points.

21 POINTS!

While you are all in here ranting and frothing at the WORDS of a woman you don't know- the rest of us are paying attention.

Dr. Donniger

The plucking of Sarah Palin, tounge-twisters about peasants and plucking aside, reminds me of the Monty Python Skit when Michael Palin joins the Philosophy Department of Wallamagoo University (I think it was Wallamagoo) and it is suggested that he should be called Bruce to avoid confusion. As Gertrude Stein would have pointed out there is a difference between a womban and woman and as we have once again discovered with Ms. Palin that for Republicans that the only rights womben or women should have are those preselected by the disinterested and inquisitionous family centric Dobsons of this world.

Yours

James Lewes (Dr of Journalism and other media related diseases.)

You stupid idiot. You wouldn't know a "real woman" if she bumped into you.

Ivory tower academics, chairbound and myopic,
are the most useless people in society. The
man who picks up my garbage performs a much
more valuable and essential service and
contributes more to the common effort than
any rockstar, actor, journalist, politician
or "Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions".

I have all the respect in the world for the garbage man and nothing
but contempt for the parasite and the twisted psyche that spews
this pseudo-intellectual nonsense!!

>>>>>>>For all the rabid rightwingers, I was a member of the International Socialist Organization for three years, and I remain supportive of the work they do and their attempts to educate fellow activists.

Hmmmm. The International Socialist Organization? The ISO?

The Troskyist-Communist group?

The one whose official goal is to make the US into a Marxist country?

The one so far out on the fringe and insignificant, that when my alma mater (to its shame) allowed them to use one its halls for their "17th world congress of socialist revolution activism" -- not the exact title, but you get the idea -- the "mass meeting" of all the world's ISO members turned out to be about 100 sad sacks in a half-empty hall?

*THAT* ISO?

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Well, this certainly explains why you are the only one here, more or less, who is defending Prof. Doniger, or finds her to be anything else than a complete idiot. Birds of feather...

But, as they say, with friends like yourself, Prof. Doniger doesn't need any "reactionary" enemies to prove she's far out on the lunatic fringe, in case the "Palin is not a woman" nonsense didn't settle that point.

you are a typical journalist: good with words terrible with ideas. Can not think your way out of a wet paper bag.

Mmmm.... Pretty much all unDemocrat party policy uses coercion to enforce. Taxes, morality ... oh and who can forget that idea-gem Man Made Global Warming where we will be forced to pray at the alter in the Church of Latter Day Global Warming. I think we know who is the absolute worst offender in the area of "forcing ideas" on people. And worse yet unDemocrat ideas...ouch! .. these guys were definitely in special ed.

>>>>>>>For all the rabid rightwingers, I was a member of the International Socialist Organization for three years, and I remain supportive of the work they do and their attempts to educate fellow activists.

Hmmmm. The International Socialist Organization? The ISO?

The Troskyist-Communist group?

The one whose official goal is to make the US into a Marxist country?

The one so far out on the fringe and insignificant, that when my alma mater (to its shame) allowed them to use one its halls for their "17th world congress of socialist revolution activism" -- not the exact title, but you get the idea -- the "mass meeting" of all the world's ISO members turned out to be about 100 sad sacks in a half-empty hall?

*THAT* ISO?

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Well, this certainly explains why you are the only one here, more or less, who is defending Prof. Doniger, or finds her to be anything else than a complete idiot. Birds of feather...

But, as they say, with friends like yourself, Prof. Doniger doesn't need any "reactionary" enemies to prove she's far out on the lunatic fringe, in case the "Palin is not a woman" nonsense didn't settle that point.

Ms. Doniger,

One thing is clear - it is NOT in the Constitution.

I'm the 2:49am anonymous poster. and i really have to go to sleep.

A commenter by the name of victoria had this to add to the discussion: 'It is funny- how tv affects peoples repsonses.
Roland Martin had a special on 7 Weeks To Go tonight on CNN and there was a woman who complained that Doniger said Palin wasn't a woman- at WAPO OnFaith (she gave all the info, I guess to direct blogger here-which I see happened)

And suddenly people are in here pretending that their wives suddenly came to the independent realition that Doniger denigrated the womanhood of Palin!'

Hmm, why am I not at all surprised? The previous 900 rantings and ravings suddenly have an identifiable point of origin, and I can now take a second to cease pulling out my hair over this cataclysm of sheer irrationality.

But since you, "Skeptic," directly addressed me, I'll just say this: it's apparent that you nor I will be swayed in this debate. Your gotcha comment regarding the symbolism of Obama betrays your cynicism. Because now - guess what? Thanks to your awesome guy McCain, there are now two candidates in this race that are vunerable to attacks of not being quite experienced enough (and naturally, it depends on who you have defining experience). So, if you had any sense, you might ask yourself why we Americans find ourselves in such a predicament. And again, that's why I mentioned the troubling personality contest feel of our current elections. I, personally, place the blame on our corporate media-saturated culture. As well as rampant anti-intellectualism. Apparently, it's not necessary for Americans to be informed citizens - that would be too close to, I don't know, democracy.

Anyway, I had a good laugh when you described my great anticipation of Obama "ascending to heaven." I'm not even a Democrat. I simply look forward to more sincerity and more demonstrated intelligence in our president, and less war-mongering and explicit greed. For me, this is not about the symbolism of Obama; it's about people becoming energized & inspired...to demand necessary change whether or not Obama delivers. It's only when masses of people develop the consciousness to mobilize to demand accountability from their elected leaders will any progress be made.

For all the rabid rightwingers, I was a member of the International Socialist Organization for three years, and I remain supportive of the work they do and their attempts to educate fellow activists. All of the reactionaries go ahead and have a field day. I've had my fill of the internet for today.

p.s. Skeptic, please read something on postmodernism other than what your fellow rightwing culture-warriors have to say about it. it's a little less simple than you believe, and only a bad word when you know how to use it correctly. there's a gazillion books on the subject, and even a handy-dandy wikipedia article to help you get started. just so you know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

The tortured logic that allows you to say that Sarah Palin is not a women is one more confirmation of my long held opinion of the character and mental abilities of the left wing.
But, rave on! Please! I love to watch you people rush onto the national stage, gnashing your teeth, soiling yourselves (figuratively, of course), and nearly imploding with desperate vitriol.
I find it most amusing. Most amusing indeed! (sound of smug laughter)

>>>>>>.I notice no one has anything to say about the candidate, Sarah Palin.

That's because Doniger's unhinged rant doesn't *deserve* a reply that deals with Palin.

If Doniger criticized Palin on, say, her economic policy, you could expect some replied to defend Palin's economic views and others to attack it.

But when Doniger's "criticism" is (in effect) "Palin is not a woman! I hate her! I *HATE* her!!!", the only reasonable response is to point and laugh at Doniger.

Another brain dead "college professor"

>>>>>>Because, folks, we're not looking for symbolism - we're looking for substance.

We ARE???

So why on earth did the Democrats choose Obama?

There are so many potential deocratic presidential candidates who are more experienced, more qualified, and who hold clear views about important issues (whether one agrees with those views or not). Of all the potential Democratic presidential candidates, Obama is clearly the least experienced and most vague about important issues.

Obama was chosen precisely *BECAUSE* he is a symbol, and for no other reason. You know: Black, immigrant family, single mother, rags-to-riches story, "community activist", Harvard-educated, etc. It is on his qualification of being a "symbol of hope and change" that he hopes to be elected.

So now all of a sudden the democrats care about "substance, not symbols"? Get real!

I notice no one has anything to say about the candidate, Sarah Palin.
No one seems to offer any actual reasons as to WHY they 'like' her, and defend her.

And she seems to be doing greater damage to herself with every breath.

Half a year ago- 5 months before any of us ever heard her name- a bipartisan committee of 14 republicans and democrats both- vote unamimously- that is 14-0- to investigate Palin on abuse of power charges in her firing of Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner over refusing to bow to her vengeful and unethical demand that he fire her former brother-in-law, Wooten.

Palin assured us when this story leaked that she had promised and will do everything to prove her innocence in any wrongdoing.

NOW, however, she is REFUSING to testify on her own behalf!
Claiming that the lead investigator is an Obama supporter (he is a democrat)!!!

And will only testify to the Personnel Board that is hand-picked by her!!

Who, has ever heard of an individual being able to pick their own judges!!!

NOW- to make the ridiculous even more sublimely comical, she has completely changed her reasopn for firing the commissioner!

She says now, (I could not make this stuff up)
That, the Commission Monegan- was fired by her- not because he dared to go against her imperial will- but because he- IN A STATE THAT IS THE HIGHEST STATISTICS FOR RAPE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY- dared to ask for more funding for fighting rape!!!!

What an intelligent and judicious executive decision!

Of course, it is a just made up now fake reason- never heard of before today-

but - the cure is worse than the disease!

Best not to publish a rant with few facts and little relevence.

I like it when they post their pictures. Not only for the entertainment value, but for the easy lib recognition factor. It's just too easy.

Sorry, I meant "to", not "the". I guess I lose some liberal elitist points there or something. :(

Does it hurt when you press the shift button the capitalize "Good" and "Lord" together?

As if the media wouldn't have 'outed' Palin's daughter. Wendy Doniger presents the outing as if Palin had a choice, of course, not true. And saying that she being a woman is a 'pretense'. I guess you have to be a Democrat to be a woman. I wish I could email this window into the Democrat mind to every woman in America, for it really shows what contempt the Democrat 'elites' have for a. real women, b. those who don't agree with them, and c. those who can read (abortion in the constitution ?!?!?)
University of Chicago should check this nut out - she is out there!

Unbelievable! Never checked a fact, did you? Pity the Washington Post's "terms of use" don't apply to the sort of drivel they publish as "legitimate" comment in the first place....

Amen sister! Let us not forget the very reasons why the writers of the Constitution made the separation of church and state one of our civil rights. And, if you want to get right down to it, the argument can be made that a woman's decision to have or not to have an abortion is a matter of her spiritual beliefs making it fall under the Constitutional Bill of Rights that protects the freedom of religion.

How dare you use a woman who is filled with this much partisan hate and bile to write a column called, "On Religion." Her religion is apparently Far Left politics. This article has not a thing to do with religion as most would define it.

Volumes could be written about this poorly reasoned article but lets examine her last comment about Joe Biden's abortion stance.

If Joe Biden believes life begins at conception then by definition he agrees that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, what used to be called, in law books in a bygone era, murder. However, as Doniger comments, "he has gone out of his way to insist that he would not impose his personal views on others, and has indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion."
Then she gives her sacred blessing, "That is the right answer."

What exactly does that say about Joe Biden? That he thinks murder is negotiable and this might be a stretch, but I don't think even
Doniger would accept that premise.

Secondly, it is completely fallacious to speak about one person imposing their religious views on others as if Sara Palin has the power to something like that.

Finally, it's completely acceptable to Doniger for one ideology to trump another and force it on a society vis-a-vi abortion but it's certainly wrong to recognize that all human beings, whether in the womb or not, deserve full protection under the law. That view we cannot "force" on everyone. That view should be kept private.

In reality, Doniger has no problem with anyone imposing their personal views on society as long as what's being imposed are the correct views, the ones she agrees with. It's right for me but not for you. We have a word for that, "hypocrisy."

The reason we've found ourselves plunged into the ugliness of personal attacks stems primarily from the fact that, here, in the presidential election personality and politics have become disturbingly intertwined. You know what? I bet that I would enjoy the company of any number of republican folk - palin, mccain, bush, ect., ect. If I knew them in personal life, I might even go the distance and say that that they're some decent folk. This is the case for anyone you or I might meet who has a healthy sense of humor, and a comfortable 'every-man' feel. However that is not the basis by which I decide someone is then prepared to run a country. The most jovial, kind-hearted man or woman you know might inspire you with their strong spirit and strong sense of self, but taking that alone - how are we possibly to extrapalote that this person has the judgement, the experience, the vision to make executive decisions about the lives and fates of hundreds of millions of people? That requires a LOT more than a nice smile, an adorable family, or a plucky underdog persona. A funny, friendly personality does not a wise leader make.

But I digress. I was asked if I agree with Doniger that Palin is not a woman. I highly doubt that she's suggesting we should go and take a peek under Palin's skirt. That's absurd. What Doniger is surely referring to is that when it comes to ensuring that women are granted more choice, more equality, and more respect, Palin's presence on the Republican ticket only goes so far. Yes, it is absolutely necessary that women be seen in positions of responsiblity and power. And yes, working mothers deserve far more valorisation than they have yet received. Palin functions as a symbol of that and many women are happy to see it; however, the question is what has Palin *done* for women, and what will she *do* in the future? There she is, the token woman - we can all see that. However, instead of participating with those who have traditionally fought for women's rights (liberals), she's on the side of a party that has traditionally fought to keep women in their place. Check out this article to see what I mean: http://www.newsweek.com/id/157543/output/print

Why else would Doniger (or I for that matter) suddenly become upset about a woman and a mother assuming power? Because, folks, we're not looking for symbolism - we're looking for substance. I'm biracial just like Obama and would be happy to see a black face in the white house at long, long last, but if the man was trying his hardest to take away's women's choice and taking approaches to the issues in the same conservative stance that McCain & Palin do (the war, taxes, global warming, ect.), I wouldn't think twice about voting against him.

Why? Because I don't want a woman's face, or a black man's face. I want to see progress in everyday people's lives. If that means being a bit critical of one particular lady, then so be it.

But why is it that you never see an attractive feminist? I just find it chuckle-worthy...

Ms. Doniger's position examplifies the thinking by some on the left that truth and reality are not universal or absolute but are, instead relative. This how Bill Clinton can be labelled the first black president when he was not of black skin. "Woman" and "black" are not physical attributes, they are states of mind. For example I'd wager there are men in Ms. Doniger's life who are women to her simply because these men THINK a certain way. This is also how a woman who had a sex change but kept her female organs could be labelled a pregnant man.

Sadly truth and reality are not relative. The spoon does exist. One persons' right is not merely another person's wrong. This mentality is also why some feminists will not help women in foriegn countries. Those women are not liberals so therefore they are not real women and so undeserving of help.

Its sad that the group who talks about inclusion and tolerance is the most intolerant and exclusive by defining "woman" as the person who follows an ideology vs a being with female body parts.

Ms. Doniger, life is not a buffet and men are not the caterers. No one owes you a spread of choices. Independant, strong willed people make their choices happen. Someone like Sarah Palin for example.

I like Palin, from what I've been able to see.
McCain's economic policies I'm not so sure about.

To add to my previous comments, my view about the nasty comments of the "Doniger needs to get laid" sort:

First, I do not approve of personal attacks of Prof. Doniger's looks or sexual morals, but I think claiming she is an idiot is quite justified: we have ample evidence to prove *that*, evidence she herself provided to us.

Second, while I don't approve of such attacks, I can understand where they're coming from. After all, you can't very well post absurd, ridiculous lies about someone and then act shocked--SHOCKED!--that people, in return, are less than 100% civil to you.

Doniger shows, in miniature, the problem the liberals have. They, too, have been telling the American public for years how evil, stupid, and inferior they are--usually on evidence no better than Doniger's "proof" that Palin is "not a woman". They are then shocked--SHOCKED!--to learn that a large number of Americans don't like or trust them. What possible reason could there be for these incomprehensible bad feelings against them? The liberals ask themselves. Must be "the Republican propaganda machine", or something.

Oh I'll respond, all right.
What a load of garbage!!! I can't believe these so called "feminists" can't see beyond their closed-mind ideologies to see that a woman who is clearly "fed-up" with current-day politics is able to step in and show a little muscle, while at the same time care for her family.
Get off your democratic high horse and smell the coffee!!!
And by the way, I am not buying Joe Biden's new "Angry" facade...He has served the sixth-longest period among current senators and hasn't done anything other than superficially sign his name on any paper that comes across his desk that might make him look good.He wants change? What has he been doing all those years????
It's funny, I was "on the fence" about which way to place my vote-after reading your article, I think I have officially crossed over to the McCain/Palin side.

Jennifer:

While (in over 900+ posts) there are some "extreme right-wing" replies (e.g., there's one actual neo-Nazi who posted), the great majority of the replies have nothing to do with left or right but with exploding Doniger's false and patently absurd claims about Palin.

Do you agree with Prof. Doniger that Palin is not a woman, and that Palin is a "liar" for claiming to be one? Do you think Palin should come clean and admit she was lying all these years and is actually a man? That might be a bit of a surprise to her husband and children, I presume, but I suppose Prof. Doniger would breezily claim that this just shows what *good liars* Republicans are.

If you don't agree with these claims--and I am sure you don't--what exactly is so "spot on" about Doniger's screed? Why does it "need to be said" Palin isn't really a woman? More generally, why do Doniger's other allegations--the vast majority of them having already been proven to be simply lies--"need to be said"? Seems to me that absurd and false slanders are, by their very nature, the kind of things that do NOT need to be said.

Or is the mere fact that these absurd allegations are against a Republican that makes them worthy of being said? Truth-schmuth; anything to help St. Obama ascend to heaven in November, I guess.

P.S.

And don't tell me Doniger was using the word "woman" metaphorically. Alas, being a postmodernist scholar, she means this claim quite literally. For the last 30 years or so, postmodernists claimed that "gender"--that is, being a man or a woman--has NOTHING TO DO with biology, and is totally "socially constructed", as you may have heard.

I've read and/or skimmed a number of the comments here, and I am rather overwhelmed by the extremely vehement responses directed towards Wendy Doniger. I would expect this level of vitriol out of an extreme rightwing online publication. Um, not the washington post and newsweek. I will admit that much of what Doniger writes is provocative and polemical, but it is *absolutely* on point. Furthermore, in our current climate (not to mention this comment page), it *needs* to be said.

Whether or not Palin will be able to successfully enforce any of her own private & now publicly-touted beliefs once in office is perhaps debateable. But what's at stake here is the force of religious discourse in American politics. Conservative fundamentalist Christianity is cited as the only religious perspective that matters, and wouldn't you know it - how convenient for the republicans to leap upon 'faith' and 'family values' as if they, alone, monopolize these things. There is, in fact, a set of beliefs, practices, and values that are based within the constitution, but also in the many struggles for justice & democracy since. Many people of faith, believe it or not, subscribe to these kinds of progressive principles, yet are silenced because someone with the backing of Republicans such as Palin tells us of her Christian (ahem, Pentecostal) faith, and because of that she now knows what's best for all the rest of us. No matter that so much of what she has supported in Alaska has worked to the detriment of her fellow believers, her fellow women, even it seems her fellow parents of disabled children.

The commenters here are apparently quite ignorant of the ways in which the rightwing elite has manipulated the Christian faithful into accepting (a) that the republicans are committed to anything other than retaining their money and power, and (b)that the American voters needn't bother themselves with learning the facts. *Everything* that Doniger speaks of has a basis; I've been reading about nearly every single one of the charges she makes against Palin since day one. Until you all start personally digging around for information other than that the major networks, you're not going to have any clue why liberals are so furious and concerned. I applaud Wendy in saying what needs to be said; it's unfortunate that it is so divisive and partisan, but let's face reality: Palin is no angel, by an means.

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING! I am an independent and educated voter and people like you are why I regect the Democratic Party. You are absolutely ridiculous. Get a reality check and an education-Professor!

You've GOT TO BE KIDDING! I am an independent and educated voter and people like you are why I regect the Democratic Party. You are absolutely ridiculous. Get a reality check and an education-Professor!

Ms. Doniger states that Biden gave the right answer and backs this up by stating "It's in the Constitution." Perhaps Ms. Doniger has a different version of the Constitution than I possess for I have scoured it repeatedly and have never seen the word "abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has decided to use the Constitution as a way for women to have reproductive rights but that is a long way from saying it is actually in the Constitution. If it were actually in the US Constitution, then people wouldn't be so worried about McCain/Palin overturning Roe v Wade.

This is really disappointing. I remember reading about Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty from Emory University days as a bright new religion scholar. This post reads like she just cut and pasted various Democratic party talking points. If you're a flack, fine, that's your job. But the Mircea Eliade prof at the UC Divinity School? I expected better.

are you incapable of shame for your repugnant remarks?

Why is it that the far-Left always thinks of its own positions on policy as wholly open and non-coercive? Professor, if you cannot see that much of what you recommend forces your beliefs on others through government action, you are blind and totally unthoughtful. Some of us think of gun control as an important freedom and resent liberals suggesting otherwise. I also do not want the tax money that I am forced to give up to pay for social institutions that encourage the moral waywardness of teen girls. No position on policy from any perspective--not Left, not Right, not even anarchism--is a neutral, open, non-coercive position. They all have consequences for others; all involve coercion on some level. So please spare us this nonsense, professor. Your article is intellectually dishonest.

You are an idiot. Newsweek, and your parents, should be ashamed.

I read your post the other day and liked what you had to say! I made a mental note to come back and see what you had to say another day.

I liked your wit, and got some good chuckles from your insights (including the newly famous line about her "pretense". Maybe as a former teen mom, now mom of 3, I appreciate your voicing opinions that speak to me and what I see -- the frighteningness that is Sarah Palin.

Thank you for your posts. Enjoy your Freedom of Speech like I do, and ignore Fox News' rhetoric! :-)

Take care,

Kay

you know it's ironic isn't it...how we've heard since 1939 how horrible Hitler was for killing six million jews and since the fifties the AMA (85% jewish) has killed over 43 million childern...FOE MONEY!!! chew on that for a minute...how hypocritical, isn't it?

SARAH'S OWN CONSITUENT OFFERS HER EXPERIENCE WITH PALIN

I do not believe Sara Palin knows very much about children or adults with disabilities. Her promise to help adults with disabilites did not lead her to provide sign language interpreters or CART (captions of her speech for the deaf or hard of hearing) at the Governors Picnic in Fairbanks this summer. This is suppose to be an affair open to ALL people including those with disabilities. She had no idea what I was talking about with her AND she was NOT interested in what I had to say.
Thus her pledge to help people with disabilities is just a compaign pledge and is NOT sincere in my opinion. People with disabilities are often very intelligent but may be blind, deaf, etc and need access to communication
so they know what their Governor is saying.

FROM HER HOMETOWN NEWS STATION

by Leyla Santiago
Sunday, Sept. 14, 2008

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Gov. Sarah Palin's child, Trig, was born with Down Syndrome this year. She cites his birth and rearing as evidence of a new understanding toward children with special needs.

It's a topic she's been vocal about throughout the campaign. But critics say her record doesn't exhibit a dedication to special needs programs.

One program that supports special needs children is the Special Olympics.

"It's very good for other people with disabilities and others in our community," said one Alaska Special Olympics participant.

During her speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin pledged support to families with special needs children.

"To the families of special needs children all across this country, I have a message for you: For years you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters, and I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and an advocate in the White House," the governor said.

Since Palin's pledge support for children with disabilities has increased.

"Any time a political leader or someone in the limelight speaks on behalf of people with disabilities, that awareness piece is very huge and it goes a long way," Alaska Special Olympics President James Balamaci said.

But some legislators in Alaska say the state's approach to the special needs community is nothing to be proud of.

"I don't think there are many people in the Alaska disability community that would say she's been a champion for them," said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, an Anchorage Democrat. "And maybe she's changing her position on that, and I think that's a good thing."

Despite Palin's support for children with disabilities, Sondra Thompkins, who's son has autism, participated in a rally against the governor Saturday.

"We feel very strongly that Sarah Palin is not the right choice," Thompkins said.

Some say Palin has supported special needs programs financially but has cut out others.

"It's been a mixed bag," Wielechowski said. "There are certainly funds provided for some things for Special Olympics and there were other things that were cut."

While the Special Olympics did not want to make any comments about budget cuts, Channel 2 News looked into the governor's funding of the program.

Records show Palin actually increased their funding by $25,000. However, that amount is only half of what the program asked for.

Contact Leyla Santiago at lsantiago@ktuu.com

This professor is a total idiot.
this utter drivel from the Left.
utter claptrap,
start learning how to actually think.
disgusting,
vile,
frankly immoral
unethical,
fundamentally dishonest
damaging our civil society

best wishes.?????????????????????????

Ugly insult after vile degradation- But the funniest most outrageous hypocrisy of all-

YOU WISH HER YOUR BEST?

My! If this is your best, civil society needs to be protected from YOU!

Do you pray to God with that dirty mouth?

I am so sick and tired of left-leaning Rubes calling Palin a Dork.

My IQ is 164 (that's about 1 in 30,000), I went to the 2 top universities for degrees, and I am an inventor.

This professor is a total idiot. The only explanation for her having gotten tenure and a job at the university is her leftist bias and 'promoting their own' policies, which have damaged the talent at our universities to no end.

I actually like Barack Obama and will probably vote for him for President, but I totally understand why everyone is leaning Right after having to endlessly read this utter drivel from the Left.

Get a life, lady - quit the university, spare another generation from your utter claptrap, and start learning how to actually think.

Palin is obviously very bright. Her husband is demonstrably a highly supportive male spouse, the perfect role model for any couple where the woman's is the main career. They obviously have high principles to have had a 5th child with a major syndrome, due to their commitment to that child's soul.

You can choose to disagree with Palin's specific positions. You can argue she isn't qualifed to be VP due to lack of proper experience.

But these disgusting, vile, frankly immoral and unethical, as well as fundamentally dishonest assaults on DECENCY have to stop. You're just damaging our civil society and harming the next generation.

best wishes.

Are repulsed by the venom and hatred spewed forth like poison from these filthy mouths.

Jesus never said hate and abuse those with whom you disagree.

Shameful hypocrites.

This is a far more vicious and virulent underside of the true face of aggressive , hate-filled fearstruck representatives of Christian Republican neo-conservatives who have no conscience about killing hundreds of thousands (600,000 children- Lancet Report) of brown people all over the world- yet shed copious crocodile tears for unborn babies to hang onto their power.

If Jesus were here, he would not be able to stop throwing up.

I've never voted for a Republican, and I certainly can't claim to be a great fan of Sarah Palin, but this rant by Wendy Doniger is rife with nonsense.

Sarah Palin spoke out about her daughter's pregnancy after many people came to suspect that Sarah's daughter was the mother of Sarah's son. That involved no "hypocrisy of her outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people". Discussion of the matter was already widespread.

Sarah Palin never tried to ban any books, and I know of no evidence that she tried to "fire the librarian who stood against her." Pure fabrication.

"I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who)" Umm. Perhaps Doniger believes that God (gods, goddesses) never make such a decision. Seems there was an earthquake and tsunami on Dec. 26, 2004... There have been many natural events that have taken many lives.

With professors like this, it's no wonder that the percentage of men in the academy is in a state of collapse.

Why is this hate speech by this bigot/misogynist published in a national newspaper?

It is Clear that Barack Obama has a more detailed plan for the economy than John McCain. Unfortunately, He wants to drive the bus right over the cliff, hoping for 80 Billion in new tax revenues from the top 2 percent to pay for 300 Billion in more spending every year...That's scary.
He has also repealed the law of supply and demand. Nice Trick. Under this new law, domestic drilling and nuclear power will not decrease the cost of power. raising taxes on corporations will not force them to lay-off employees or move their manufacturing overseas.

Thanks to hate-mongers like Prof. Doniger, it looks like McCain is going to win the election. Most of America will not tolerate vicious lies and slanders in the interest of a political agenda. Add the elitist hate-speech from genius celebrities like Lohan, Damon and Griffin mean he will win going away. Imagine, Lohan, Damon and Doniger leading a right wing conspiracy to get McCain elected. That's real genius.

"Comments that include personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site." So your rules say. If this is your policy, then please remove your blog because it is an inappropriate attack upon Sarah Palin. Or do you not believe rules apply to you and other screaming liberals?

If the Washington Post Website removes "comments that include ... personal attacks," shouldn't they remove Wendy Doniger's article entirely?

Wendy...You are eloquent, well thought out, and TERRIFIC!!!!!!! Thanks for speaking out on this issue..Palin is an incredibly offensive choice for any number of reasons...thanks for blogging on this!

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"???

Then you must be opposed to Roe v. Wade, which forces the choice of liberal judges on those of us you would like to be able to have our votes count for something on this issue. Instead, judges make the rules, and we have to live with them--all when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion. How "open" it all is!

Ma'm, I'd like to respectfully point out that the easy availability of abortions to young girls, makes it quick and easy to hide the evidence of sexual exploitation.

Let's not fool ourselves: Sexual gratification without responsibility has been a goal of a significant segment of all male populations since time began.

Abortion laws in the USA, as currently formulated, make it all the easier for those types of men to avail themselves of the pleasures of male/female intimacy - at zero cost of serious commitment.

A young women, after being used sexually one or several times, under the current system, ends up with nothing - just a dead baby.

Under the old system, the father of the child was prompted to whip himself into shape and commit himself to a positive relationship.

Studies clearly show that couples who are together and treat each other well, live better, more fulfilling lives.

It's not abortion you should be clamoring for. Rather, what you should be praying for and working towards is an America where young men treat young ladies with compassion, respect and dignity.

In their heart, young ladies are not interested in the current porno/stripper-chic, sleep-around culture that seeks to reinforce itself by ready access to abortion.

If abortions in the USA were to drop by 90%, the aggregate enjoyment, positive self-image and positive self-respect among America's young women would rise dramatically.

Young ladies, like everyone else, yearn to be appreciated, loved and respected.

Making it easy for sexual users to reduce them (via easy-access abortion) to nothing more than gratification dispensers is, in the long run, both cruel and shortsighted.

The idiocy of this essay is outstanding:

"Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else's business." Suppose my faith dictates human sacrifice or torture--still private? Suppose my mother and I wish to conceive a child together--still private? If not, where, and how, do you draw the line b/t private and public? Care to retract or modify your statement?

"But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public..." Will you then condemn Obama's very public professions of Christian faith and praise McCain for being far more restrained in this regard? If not, why not?

"Sarah Palin's views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind." You may want to re-read your essay and consider whether you have lost yours.

"the hypocrisy of her outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people" The left-wing crazies forced this revelation b/c of some really awful rumors about her daughter. So her choice was to "out" her daughter or let the terrible things beings said continue. I think Palin made the right choice, and you are complete bit** for suggesting otherwise.

"using a line-item veto to cut funding for a transitional home for teenage mothers in Alaska" You know, it may be surprising to a fruitcake like you, but lots of people would not want their tax money used for this. Teenagers should live with their parents and behave themselves, and government has no business making it easier for young women to behave badly and escape the consequences.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman." Palin looks a lot more female than you do, lady(?).

"She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women." I could recite for 30 minutes the names of women I know you will be voting for Palin in November. Almost all working class. The problems of women transcend the narrow concerns of fringe left-wing types like you. The working class women I live with would not agree with a thing you said here. One of them is standing over my shoulder now, reading your essay and laughing at you.

"(global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands" Neither do plenty of experts--e.g., Richard Lindzen of MIT. Here's a list of many, many more: http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/06/elite-scientists-dissent-from-climate.html
Just because Al Gore makes a movie doesn't make the story true--even when that story gets repeated again and again by the media.

"An even wider and more sinister will to impose her religious views on other people surfaced in her determination to legislate against abortion even in cases of rape." Let me ask you this: If I told you I was the product of my mother's being raped, would that justify the view that my mom should be legally able to kill me? Also, you obviously DO NOT need religion to justify a position against abortion--even in the case of rape.

"voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion. That is the right answer. It's in the Constitution. It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's in the mother-lovin' Constitution." Once again, there are quite obviously secular grounds for opposing abortion rights. Moreover, the Constitution is silent on the matter. It's not the Constitution, professor--it's judges as crazy as you on our courts imposing THEIR views on the MAJORITY under the guise of specious Constitutional interpretation. I do not see how that comports with the freedom our founders intended us to have.

Wendy Doniger, you are an idiot. DO the world a favor a keep your stupid comments to yourself.

As a UChicago alum, I am shocked that a prof from my alma mater would write anything this stupid.

i think you're jealous she's a hottie and gets everyone's attention.
this blog article proves feminism as represented by NOW and such ilk is truly dead, having moved entirely to the fringes of gay politics.

YOu have mixed her personal life with her political decisions they are two different things. For example her decision to line item veto a transitional school for pregnant girls has nothing to with her decision to support her OWN daughter.

It's sad that a hate monger gets to pass herself off as a "religion" professor. Femininity clearly is something you know little about. Sadly your just another mouthpiece for the monotonous HYPOCRITICAL political left. Blah, blah, blah.....

You, lady, do not speak for me.

Hey Doniger,

If you actually read the Constitution, abortion and gay marriage are not in there. Those were added by activist judges forcing thier beliefs on the rest of the nation. Also get your facts straight, Palin never banned any books and never fired the librarian. Although if the librarian was like you, I would applaud Palin if she fired her!

You mistakenly think that all women are like you - a militant man hating feminst who treats abortion as a right of passage into womanhood. Palin represents the real women in this country who respect God, this country, and the life of the unborn.

You are a joke. Go crawl back under the rock you came from with the rest of your man hating lesbian friends.

You have totally lost whatever tenuous grip you’ve had on reality and your credibility. How does a person like you get a forum for your ideological rants?

Right on! This Palin creature needs to be put in its place! Woman? Palin is hardly even human. Real women "work" at universities, write horribly bigoted critiques of the Hindu religion, and are leftist tools! You Go Girl!

"...not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have."

Is this implying that you believe people ought not to have them, and would enforce gun restriction legislation? Pretty sure that violating people's 2nd amendment rights would be 'inflicting private views' on other people...

Jealousy is a bad cologn. Referring to your quotes about Sarah Palin. You wont be happy until some ugly, no-shaving lesbian is in the white house.

...and in her attempts to ban books, including books on evolution, and to fire the librarian who stood against her.

Look it up, she didn't ask for any books to be banned, and didn't fire anyone over it.

Bork

So in your opinion you think that Sara Palin is the candidate/running mate that is least like a woman?

I think you are confused.

Didn't Wendy Doniger, just break your rules?

degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass
---------------------------------------
Wendy Said:
Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else's business.
Susan said: WELL YES!
-------------------------------
Considering the mainstream media dug all the dirt out on Sarah Palin and made it public..Do you think she had a right to defend herself from people like yourself or not?
Give me a break. You are so in the tank for obama your hypocrisy is rampaging.
Barrack Obama DID vote to not allow survivors of infanticide care if they survived a botched abortion and no matter what your views are, THAT is evil!

you spelled Qur'an wrong ...

Wow! this woman is totally in the lunatic bin.

"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"

This statement, along with the screed accompanying it, is self refuting. "All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They Don't Agree With Mine" is what Doniger means.

And this is what we get from the academy?

It was the news media who sent their satraps to Alaska to discover if Sarah had a religion they could denigrate. It was the accusation that her daughter gave birth to Trip that encouraged her announcement of her daughter's growing pregnancy, probably to protect her as it was becoming obvious. Leftist journalists have depended on the bigoted liberal view of us conservatives to be spot on. They hoped we would crucify Sarah for having a pregnant daughter. Instead, we are being so non judgemental that one leftist journalist complained it was making the liberals appears 'stuffy and slow witted' for attacking young Bristol and her mother.
You all are being 'hoisted on your own petard'. Your own bigoted view of the Christian, middle class, hardworking American is causing you to make absured statements, while we seem to be disproving your bigoted hatred of us by not cooperating. Chris

First off, I'm neither pro or anti-abortion but I have to say I have never seen the right to abort a pregnancy in the US constitution. Maybe there's an addendum that I missed but I doubt it.

What an incredibly uninformed and slanderous piece. I cannot believe you are a professor, your know nothing about religion, the constitution or common human decency.

You use the word hypocrisy overmuch in this diatribe. Are you so brazen to suggest that a mother's love for her daughter is fabricated for voter consumption? Are you omniscient or are you merely without shame? Or perhaps both?

Mr. Obama is correct in saying families should not be used for political gain, yet the horse left the barn on that one decades ago. What president since--and including--JFK has not used their families at least for photo-ops? Mr. Obama is certainly the first democrat I know to at least appear to do so begrudgingly.

You are right to state that religion and sexuality are private matters, best kept between family, friends, or perhaps even to oneself altogether. I would also agree that no politician should "inflict" their religious views on the publicl, and never use the law itself to do so. Yet, indeed, both have happened repeatedly and are likely to do so for years to come. The latter should be fought vigorously, the former merely tolerated. Since the platforms of the major parties have fundamental tenets that are faith-based (such as the notion that minimum wage helps the working class) we do indeed have much work to do.

The greatest conceit in your whole rant is the breathtaking statement that Ms. Palin is hypocritical in her "pretense that she is a woman." Such a statement speaks volumes about your own religious tolerance. The doctrinaire lore of post-modern identity politics is a pernicious thing. Demagogues are only appealing to True Believers.

And what about this gem: "she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women." It is patent that you are not using 'sympathies' in the normal use of the word so what in fact do you mean? Does 'have sympathies' mean advocate for more government programs, even ones proven to be ineffective and destructive? Does this mean support religious institutions in low income neighborhoods as they do impact poverty? Advocate for more strict divorce laws to insure women are not "single mothers?" Push for school vouchers to help the less fortunate escape the blight of public schools? Distribute free yoga CD's to help women relax after a difficult day? What exactly do you mean, and how to you presume to have such divine knowledge?

And, perhaps you believe it to be obvious, but do you have such sympathies? Does your public proclamation prove so? If so, why do you believe Ms. Palin does not? Is public benificence the only reliable proof of moral integrity? Does the promise of state largesse (regardless of its actual impact) validate the altruistic nature of a candidate or incumbent? Some people do believe--and with good evidence--that government services make many situations demonstrably worse. Some would even say that government intervention amounts to an act of violence against families.

Finally, a point of order. It is legitimate to speak of criminalizing abortion and you are right to be very concerned that such laws may be made manifest. Yet no product or service can ever be a right. To speak of 'Abortion Rights' is evidence of either malice or confusion. To fight efforts to make abortion illegal is a defense of basic liberty.

I just wanted to say that Ms Wendy Doniger needs to get laid.
I know she wants it but just can't get any. The title of all of her rants should read,I just need to get laid and all would be right with the world.
Of course see hates Palin she gets laid lots.
If you have ever worked in an office with a lot of females you know how they all hate the attractive ones. Ms Wendy is just one of the plain ones that can only get the weak left over men. Maybe Ms Wendy can't even get that.
One last piece of advice for Wendy, go to the out skirts of town like Barack's mother did and get the first drunken bum that comes along. These men will screw anyone even an unattrative woman like you.

Wow! There is so much wrong with this article that I don't know where to begin:
1.) I'm so glad that Wendy is so open minded that she doesn't "object" to the candidates' religious views.
2.) How is it, though, that she doesn't object to their religious views, if they don't "take them out in public?" It is a complete falsehood that your religious views do not inform your political views. It is important to know their views on life because if you don't value the most basic right, which is life, then you can't value any others. Since Barack won't help a baby born alive and will allow it to die, then you know he is a person who does not value life and that flows from his pastor.
3.) It was not Sarah Palin who "outed" her daughter, it was the liberal news media. It was people like Wendy who "outed" her. Also, the fact that Wendy uses the word "outed" shows what she thinks of unborn babies. They are "things" that should be kept in secret and if it becomes public knowledge that someone is pregnant then they are "outed". This speaks volumes about Wendy.
4.) I hate to tell you Wendy, but Sarah is a woman. It's no pretense. You don't know what a woman is and you teach at a Divinity School? That speaks volumes too!
5.) Wendy, you're either misinformed about Sarah's views on God or you're deliberately falsifying them to further your views.
6.) As far as Joe Biden goes, if he is not man enough to stand up for what he believes then he definitely shouldn't be Vice President. It seems to me that if he believes that abortion is murder and yet won't stand up for the unborn, then he is collaborating in murder. This is why the Bishops have said he should not be taking communion.

This is only 6 points but I could go on for pages about how out of touch the liberals are in this country but I know that I don't have to. Any American reading drivel like this knows it for what it is: useless garbage. This is why Obama will lose the election.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman"

What an idiot.

Oh really? I defy you to find one single instance where Gov. Palin has "pushed" her theology on others. Gov. Palin has an outstanding record of doing as the PEOPLE wish, even when it goes against her own personal feelings. Which, some may argue, is why she supports contraceptive sex education in schools.

As for your quote on her first-hand conversations with God, you might be interested in the footage that landed on ABC's cutting room floor. When you add in the part about "praying that" ...we are doing God's work, her statements make a lot more sense.

The Catholics who feel the need to espouse their views on abortion haven't been listening in church, either. There is no wiggle-room in Catholicism for abortion. None. Nada. Zip. Not for rape, not for incest, not because the mother might go crazy from stress. So, their views are immediately visible for what they are - hypocricy.

Anyway, Palin sure speaks for me, much more than you do. It's pretty obvious that your only religion is liberalism. And the funny thing is - this Christian, Sarah Palin, is speaking for me as a Buddhist, who could care less about homosexual marriage or abortion or anything. But Palin is real and honest and has integrity. That matters a whole lot more than her views on specific issues.

By the way, you know, your God is watching you smear this woman. Do you ever wonder what His reaction might be to your nastiness? If I were you, I would really take a deep look inside myself and decide if God would consider me a good person or not. If the truth is not too painful.

It's interesting that you are actually employed by Newsweek. I find your column to be extremely sexist, prejudicial, biased, and equivalent to the firebrand leftist journalism that you typically find in student newspapers.

you are so biased, you are a minister of satan, not Jesus

It's no wonder the Church is in the shape it's in when you have professors like this idiot teaching in a "Divinity School". I am sure there have been some fine theologians that have come out of this university in the past, but the sheer foolishness of someone like this teach people who will enter the ministry is blindingly blatant. If she truly knows anything about the history of religions, she knows that Jesus called on His followers to be "salt" and "light", to let their lives influence others to likewise become followers. Belief in God is not a "private matter". Christians have been commissioned to go into all the world and boldly PROCLAIM the Gospel.

So, let's see. If Sarah Palin has 5 kids, a career, a loving husband who helps her with their offspring and believes that God has a plan for us and we must determine what that plan is, she is not a woman? If she believes that abortion is wrong and global warming is not all man made, she is not a woman?

All it sounds like is that she is a woman who disagrees with you. And as all of us out here who don't adhere to the left wing ideology on everything know, that makes us subhuman. And you are the reporter On Faith? Wow. There must not have been any other applicants for the job that day.

Liar or bad researcher; which is it? This whole "she cut funds for [fill in the blank]is straight out of the Daily Kos of the world. That is one of the many liberal attacks on Gov. Palin that have been proven to be untrue.

So do you know that it's a lie and you used it to shore up a bad argument or do you simply cut-n-paste from what other terrified liberals are saying? There is no other third choice.

God Bless you, but my goodness, the real America is getting so tired of listening to all of this. Very tired indeed.

Thank God for Palin. You people on the left (MSM, Politicians, Hollywood, & College Professors) are showing everyone your truly ugly colors!Since you think your side are the true intellects (B.S.), let me show you how easy it is to be hateful and how moronic you sound:

"Hey Doniger, Palin's not a woman? Look in the mirror lately?"

Good one eh? Maybve I'll write a column for newsweek now!

How enlightening....Can you tell me, where and in what manner, abortion in mentioned in the Constitution?.........Thanks much.

You're just jealous because Palin is so much hotter than you.

I hope this person doesn't really think "she" speaks for women. As for the right to kill babies being in the Constitution-I don't think so!

This thing that wrote the article needs to be fired

a crackpot.

You didn't "...object strongly" when the Obama's "...tries to take their theology out in public." Making you a hypocrite and not a serious thinker.

In other words, Wendy Doniger is a partisan hack disguised as a religious analyst not worthy of the credibility lent to her by the public.

I can't remember a time when the press, that includes you, Wendy Doniger, has been so discredited and laughed at because of their almost demonic reaction to a single public figure.

It's almost like Linda Blair in the Exorcist flailing and convulsing at the mere mention of God. Except in this case they are flailing and convulsing at the mere mention of Sarah Palin.

Well, I guess I thought final authority was from the bible. Well I guess instead of getting my answers from it, I should learn what YOU believe. How silly we have all been!

Skeptic - for all of your bloviating in defense of Palin, you're ultimately just another Bush apologist. You and your captive audience here simply want another dose of it with McCain/Palin.

We can only hope for the sake of the nation that you fail in that ambition.

>>>>>TURN OFF FOX NEWS... READ A PAPER OR MAGAZINE

Why?

It is becoming increasingly clear that the mainstream papers and magazines are left-wing biased. Why do you think the "New York Times" lost 70% or so of its stock value over the last few years? Because most people no longer believe it to be remotely objective.

Liberals hate Fox and talk radio, as well as the internet, since it broke the stranglehold they had on "acceptable" opinion (i.e., whatever the "New York Times" reports).

Yes, of course Fox and talk radio is biased the other way. But Fox doesn't attempt to silence everybody else with the opposite opinion, and talk radio doesn't claim those who disagree with it must be shut down, like liberals are trying to do to both.

The left is facing the "boy who cried wolf" problem here, I think.

After all, you cannot claim every single conservative candidate in the last 40 years is a "scary" "book-burning" "theocrat" who will turn the USA into a dictatorship if elected, and then expect people to keep taking the accusations as seriously as they did the first time you made it.

Experience shows such accusations usually boil down to "some liberal guy in the candidate's hometown doesn't like the candidate".

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831073,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar

PALIN IS AN UNINFORMED IDIOT YOKEL

READ A PAPER OR MAGAZINE-

TIME MAGAZINE REPORTS ON AUGUST 9TH-
GEORGIA ATTACKS OSSETIA.

AS PALIN TOLD CHARLES GIBSON (CONFIDENTLY)
"RUSSIA ATTACKED GEORGIA UNPROVOKED."

GIBSON,"UNPROVOKED? ARE YOU SURE?"

(HESITATION) "YES."

Because I just KNEW some idiot said to themself, "That's RIGHT! Russia DID attack Georgia first!" when they read another of many gaffes by Palin.

No wonder McCain will not allow her to talk to reporters.

GEORGIA ATTACKED OSSETIA FIRST- WHICH IS UNDER THE PROTECTORATE OF RUSSIA.

By Chuck McLean

The selection of another incurious, ill-schooled politician with no foreign policy judgment and a simplistic "the military can solve everything" view of foreign policy will continue the dramatic slide of the U.S.'s global influence. It will also dig us much deeper into a foreign policy hole that has already brought us to an international situation more dangerous than the darkest days of the Cold War.

PostGlobal's Global Power Barometer (I'm one of the editors) measures how well the key powers of the world, and by extension their leaders, are exercising their power to achieve their own desired ends. It tells you clearly who's winning and losing on the world power stage. The GPB's "4-week View" makes it obvious how far the U.S. has fallen far behind Russia, China, Iran and even Israel and the Islamists in achieving its global goals.

As we've watched world reaction to the Bush administration over the years, the people and leaders of the world are not as much interested in "experience" per se as they are two critical human traits: 1) curiosity about the world, and, 2) a knowledge of the history and cultures of their nations. Governor Palin has neither and that's downright dangerous.

The Governor, who obtained her first passport less than two years ago, has traveled outside the U.S. only once, to visit Alaska National Guardsmen stationed in Germany and Kuwait. She claimed a visit to Ireland, but the Irish quickly pointed out that a refueling stop in which you don't leave the airport is not a "visit." In fact, she has never even visited Alaska's important next-door neighbor, Canada.

Consistent with a complete lack of curiosity about the world around her, Governor Palin has never had any formal education in history (of the U.S. or the world,) let alone any experience with global culture or politics that might serve as a substitute for formal education.

Beyond what this says to the people of the world (which is that a VP Palin simply wouldn't care), we've just experienced eight years of the costly errors of a President without any curiosity or understanding of how foreign lands will react to U.S. actions. Iraq is a prime example. Even a cursory knowledge of culture and the region would have suggested the outcome of an Iraq invasion (Bush 41's great knowledge and understanding of history and culture kept him out of Baghdad.)

In the current crisis with Russia, an understanding of Russian culture, history and 20th-century experience (and, of course, the right judgment to apply the lessons of that history) would have avoided creating the situation in which Russia had little choice but to draw the line at South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The U.S. has a history as long as a blink of an eye in comparison to much of the rest of the world, so it may be understandable that we have little interest in world history. U.S. citizens are some of the least traveled among developed countries, so that may explain our lack of knowledge of other cultures. But in order just to protect ourselves and avoid mistakes that strengthen our enemies and weaken the U.S., we need leaders who are curious about the world, its history and its cultures. The nomination of Sarah Palin sends exactly the wrong message to the world and guarantees four more years of foreign policy and military mistakes in a world far more dangerous than it was eight years ago.

Soon after the book controversy, Bess found himself again at odds with Palin and her fellow evangelicals. In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

Bess is unnerved by the prospect of Palin -- a woman whose mind is given to dogmatic certitude -- standing one step away from the Oval Office. "It's truly frightening that someone like Sarah has risen to the national level," Bess said. "Like all religious fundamentalists -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim -- she is a dualist. They view life as an ongoing struggle to the finish between good and evil. Their mind-set is that you do not do business with evil -- you destroy it. Talking with the enemy is not part of their plan. That puts someone like Obama on the side of evil.

"Forget all this chatter about whether or not she knows what the Bush doctrine is. That's trivial. The real disturbing thing about Sarah is her mind-set. It's her underlying belief system that will influence how she responds in an international crisis, if she's ever in that position, and has the full might of the U.S. military in her hands. She gave some indication of that thinking in her ABC interview, when she suggested how willing she would be to go to war with Russia.

"Alaskans liked that certitude when she was dealing with corrupt politicians and the oil industry -- and there is something admirable about it. But when you're dealing with a complex and dangerous world as commander in chief, that's a different story."

Bess said that he and fellow valley residents have long been charmed by the Sarah Palin who is now dazzling the American public. Despite their strong political differences, "she always has a warm greeting for me when we bump into each other. She's the most charming person you'll ever know."

"But," Bess adds, "this person's election would be a disaster for the country and the world."

The pastor who clashed with Palin
Baptist minister Howard Bess, who wrote a book Palin wanted banned and who fought her on abortion and gay rights, says the country should fear her election.

By David Talbot

Pages 1 2 S S S RSS Print Email
Read more: David Talbot, Alaska, Politics, News, Sarah Palin

Inset: Howard Bess

Sept. 15, 2008 | WASILLA, Alaska -- The Wasilla Assembly of God, the evangelical church where Sarah Palin came of age, was still charged with excitement on Sunday over Palin's sudden ascendance. Pastor Ed Kalnins warned his congregation not to talk with any journalists who might have been lurking in the pews -- and directly warned this reporter not to interview any of his flock. But Kalnins and other speakers at the service reveled in Palin's rise to global stardom.

It confirmed, they said, that God was making use of Wasilla. "She will take our message to the world!" rejoiced an Assembly of God youth ministry leader, as the church band rocked the high-vaulted wooden building with its electric gospel.

That is what scares the Rev. Howard Bess. A retired American Baptist minister who pastors a small congregation in nearby Palmer, Wasilla's twin town in Alaska's Matanuska Valley, Bess has been tangling with Palin and her fellow evangelical activists ever since she was a Wasilla City Council member in the 1990s. Recently, Bess again found himself in the spotlight with Palin, when it was reported that his 1995 book, "Pastor, I Am Gay," was among those Palin tried to have removed from the Wasilla Public Library when she was mayor.

Rate this story with Reddit:

Thanks for your support.
"She scares me," said Bess. "She's Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.

"At this point, people in this country don't grasp what this person is all about. The key to understanding Sarah Palin is understanding her radical theology."

Bess -- a fit-looking, 80-year-old man in a gray University of Illinois sweatshirt and blue jeans – spoke with me over coffee at the Vagabond Blues, a cafe in Palmer with a stunning view of the nearby snow-capped Chugach Mountains. The retired minister moved to the Mat-Su Valley with his wife, Darlene, in 1987, after his outspoken defense of gay rights at Baptist churches in the Santa Barbara, Calif., area and Anchorage landed him in trouble with church officials. In the Mat-Su Valley, Bess plunged into community activism, helping launch an assortment of projects, from an arts council to a shelter for the mentally disabled.

Inevitably, his work brought him into conflict with Palin and other highly politicized Christian fundamentalists in the valley. "Things got very intense around here in the '90s -- the culture war was very hot here," Bess said. "The evangelicals were trying to take over the valley. They took over the school board, the community hospital board, even the local electric utility. And Sarah Palin was in the direct center of all these culture battles, along with the churches she belonged to."

Bess' first run-in with Palin's religious forces came when he decided to write his book, "Pastor, I Am Gay." The book was the result of a theological journey that began in the 1970s when Bess was asked for guidance by a closeted homosexual in his Santa Barbara congregation. After deep reflection on the subject, Bess came to the conclusion that "gay people were not sick, nor they were special sinners."

In his book, Bess suggests that gays have a divine mission. "Look back at the life of our Lord Jesus. He was misunderstood, deserted, unjustly accused, and cruelly killed. Yet we all confess that it was the will of God, for by his wounds we are healed ... Could it be that the homosexual, obedient to the will of God, might be the church's modern day healer-messiah?"

When it was published in 1995, Bess' book caused an immediate storm in the Mat-Su Valley, an evangelical stronghold dotted with storefront churches. Conservative ministers targeted the book, and the only bookstore in the valley that dared to stock it -- Shalom Christian Books and Gifts – soon dropped it after the owner was barraged with angry phone calls. The Frontiersman, the local newspaper that ran a column by Bess for seven years, fired him and ran a vicious cartoon that suggested even drooling child molesters would be welcomed by Bess' church.

And after she became mayor of Wasilla, according to Bess, Sarah Palin tried to get rid of his book from the local library. Palin now denies that she wanted to censor library books, but Bess insists that his book was on a "hit list" targeted by Palin. "I'm as certain of that as I am that I'm sitting here. This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do."

For the benefit of those who are totally puzzled by Doniger's nonsense, a quick FAQ about the strange creature known as the "postmodern professor":

Q: Does Doniger REALLY MEAN Palin is not a woman because she disagrees with her politically?

A: Alas, yes. For the last 30 years, feminist dogma had been that "woman" is NOT a biological term, but a "gender" term--who is a "woman" is defined by society and culture, not biology. There is a small (repeat: small) amount of truth in this, since of course when we speak about "woman" we tend to think about the average woman in our society.

But feminist then claimed, absurdly, that who is a woman is TOTALLY determined by society, and whether or not the person has a womb is irrelevant. People like Doniger really think being a woman is determined 100% by one's political and social views or position, and has NOTHING to do with biology.

So, no, Doniger isn't using the word "woman" metaphorically (like we might say someone "isn't a man" when we mean he's a coward). She REALLY MEANS Palin isn't a woman.

Q: If Doniger is for free speech, how come she wants to stop Palin from saying what she believes in?

A: "Free Speech", for many academics, means "free speech for any liberal view". It is consider "diversity" to have 57 varieties of radical feminism on campus. Conservatism, however, is described as "reactionary" and "fascist" and "against women's rights" and banned.

The problem here is deeper than merely not wanting opposition. The real problem is that for the liberal professors, the conservative worldview is not a worldview at all--it's similar to the flat-earth theory, something only deranged, primitive (oops--"primitive" is a *good* thing in their view; I mean *reactionary*), superstitious people could possibly take seriously.

So Doniger doesn't think she's a censor. She really DOES think she's in favor of free expression of all views. It's just that she cannot even conceive, or imagine, anything to the right of the mainstream democratic party as even BEING a coherent worldview.

Q: Are all humanities professors this loony?

A: Not by a long shot! The vast majority of them are not. Unfortunately, in *specific departments*--mostly those departments that require the least intellectual effort (e.g., "women studies" and other fake departments)--these people are the majority. In real humanities departments--philosophy, history, etc.--usually things are much better, and the scholars are real scholars.

The reason for this state of affairs is that there is de facto segregation in many universities: many women, gay, and black students who aren't good enough to become professors in real humanities departments claimed "racism" and "sexism". Universities, to get rid of them, created faux departments ("black studies", "spiritual" theology, "women studies", "centers for the study of gender").

Everybody's happy: these fools get to play university professor, and they're out of the way of real scholars. The philosophy or history department people, for example, usually simply totally ignore the women's studies "professors".

(To clarify, this is not an insult against women, gays, or blacks; MOST students are not good enough to become professors in real departments, whatever their sex or skin color. Competition is tough and one must be very bright. But white males who don't make the cut simply find jobs outside academia; for blacks and women, there's always the option of trying to become a "women studies" or "black studies" professor.)

Q: If most humanities professors aren't like that, why do we keep hearing from them in the media? Why don't we hear from real scholars?

A: Inferiority complex! (Okay, not really a complex--people like Doniger *really are* inferior to real professors).

Deep down, Doniger & the other faux professors in "opressed group X-studies" departments *KNOW* they're not taken seriously by real scholars because, well, they're just not good scholars. To protect their fragile ego, they do two things:

First, they go to the media and try to dazzle the "ignorant" (in their view) public with how "smart" and "educated" they are. Usually, as in Doniger's case, they just make fools of themselves, since--like most stupid people--they fail to realize the "stupid" public is actually much smarter than they are and laughs at their nonsense.

Yes, real scholars from serious departments *should* take more interest in the media and explain to the public the latest idiot "gay studies" nut on CNN isn't representative of the university, but most real scholars, understandably, find the prospect about as inviting as cleaning up after the elephants in the circus. So the skewed perception remains...

Second, they whine about "evil white eurocentric phallocentric anti-gay" things called "research", "standards", "objectivity", "truth", "logical thinking", and so on. Since they KNOW a logical analysis of their "scholarship" according to objective standards of evidence shows it to be totally worthless, they pretend the very idea of judging their work objectively is some sort of "opression" because it actually will show it to be inferior.

Hope this helps explain why Prof. Doniger, in the immortal words of King Arthur in Monty Python's movie, is "such a curious person".

It's sad enough that filth-spewing websites like Daily Kos and Democratic Blunderground spit out this poison. But a professor from a Divinity school? Who did Wendy study under? Fred Phelps? What a disgrace.

Newsflash for Ms. Doniger: Abortion is not "in the Constitution."

Perhaps a re-reading of our Constitution is in order.

So all beliefs welcome, except Palin's. She didn't cut funding or ban books, please look this stuff up.

I don't think they want to know the truth because it doesn't fit their agenda.

But not a woman? That is the words of a hateful person.

If the Democrats lose this election they should be disbanded, but they let MSNBC pick the candidate and Hillary should be apologized to. They are trying to focus on Palin as if she is going to do anything as VP and enough Matt Damon and your actuary tables (no one cares if millionaire actors are scared, scared is losing your job to a working class person). When your supporters are no longer going after the actual candidate and going after the pick of what is a ceremonial job, they have already lost

So how is it hipocrasy to love your daughter inspite of what she has done? Did not Christ say to love your enemies? How much more is her daughter than an enemy? And how can someone who claims to be a professor at a divinity school be so ignorant of the most basic of Christ's teachings?

seriously? This woman gets paid to write?

seriously?

I think you contradicted yourself.

In your bashing of the Great Governor Palin you said and I quote that

"I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people..."

Okay. So basically you don't want other people spreading their moral beliefs about sex out on anyone, but you rebuke Palin for doing just that (not spreading her sexual views).

When she line-item vetoed the half-way house for pregnant teens she abided by your tenants of non interference. When she did that she took the government, voter's money, and taxpayer's out of that woman's sexual consequences/ life.

Palin took the people out of those women's sexual business.

Now I don't understand your point. You are saying that she is a hypocrite. Where? Because her daughter became pregnant? Well she is going to get married to Levi - and let me tell you something I'd rather Sarah Palin tell me what's going on then have Obama's team try to destroy her -which they can't. Besides we would of figured out she was pregnant sooner or later.

Is she a hypocrite because she stands behind chastity? Virginity is not hard to keep - I am still one. I think it is noble. And very achievable.

Do not disrespect Governor Palin because you think her strong principled stances are too hard for you to conquer. Or even worse - you think so lowly of American girls that you think that they/ we can't obtain them.

As a black person I am used to hearing what we can and can not do - This woman has faith in us; and gives us faith in ourselves to become more.
Obama wants us to make him OUR faith. I am not buying that.

McCain/ PALIN 08'

Pharisian!

Wendy Doniger,

The question of when life begins is not just a religious one, but also a moral one. That you would take such an incredibly hardline, fundamentalist view and put on blinders a mile thick on the subject is just typical of radical feminists. As the stormtroopers fight to protect the female body, they care not for the female's body who is ripped in half and discarded into a waste bag.

I'd further like you to explain to me where the Constitution provides the right to abortion--(I know you're citing the First Amendment regarding abortion, but I'm calling that argument completely specious). I can, however, clearly cite the US Declaration of Independence that speaks of a God-given right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Or is this just discarded because it's "imposing a religious belief" on others. *massive roll of eyes*

Not only is it eggregiously offensive to claim that the origins of life should not be questioned, it is an absolute failure of the defense of human rights and human dignity. If believe something is murder, I will, without question, lash out at those who would destroy it.

Or would you take the view that genocide is perfectly okay that one considers another race sub-human or inferior? The question of what is human life should not only be vigorously debated, it is a moral imperative if one at all believes in the dignity of human life.

I have little patience for santimonious windbags who on one hand argue that the origins of life should not be legislated but dare to presume who is indeed a woman. It amuses me to no end how the feminists try to cross that divide.

This woman teaches theology? Wow!

booo--why are you so hateful, Wendy? Did you really mean to write about Palin: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman"? I believe that is a hurtful and small minded statement.

Well, not everyone can be a beautiful and successful Governor. Some people have to settle for being Wendy Doniger.

Wendy Doniger's greatest hypocrisy is her pretense that she is serious about academic freedom. In her sad universe, if a man is pro-life he might still be invited to call himself a man. But, a pro-life woman is engaging in the pretense that she is a woman. How shallow. What in heaven does that really mean anyway? p.s. doniger's second greatest hypocrisy is that she is serious about the accuracy of her argument. She states John McCain would not "reverse Roe v. Wade." John McCain has stated publicly that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided" and should be overturned.

Now we know why our Seminaries and Divinity Schools are such a joke. They are liberal cesspools.

Nothing more

Have a Blessed Day.

This youtube video actually contains more information than this blog post... enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWP5ljQV79s

Wendy Doniger writes like someone who has never been married, and has only cats in her life. What a tard.

WaPo MUST be closet McCain supporters. That's the only possible explanation for this. No rational person could possibly believe it would help Obama.

Sarah Palin is indeed a woman, despite the fact that she is not a liberal. Furthermore, the constitution does not place a woman's life above the life that she carries in utero. It does clearly state, however, that all of us are created equal.

This piece forms the definition of mean spirited.

TO: All
RE: After Reading this Item....

....and the 'credentials' of 'Doctor Doniger' listed in the preface....

....it's my considered opinion that she's a follower of Molech.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

TO: Al McCausland, et al.
RE: Jealousy

Imagine that, women hating women because she is successful! -- Al McCausland

Actually....

....I suspect it goes much further than that. Even as much as 'skin deep'. After all, the governor IS a 'beauty contestant'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hell hath no fury.....]

You liberals have nothing positive to say about Sarah Palin and hate her because she will blow Barack Hussein Obama away. Imagine that, women hating women because she is successful!
Hypocrites!

P.S. Even worse, you're obviously opposed to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, when you suggest that no one can express their religious beliefs in the public forum.

That, by definition, makes you an enemy of the Constitution of the United States.

I would suggest avoiding all soldiers, sailors, airmen and ESPECIALLY Marines....they might decide immediate action is required.....

TO: Wendy Doniger
RE: Look Whose Talking

But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public... -- Wendy Doniger

As in publishing their 'religious beliefs' in something like Newsweek?

Hypocrite!

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Let us cut out the nonsense...all religions are allowed in Dr. Doniger's civil discourse provide they don't espouse any beliefs! As to the hedge-Catholic Joe Biden, it is quite easy to "personally" not believe in abortion provided it doesn't cost you votes. As to the Constitution, Dr. Doniger & Senator Biden should return to its roots in English Common Law and the right of believers enshrined in the acts of Henry II, the Magna Carta and the laws of Edward III, instead of the arrogance and tyranny of the "law" of Henry VIII. As Thomas More said to Cardinal Wolsey "I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private
conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos. It was true in the 16th century and is still true today.

I am not going to vote for McCain-Palin, but this column is completely devoid of anything approaching common sense. Palin didn't "out" her daughter- her pregnant belly did!
Palin's "greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman"? Goodness gracious. She IS a woman, by any definition!
There are several other instances in just this one column of this sort of addled thinking.
Ms. Doniger has taken leave of her senses.

I've been on the fence in this election so far. I see good and bad on both sides. Who to vote against is probably how my reasoning will be at pull the lever time.

If a person is know by who their enemies are, I would certainly move towards the Republicans after reading this screed. Hard to believe that a person with a PhD could write such drivel.

I encourage Dr. Doinger to reread her own article" Thinking More Critically about Thinking too Critically" {cf divinity.uchicago.edu/faculty/doniger.shtml) where she states:

"Our moral discomfort becomes more complex if we extend our second naiveté to
cultures other than our own, and try to appreciate things in them from which we might
otherwise recoil. We bump headlong into moral relativism, the belief that each culture’s
ideas must be judged moral in their own context."

Palin's "culture" is definitely not Doniger's "culture". Doniger is saying her liberal values trump Palin's and that Doniger's are the "right" values. Cultural ethnocentrism?

Wendy, after reading this: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman", I'm wondering whether you haven't lost your own mind. "HER PRETENSE SHE IS A WOMAN"?

Are you hearing yourself?

So what is that will make her a "real" woman, Wendy?

Having multiple sex partners and aborting dozen of babies, then going on welfare?

What Professor Doniger, somewhat surprisingly, seems to forget, is that almost all the laws we have, including the Constitution, are based on someone "forcing" their views and beliefs on at least some unwilling parties, and often a rather large minority. It may be true that some of our laws, like those against, say, murder, are almost wholly universal, although even these have certain opponents, on the very far fringes of society. However, many of our other laws, like the Death Penalty, or Affirmative Action, to give examples from both sides of the political spectrum, are enforced on all, regardless of the fact that large portions of American society disagree with both.

The point, of couse, is that despite Doniger's claim that she "object[s] strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people," that is just what our nation does, anytime it passes, and enforces laws based on some conception of morality, and often with moral theology, be it laws against child molestation, or those supporting same sex marriage. The American system fundamentally disagrees with Doniger, because, while it respects the rights of others to disagree with the law, it is unafraid of laws with which others might disagree. How can any of us make any decisions without reference to creed, or, more generally, belief? If one truly believes that life begins at conception, than being against abortion is not only the obvious choice, but a Constitutional necessity - we do, after all, have that pesky clause about protecting life. If one does not have such a belief about life, than obviously the pro-choice forces are right in supporting a woman's sovereignty over her own body.

I can't help but wonder if Professor Doniger's criticism of Sarah Palin is, perhaps, a perfect example of the primary problem with liberalism today. Having won many of their battles over the past thirty years, many liberals, especially academic ones, seem to prefer to consider the matter closed, the debate settled. Those on the other side of the aisle disagree. Unfortunately, if Doniger and company truly wish never to enforce any beliefs on anyone, this must, of necessity, include their own beliefs. If someone is, truly, pro-life, she can easily argue, as Sarah Palin would, that killing a fetus is killing a human, thereby forcing one person's belief, the belief of a mother that her unborn child is not fully human, on another person. True freedom, of the type Doniger professes to value, requires that no decisions be permanent, all policies up for review, and that no politician ever make a decision based on anything but the public whim; if politicians cannot use what they believe to make their decisions, they can only use what other people believe, i.e. the voting public. I might refer Professor Doniger to Edmund Burke on that topic.

Wendy,

Help me, you are a professor of the History of Religions?

Did you miss the classes on Christianity?

Did you know that Christianity teaches love, compassion, humility and submission to a loving Heavenly Father?

I have rarely read such bigotry and hatred dressed up in "pretty speech".

You should be ashamed of yourself for your hard-heartedness and total lack of simple kindness.

You have some facts wrong and many attack points that are disingenuous as well as angry and hateful.

Please consider that disagreeing with someone politically does not give license to bigotry.

Love to all.

Wendy,
After reading a good number of the comments, they pretty much believe you to be an idiot. Enough said. I certainly do not need to weigh in on it.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women."

Dear Wendy Doniger:

Please keep writing this stuff for at least another two months. When Candidate Obama loses the election to Senator McCain, you can pat yourself on the back for having had some influence on the election.

Dear University of Chicago:

As an alumnus of the school, please rest assured that I will continue to donate to the Annual Fund even though you use my hard-earned dollars to pay for this sort of person (poor critical thinking skills, condescending attitude toward women) as a professor. Although I'm sure that if a man condescended toward a woman this way, you'd reprimand him for sexism.

Dear Wendy:

Two more things. What gives you the right to think that you speak for all women? For that matter, what makes you think that all women are - or should be - the same? I'm reminded as I read this piece ("her pretense that she is a woman") of the articles last year questioning whether Obama was "black enough". It's a sad state of affairs when someone who purports to be an intellectual descends to characterizing people by pre-conceived stereotypes and assumes that everyone of a certain characteristic (e.g., every woman) must behave in accordance with those prejudices. Why do you want to force her to believe the same things you do? Why do you get to define what women are and what they are permitted to believe?

You should respect (even rejoice in!) the fact that not every woman thinks alike and not every woman wants the same things from life - or from the government - that you want. Sarah Palin being a Governor and a mother and whatever else she wants to be is a triumph. This sort of success was denied to women just a few decades ago, and it is a real tribute to the progress we've made as a society. Why do you insist on tearing her down? Liberation means freedom - the freedom to choose any path you want. You should be proud of her success and more careful in your criticism of her.

Way to elevate the discussion Wendy! I find it refreshing, and life-affirming, to see a mom who 'walks the talk' in valuing life.
I don't know what the heck your viewpoint represents, but it is certainly not Christian.

Wendy:

I find your post self-righteous and a bit offensive. You're making large presumptions about what Ms. Palin will or will not do in office. The fact of the matter is, we don't know what any of them will do. Interesting that you get so riled up over a fundamentalist woman.

I felt queasy after reading this putrified rant. Such detritis! Such sanctimonious bile! What a shame that the University of Chicago has actually empowered her to think she's got anything worthwhile to post. The professor's twisted ideological belief that she is a legitimate voice of clear reason reflects her total disconnection from mainstream thought. Stick to Sanskrit Wendy!

I thought the point of the On Faith series was to provide a forum for differing views on religion, including those of nonbelievers. I have enjoyed reading many of the opinion pieces and lively debates. It is very hard, however, to see how Doninger's screed fits in with the On Faith series. Her piece is simply another version of the venom spewing forth from radical leftwing feminists who, after the election in November, will be wondering how Obama could have lost because they don't know anyone who voted for McCain/Palin paraphrasing the late Pauline Kael of The New Yorker who said that of Nixon in 1972).

I say all this as a likely Obama voter with very strong doubts about Palin's experience and preparation to be Vice President. But I have no doubt Palin is a woman. It is a good thing the Donigers of this world are not permitted to judge which women are and which women are not...well, women. I am a nonbeliever who continues to be puzzled why anyone in the 21st century pays heed to the political and philosophical silliness advanced by too many faculty members in "Divinity Schools", especially those at our "elite" universities.

Caveat: I am a pro-choice man.

Sara Palin is a true feminist:
Self-made
Successful
Has a family
Has a supportive husband

Political views are not a pre-requisite for being a successful career woman & mom.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women."

This kind of unhinged vitriol has little place in an intelligent discussion - let alone in a divinity school prof's blog. With all due respect Ms. Doniger, you are an embarrasment to the University.

It is hard to know where to begin. This article is reflective of O'Flaherty's personal leftist bias, misinterprets facts, and even repeats falsehoods about Palin and her positions that have been debunked by multiple media sources.

Palin did not "out her teenage daughter", the press were running with the story so she dealt with it. She did not conceal her own pregnancy at all- pretty hard to do anyway. And O'Flaherty apparently has a new definition of hypocrisy if she thinks that a woman's loving and supporting her pregnant daughter within a family means she can't object to using tax money to support pregnant teens outside of the family. And keep in mind, the daughter and her boyfriend are getting married and setting up their own family.

Saying that Palin is not a woman says more about O'Flaherty herself than about Palin. Palin is a true woman, and guess what- she not only cares about the problems of woman, she IS a working class woman. O'Flaherty is in no way a working class woman- she is employed in the academic setting, surrounded by others who think alike, where elitism and self justification are endemic.

People like O'Falherty are not happy that a woman can do things with the support of a husband, and be successful without government programs, because it conflicts with their goals.

It is outrageous, and again very telling about O'Flaherty herself, that she belittles having a womb, making babies and caring for children, the very thing that O'Flaherty's mother did, but then, of course, O'Falherty's mother was no doubt forced into it by society, and expectations, and a lack of other acceptable "career paths".

O'Flaherty invokes Obama approvingly, no doubt agreeing with him that "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her punished with a baby". Think of the difference- lovingly dealing with a new life vs. being "punished with a baby".

Woman like Palin are very threatening to O'Flaherty and her ilk, as Palin and those like her point out the hypocrisy of O'Flaherty's brand of feminism, which denies women the right to choose those traditional paths, without needing government help, and without paying homage to the strident females who, in the end, have denied their own womanhood.

wow, hard to guess who you support. barack was behind the teen pregnancy coverage, despite his media-friendly pleas to avoid the issue - he worked for and is a member of the blog that broke the story.

Oh, and Palin IS a woman, if you hadn't noticed; just because she doesn't hold your beliefs doesn't mean she's a man.

Nice fluff piece, with a mind like that, I can see how you could be taken in by all the hopey-changefulness. When Barack takes a real stance on an issue, instead of ummm-ing and giving nice, lawyerly issue avoidance answers, I'll be interested to hear what the most recent polls told him to think.

Ms. Doniger...if there's anyone who's lost their mind it is the radical feminist like you! Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman? How dare you!

I am a mother of 2 and a step mother to 2. I was a single parent for 7 years and never once asked the government to help me. Why? Because I could do it on my own with the help of my family.

Just because you continue to blame all of your bad decisions on the government and men doesn't mean that real women have to. Suck the government's tit all you want but leave us real women alone.

Sarah Palin speaks more for me that you could ever hope to. I find your words offensive, stupid and a total insult to women.
Shame on you!

In most modern divinity schools, if you are a transsexual defrocked priest who claims Jesus was really a woman (or homosexual, or black, or preferably all three), they'll make you the dean of the school for your "taboo-breaking" and "transgressive" ideas. But if you are a priest in good standing who actually thinks Jesus was the son of God, they'll consider you a reactionary influence that has no place in their department. (Unless you have some redeeming quality, such as admitting being sexually attracted to children, in which case they might keep you around as a part-time lecturer and unofficial department mascot, to remind the others of how awful Catholics are.)

The same "transgressive" and "taboo breaking" love of perversion and hatered of decency, incidentally, also poisons most art schools. I cannot photograph worth beans; if it wasn't for point-and-click automatic cameras, I wouldn't be able to get anything in focus. But if I photograph a "last supper" scene with Jesus as a nude Black woman, surrounded by the 12 apostles in SS Uniform (or whatever--it really isn't difficult to come up with a zillion such "transgressive" scenarios while shaving), then it won't matter that the picture isn't in focus and I cut off the head of the two guys on the right. My "transgressive", "shocking", "patriarchy-questioning" (etc., etc.) picture is sure to make me an up-and-coming, with-it, avant-guard, cutting-edge "performance artist".

("Performance artist", by the way, is the name usually given to those "artists" who cannot actually do any type of real art like music or painting. You know: the cover-yourself-with-chocolate, claim-to-have-an-abortion-as-an-art-project type of "artist".)

It's really not hard to be the next "cool" avant-guard artist or "progressive" religious department professor. No artistic talent or belief in God is necessary; if anything, they're a hindrance. The only question is, why on earth would anyone *want* to be the next Prof. Doniger or Robert Mapplentrop?

I have tried, reading twice, to see the merit in this view, but I must not be intelligent enough, or in academia. Can someone seriously deride Palin for simply admitting that her daughter is pregnant (Doniger calls it "outing")? What would the outcry have been if she hadn't? When they say the phrase "loony left", now I know what they mean. Disagreement is fine, but this sort of mischaracterization is simply, ridiculous.

WOW! Pathological! It sure is refreshing to see that the good professor's advanced education was money well spent... seems to have really opened her mind. NOT! Dear professor Wendy... regarding your gender... what would you delare yourself to be then, hmmm? It certainly is nice when a bloviated liberal intellectual elitist clearly declares herself as such! Makes 'em easier to avoid.

Evidently the divinity in this school's name refers to the candy and not to Christianity. Religion encompasses many belief systems, but Christianity is unique. That uniqueness seems to get lost in all the left wing mushy thinking that gets touted by elites as reason.

At first, I thought this article was satire. Could this sad excuse for a "woman" actually be doubting the womanhood of Sarah Palin? Ms Doniger has shown herself to have all the intellectual honesty of a 5 year old. Lets pretend that there was no God (which is an idea that probably already has Ms Doniger tingling). Lets just look at "nature". Ms Doniger fancies herself a real woman and talks about how real women have taken to their computers to protest Sarah Palins audacity in having 5 children. (Interestingly, there must be far fewer "real" women than Doniger thinks because women themselves are responsible for Palins magic in the polls). By nature, there is nothing more natural than for an unborn baby to find solace and protection in its mothers womb. There is also nothing more natural than a mother protecting her babies life with her own. We see this throughout the animal kingdom. With this in consideration, it is safe to say that there is no more unnatural act than for a mother-to-be to let someone infiltrate her womb and kill her developing baby. Since Ms Doniger apparently has never met an abortion that she doesn't like, and thinks that having abortion is a sign of true womanhood, then it is Ms Doniger who is the unnatural woman and Mrs Palin who is behaving how nature would dictate that a woman should behave. It is Ms Doniger who needs chromosome testing. What a pathetic legacy. She spends a lifetime tearing down anyone who believes in God, family and the nurturing of babies, while she advocates abortion at every turn, apparently going as far as the argue that its a right of passage into true womanhood. "She" is someone who believes in abortion for abortions sake. She has no interest in truly helping women. She is a man-hating, God-hating, self-hating, morally bankrupt individual who thinks herself capable of policing her own actions without the need of a God. And she has done such a great job of doing so that her hands are covered in the blood of countless unborn children, whom she was gleefully complicit in killing through the policies that she advocates and the political figures whom she supports. How very, very sad for America that someone like this is given a position of teacher and scholar. How very, very sad.

You should get your facts straight before you blow hard about much of what you have said. Banning books, forcing her view point on others? Where in God's kingdom do you think that came from? Someone's imagination gone wild! Obviously, you disagree with her conservative stance on every issue--that is your right! But to demean and belittle and dismiss Governor Palin as "not a woman." Well, someone might suggest that your invective is inhuman.

No wonder the Washington Post is losing money. They let any dried up old harridan file ignorant drivel and expect the readership to accept it as "truth". She might as well have written "Sarah Palin, I hate you to infinity". That would have been equally as intelligent and mature. One can only hope that, after a McCain/Palin win in November, people like Mrs. O'Flaherty will dry up and blow away.

To be entirely honest- afer 1 and 1/2 weeks of watching Palin parrot the exact same speech verbatim- I am dreadfully bored with her now.

Tigerlady-
While you expressed some dismay at what I have written- you didn't specify what exactly it was- so there is no way to address your discomfiture.

As for your outright statment that I was lying- tsk tsk-
her interview with Charles Gibson did not cover the things I spoke of, so of course you did not see any relation.

Here you go my firend-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Please check the facts for yourself with the very substantial and extensive resources there- and then apologize for an unkind undeserved slander.

Now, as to the OpEd piece- opinions are another issue, and we all have them.

The facts I posted are very solid.

Now, you are dead wrong about the Bush Doctrine.
Out of curiosity and for the sake of knowledge- I read the Bush Doctrine of 2002.
Palin didn't know what it was, nor did I before I read it.

It is funny- how tv affects peoples repsonses.
Roland Martin had a special on 7 Weeks To Go tonight on CNN and there was a woman who complained that Doniger said Palin wasn't a woman- at WAPO OnFaith (she gave all the info, I guess to direct blogger here-which I see happened)

And suddenly people are in here pretending that their wives suddenly came to the independent realition that Doniger denigrated the owmanhood of Palin!

At least be honest about your source- if I see something on tv- and it inspires a connection- at least I have the honesty and throughness to credit the source.

So now it is with some clairty we witness the sudden influx of pseudo-outrage at the womanhood of Palin.

Shame on you Tigerlady- can you not make the intellectual distinction between a difference of opinion without dragging personal insults to strangers on a blog?

These comments are fairly disgusting. I have no reason to believe Sarah Palin put her daughter in the public light to further her political career.

I'm tired of the anti-christian remarks that people like the author of this column continue to inflict on us--the American public.

>>>>>>My wife and I read your post and are extremely disturbed. My wife realises that she has not received her official certificate of womanhood from you. We are concerned that she is in fact not an "offical" female. If you could forward the required forms and documents we would be happy to return them as soon as possible.

Did your wife give birth to children? That might disqualify her, apparently.

Realpolitics--

Sorry I'm a bit ratty, but... put yourself in my position.

Suppose you were a plumber, and, like most plumbers, try to do a good jobs fixing leaks and opening clogged drains. Yet, every time you turn on the TV, there is some "activist plumber" talking, going on and on about the *REAL* purpose of plumbing is to "fight the white male eurocentric hegamony" by refusing to fixing leaks correctly in Republican voters' owned homes.

What's more, he's also (as is usually the case with these "activists") a "postmodernist" plumber, who claims the very idea that there is such things as leaks, or that we can determine objectively whether a pipe is leaking or not, is an evil eurocentric plot for the racist-colonialist goal of making colonialists feel superior to natives, just because native tribes didn't develop indoor plumbing.

Surely you see why I won't consider someone like that a plumber at all, and why it annoys actual plumbers, even mediocre ones, that this postmodern-activist fool is the face the plumbing profession shows to the world.

Yuck!! Pardon me while I try to sidestep this odious pile claiming to be journalism. Yuck!!

My wife and I read your post and are extremely disturbed. My wife realises that she has not received her official certificate of womanhood from you. We are concerned that she is in fact not an "offical" female. If you could forward the required forms and documents we would be happy to return them as soon as possible.

What a hateful article. I certainly would not be taking classes from this woman.

Harry Fromne - contain yourself. Do you form heart-felt political opinions based on one person's post that you've happened to stumble across On Faith? I sincerely hope not.

The general reaction to this author's post is beyond the pale. You'd think this was the only fault-finding Palin post on the internet! It does speak to the truth, however.

This author is one person, with one opinion. If you hate the contents of this thread, and other such 'liberalized' On Faith points of view, then why not blog elsewhere?

You can make up your mind as to whether you're a liberal or a conservative, based on what other people are thinking elsewhere, or you can learn to think for yourself. It's your decision to make.

The postings here are among the most unbalanced reactionary diatribes I've yet to see on the net. I'm sorry that you've included yourself in that number.

Mz Doniger states this about Gov Palin:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

when she looks like Roger Ebert with lipstick. Can I say such a thing and the Post will allow my Comments to be posted? She gets 'ugly' against Gov. Palin. What hypocrisy and hate! The Radical Left is soooo glowing with the buzzwords of "love" & "tolerance" but is intolerant & hateful towards those who disagree with liberalism. I was never & am not a Democrat or Republican, and leaned & at a more liberal place in my politics, but the hate & venom that comes from liberals like her, and so many liberals, & checking out the positions led me away from the fold. I still am not conservative on all things, but I am trusting it more than before in more areas.
Some of the things the Post says not to include in readers' Commnets are that which:

"# degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
"# is predatory, hateful..."

Doninger degrades Gov Palin on the basis of her gender, politics & religion so badly that she goes so low as to assert Gov. palin is only pretending to be a woman, because she doesn't salute & march in lockstep to her agenda of liberalism.
I hope Doniger wouldn't be able to post that filthy slur against Palin on the Comments section, though she can do so in the Washington post itself.
All beliefs welcome, unless they come from a woman who isn't liberal.
BTW, there are atheists who are pro-life on completely secular reasons, based on evidence they find convincing. Liberals "inflict" their religious, social, moral views on others. I could give a long list to prove this.

Mz Doniger states this about Gov Palin:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

when she looks like Robert Ebert with lipstick. Can I say such a thing and aloow my Comments to be posted? She gets 'ugly' gainst Gov. Palin. What hypocrisy and hate! The Radical Left is soooo glowing with the buzzwords of "love" & "tolerance" but is intolerant & hateful towards those who disagree with liberalism. I was never & am not a Democrat or Republican, and leaned & was at a more liberal place in my politics, but the hate & venom that comes from liberals like her, and so many liberals, & checking out the positions led me away from the fold. I still am not conservative on all things, but I am trusting it more than before in more areas.
Some of the things the Post says not to include in posts are that which:

"# degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
"# is predatory, hateful..."

Doninger degrades Gov Palin on the basis of her politics & religion so badly that she is only pretending to be a woman, because she doesn't salute & march in lockstep to her agenda of liberalism.
I hope Doniger wouldn't be able to post that filthy slur against Palin on the Comments section, though she can do so in the Washington post itself.
All beliefs welcome, unless they come from a woman who isn't liberal.
BTEW, there are atheists who are pro-life on completely secular reasons, based on evidence they find convincing. Liberals "inflict" their religious, social, moral views on others. I could give a long list to prove this.

Skeptic - your reasoned reply is appreciated. And I was compelled to re-read the Doniger piece yet again. There is a disconnect, to be sure.

Her academic title has virtually nothing to do with her personal opinion, nor did she ever say as much. This is not about the studied opinion of a PhD in religious studies and related ancient languages.

While I believe she spoke the truth, the piece was somewehat unfairly posed as the studied opinion of a religions expert. Politics in the street is not the stuff of academia, much less the realm of comparative religions....this despite the religious element that been infused in this election cycle!

She didn't pull out her doctoral degree her, just told it like she saw it. I could have recommended a re-write here and there, because although I believe I know what she meant, those with opposing views were probably quick to mis-interpret certain phrases.

For example, the statement, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman" would have made more sense if she had ended with.......'that she is every woman'.

Now this is absolutely true. The GOP is pandering to an entire population of female voters based on Sarah Palin's gender - and it worked in the short term. Not to mention the seemingly disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters in particular.

So the lesson here is simple - mean what you say, and make damn sure that you say what you mean. On the other hand, radical politics has never been very far from the classroom door - I don't know about your generation, but I went through undergraduate/graduate studies in the latter part of the 1960's.

Now that was great fun - I'd just finished a tour in Vietnam and got radicalized not too long after. I studied religion under a number of transplanted University of Chicago profs that gravitated to other religion departments in the Midwest.

I do sometimes wonder what the politics of my mentors from those long-ago days might be just lately - probably still democrats, even after all these years!

regards -

Someone asked whether I'm jealous of Prof. Doniger's achievements (such as they are) and therefore asked what I do for a living. Well, as it happens, I'm--of all things--a lecturer in the humanities, and, yes, recently had a book published about my research. It is of no interest to 99.999999% of the planet, but--unlike Prof. Doniger's work--at least it isn't a dirty book, and I'm not defending in it a totally trivial thesis.

As I see it, the problem with Prof. Doniger isn't that she's a bad scholar--for all I know, so am I; peraps my work is wrong for all I know, for some totally trivial reason that I just missed. The problem with her is that she isn't a scholar at all. She obviously sees the goal of her research, not to find out the truth--or at least to try to do so--but to propagandize for pornography and/or for whatever "gender studies" decided is the dogma du jour.

This is why the likes of Prof. Doniger annoy me and motivate me to post. The world needs to know not *all* academics in the humanities are such fools--self-important political propagandists mascarading as "scholars". There are many humanities professors, indeed most, who really do care about their research subject, often for no other reason than trying to find out the truth. They have political opinions, just like anybody else, but those are secondary to their life.

The fear I often hear on campus--that so-and-so is a liberal professor and will therefore fail anybody who dares to criticize socialism in his class--is, nine times out of ten, *NOT* true. But I can see where that fear comes from: it seems that every time I open the newspaper, or go online, I find one of the "activist" jackass-of-a-professor like Doniger making a fool of themselves. And now *I've* got to try and explain to students these guys aren't really the majority in academia, although it seems that way.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit nasty, but, put yourself in my place. Suppose you were a plumber, and every time you turn on the TV some idiot "activist plumber" is explaining that the *real* reason he became a plumber was to "raise the consciousness of the gender-capitalist-opressed people of color" by refusing to fix any leaks in evil Republicans' homes. This means you have to quiet down your conservative clients' fears before you could do any work. Wouldn't you be annoyed?

What we have here is not stalwart members of the Pat Robertson 700 club - no, I think we have a small team of bloggers that are swamping this thread with a multitude of Palin drone hate rants - the contest is on.

Which bloggerhead can post the greatest numober of psycho rants in one hour!? By and large, originality is greatly lacking though - you're making the GOP look alot like the groupthink zombies that they actually are.......another misfire, guys and gals of the GOP Darkness.

Good God! Anyone that would use right-wing political hack Charles Krauthammer as a veridical reference of any kind is really a reaching for the basement! The man has rarely told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his entire career!

That idiot is the most perennial neocon apologist with pseudo-journalistic pretentions to be found in the entire MSM.

Charles Gibson threw Palin softballs as we knew he would - she gave an interview under very strict GOP controlled guidelines, and she couldn't even handle a canned interview. Palin is the greenest thing about Alaska - a real political greenhorn with very unappetizing political views that is already beginning to backfire on the GOP cynicmeisters, big time.

She's a GOP sham and quite a con artist in her own right - her past and ever so brief life as the Alaska governor is coming undone as we speak.

They need to keep her locked away for sure - she would be the end of McIdiot in a heartbeat, if her unsuitability for office ever becomes common knowledge. It could be too late.

The GOP has engineered their own destruction with this deceitful little ploy, and not a minute too soon to save the nation from more inevitable years of abuse at the hands of the neocons and Karl Rove.

Skeptic - you should be applying all that deductive power to comprehending the duplicitous behavior of your own beloved party of the Big Lie - assorted rightwingers, neocons, and bible thumpers that think a trip back to the Dark Ages would be alot of fun.

We're halfway there, so you have reason to rejoice. I think your criticism of Ms. Doniger smacks just a wee bit of the bloated green monster whose name begins with a capital 'J'.

When was the date of your last publication, the title, and the university at which you're currently employed?

PS. The University of Google doesn't really count....

For those of you who held some hope Doniger is a serious scholar, apart from her pathological hatered of anyone more conservative than Mao, I've got bad news.

A quick google search found her most recent "scholarly" works are "Acts of Love" (a collection of ancient erotic poetry) and "The Essential Kamasutra".

Typical.

Of her more "serious" work, we have "Splitting the Difference", a book that argues that "sometimes culture is just a shadow of gender". Why, exactly, does she think ancient Hindu texts support this postmodernist feminist nonsense? Because sometimes "stories about women in different cultures are more similar to each other than to stories about men in the same culture."

Gee, no kidding? Nobody realized *THAT* before! Except for every five-year-old whose copy of "Fairy Tales from Different Land" has stories about little boys from different places that are more similar to each other than to stories about little girls in the same book.

Naturally, prof. Doniger cannot imagine any possible explanation for her "amazing discovery" except for the world being exactly just the way the postmodernist feminists think it is.

I suppose I could have made a more detailed search (e.g., checking academic databases) for a more complete picture of her work, but why bother? She's obviously just another sex- and "gender"-obsessed fool of a professor, whose "scholarship" ranges from the obscene to the obvious.

They're a dime a dozen.

Victoria, one more thing. You might also read the Op-Ed in the Washington Post today titled, "Charlie Gibson Wrong on the Bush Doctrine" by Charles Krauthammer. Just another view of the Gibson interview.

Sorry Victoria but all of recents posts are not truthful. I too watched the Gibson interview and saw it much differently. I also read the NYT Op-Ed by Bob Herbert and wrote back to the Public Editor some of the problems with the Gibson interview. You might want to answer some of these questions yourself!
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
Your Opinion Page has often been riddled with things that I disagreed with enormously and many that I found fascinating. However, Mr. Bob Herbert’s column on September 12, 2008 was beyond unforgivable to the public at large. I accepted that Mr. Herbert feels like Governor Sarah Palin might not be “She’s Not Ready”, until I actually read the Op-Ed piece in its entirety. Mr. Herbert has called Governor Palin in his own words, “I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.” Reading the piece makes it clear that not only does Mr. Herbert think that Governor Palin and all Republicans are dimwitted, but most importantly he makes a point of insinuating that people who want to vote for her are dimwitted. I do not understand how a newspaper can continue to allow Opinion Columnists to show such condescension towards the people who read your paper. I am an American woman with four children and a Master’s Degree; married to a degreed Engineer and can tell you that I am totally offended by Mr. Herbert’s column and by several of your previous Op-Ed columns. Shouldn’t you suggest that people such as Mr. Herbert stop putting their personal swipes at the American people, especially American women, on your pages?

I would like you, Mr. Hoyt, who is supposed to speak for the readers of the NY Times to please answer questions about this column. Do you support the position in Mr. Herbert’s column? Can you answer for Mr. Herbert’s claims of Senator McCain “promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot” which was casting aspersions on Senator McCain’s duty which included nearly giving his life for the United States? Can you answer to Mr. Herbert casting Senator McCain’s actions in picking a very well spoken, college educated, woman of 5 children with Executive experience (that Senator Obama doesn’t have) as “craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable?” Can you have him answer if he really does believe the people of America are “dimwitted” and just vote without thinking? Can you have him answer to me and millions of other intelligent, educated women (who are fairly informed about politics) about how he thinks that because she did not immediately know what Charles Gibson described as the Bush Doctrine (which was media created, ever evolving by the media political types specifically Gibson himself and Palin answered very effectively) that somehow disqualifies her as intelligent or worthy of the position of Vice President? Can you ask Mr. Herbert to not pretend that the majority of her answers were not cut and left on the editing room floor (in which I have now read the entire transcript)? Can you ask him what the importance of the so-called media created “Bush Doctrine” is except for it being synonymous or a collection of what the media talking heads believe that President Bush stands for? Can he then answer why he then fails to recognize that Governor Palin answered that question sincerely and powerfully (oh and by the way correctly)?

Dear Mr. Hoyt please be honest and open enough to answer and have Mr. Herbert answer these questions, because contrary to what is written in this ridiculous Op-Ed column, I am not dimwitted and not a sheep and not stupidly going to vote without conscience for anyone who I believe cannot lead the American people in the right direction. I would also like to know if Mr. Herbert and yourself have watched the comparative interview that Mr. Gibson did with Senator Obama when he first announced his run for President. I certainly did. I ask that you have Mr. Herbert look that transcript up and maybe the NY Times Public Editor can do a compare and contrast of that with the one with Governor Palin in the interest of honesty and fairness.

Thank you and I hope to read or hear your answers soon.
Sincerely,

I find when people have no logical point to make- or know that they have no reasonable respnse nor defense of an assertion, that they start slinging the ad hominems and attack the messenger.

Rick Davis said of this election, "Issues won't matter, personality will".

I see here, emotions- but not much intelligent attention paid to issues.

I think some people here are not aware that there are many records of Palin speaking about the issues here- google any of the key words in the question and there are youtube videos- and writings to access.

For just plain issues though, some of Palin's claims have been proven to be- misrepresentations.

"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay."

Yes, technically she put it on ebay- and failed to sell it. She sold it off line to a privaye buyer and took a monetary loss- the state paid 2.7 mil and she sold it for 2.1 mil-actually costing the taxpayers money. And add to that the $45,000.00 dollars JUST THIS YEAR she spent on plane fare for her and her family-

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere. If we want a bridge, we'll build one ourself."

In truth- Plain supported that bridge publicly and vocally until she got the governors seat (she platformed on it)
It wasn't until Congress and John McCain used it repeatedly as an example of wasted tax dollars,AND threatened to pull funding and her own constituents were solidly AGAINST it- that she decided not to build it.

O- And she kept the 300 million dollars allocated for it too.

Palin is against pork, and earmarks.

Well, only just now. She has earmarked 200 million dollars.

So, to me, the fact (and it is a fact- out of her own recorded mouth) that Palin thinks that god is on her side- is not necessarily a deal breaker.
I look to honesty and consistency in words and actions.

Actually, it seems that her evangelical background is the only thing she has going for her, politically.

I recommend her supporters and detractors alike look for her interview with Charles Gibson.

>>>>Dr. Doniger, I can only trust that you are far more learned in your chosen fields - Sanskrit and Indian Studies -in which your were awarded your doctorates.

Don't bet on it, Dr. Evans!

Nowadays, people in Indian studuies are more likely to get tenure for work "proving" Hindu scripture supports gay marriage, or for "defending the wisdom of traditional, natural societies" by praising the Hindu practice of burning widows alive, than for any real work.

It is unquestionable dogma in the humanities that there is no such thing as true or false interpretation, or right or wrong behavior--unless, that is, one claims "Bush lied!" or "Republicans are evil!". Critical thinking and a sense of morals are merely tools of white capitalist male Eurocentrist opression, you see.

For this reason, I'll bet good money Prof. Doniger's works are of the same quality as her rant here. This is also why her grammar is shaky and her vocabulary juvenile: the idea there is better or worse ways of using the English language is also one of those "white-male centered tools of opressions of colored people and women", naturaly.

Jesus H. Christ Wendy, I'm surprised that you've managed to pull so many haters our from under their rock, it's just amazing. And even more so, is how many write in identical Faux sound bites, the same crap regurgitated ad-infinitum.
If only bible thumping was a crime, so many of these pin heads would be in prison that the streets and freeways would be far easier to drive on.
Jerry w,
www.boskolives.wordpress.com

Dr. Doniger,

I can only trust that you are far more learned in your chosen fields - Sanskrit and Indian Studies -in which your were awarded your doctorates. I sincerely hope that the pathetic drivel that is found throughout your entire article is not indicative of your typical academic work. If it is indeed indicative, then you really ought to resign from your teaching position immediately, because you are obviously a charlatan. As an aside, if I were you, I would try to get my money back from Harvard and Oxford -it's painfully obvious that you've been cheated out of your tuition monies.

On the other hand, I would like to see you write 3 or 4 more articles just like the one above; given the reception of the first article, a few more of the same ilk should ensure a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November. Thanks again for your help in assuring another Republican victory this year and perhaps another 8 years of Sarah Palin as President beginning in 2012. Kudos and well done!

Best regards.
Dr. Stephen S. Evans

Dr. Doniger,

I can only trust that you are far more learned in your chosen fields - Sanskrit and Indian Studies -in which your were awarded your doctorates. I sincerely hope that the pathetic drivel that is found throughout your entire article is not indicative of your typical academic work. If it is indeed indicative, then you really ought to resign from your teaching position immediately, because you are obviously a charlatan. As an aside, if I were you, I would try to get my money back from Harvard and Oxford -it's painfully obvious that you've been cheated out of your tuition monies.

On the other hand, I would like to see you write 3 or 4 more articles just like the one above; given the reception of the first article, a few more of the same ilk should ensure a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November. Thanks again for your help in assuring another Republican victory this year and perhaps another 8 years of Sarah Palin as President beginning in 2012. Kudos and well done!

Best regards.
Dr. Stephen S. Evans

"[Gov Palin] does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women."

Whereas a Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor does. Riiiiiiiight.

Next time mention the FACT that as governor she never once forced her views on her constituents. Also, if you believe in god then you believe he put that life in a woman's body to be born and not murdered. AT LEAST BE SOMEWHAT HONEST FOR ONCE. I know the core liberal doctrine is to lie, but try telling the truth and maybe you wont be so angry.

Two things to say ... (1) Shame on you. (2) Your mother should have taught you better.

Others have already pointed out how Prof. Doniger's accusations against Palin are simply lies (e.g., the "book burning" part, the "cutting funding for unwed mothers" part, being a "fundie", etc.) so I won't repeat it. As for Palin not being a woman, that "criticism" is beyond comprehension.

What is amusing--in a sad sort of way--is that Prof. Doniger clearly considers the *only possible reason* for anyone to disagree with her liberal dogma about global warming, the enviornment, welfare, Iraq, guns, or anything else, is that "the good Lord" told them so--in other words, it just *has* to be a religious-based delusion due to being a "fundie".

Therefore, concludes Prof. Doniger, disagreeing with Prof. Doniger is *really* due to one's "fundamentalist religion", and, therefore, counts as "parading one's religion in public" and "forcing it on others". Which is a no-no, you know: seperation of Church and State and all that.

It is, I suppose, still legal to disagree with Prof. Doniger's views in the privacy of one's own home. In the dark. When nobody is around, of course. But how come America, which is supposed to be a secular country, actually allows people who *disagree with Prof. Donniger* (a sure sign of religous delusion) to run for office? I'm shocked--aren't you?--at how theocratic the USA is becoming.

I see Prof. Doniger is a professor at the University of Chicago, formerly one of America's great universities. That such an obvious clown is a professor there shows us the sad state of American humanities.

A year's tuition at the university of Chicago costs over $50,000. Yes, folks--for 50 grand, Prof. Doniger can teach your children to think (if that's the word) just like her.

What a deal!

WOW! For you to have so many degrees, and to be a professor of religious studies, yet have no actual relevant facts and only hearsay and innuendo is sad.
I have yet to hear Sarah Palin once speak about her faith, except from bloggers like you who continue to tell me how evil she is. does her actual faith in God make you nervous? To follow your whole idea that she also threw her daughter to the wolves, is pure stupidity, especially since bloggers like you were the one's who broke the story.
Do you hate and dislike her cause of an actual stand she has taken, or cause she is a woman that cannot possibly have a brain cause she does not believe what you believe cause we all know that all women in america want to be able to have abortions.
At least she has taken a stand. I may not feel the same way about an issue as Sarah, but I also cannot stand someone who answers "thats above my paygrade." Duck and run, take a stand in a place where taking a stand may not be popular.
oh and by the way, mam, you know better. As a theology professor, psalms 139 states, for you fomed me in the womb..........

I watched Charles Gibson interview Palin.
He asked her, why she insists that her daughter's DECISION (her words) regarding her pregancy is only her family's own business- and that should be respected-
Why doesn't that extend to the individual choices americans want to make for their own selves.

She didn't have an answer so he asked again, "Isn't it hypocritical to decide for others while retaining her own autonomy in decisions"

No answer for that either.
And isn't it a remarkable coincidence that her son conveniently signed up for service on 911- and was deployed one year later on 911?
I'm sure she wan't thinking of using that emotion laden date to advance her ambitions in any way.

She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is- but she DID say that she believes that Al-Qaeda was the reason we went into Iraq.
Even the Bush Administration doesn't purport this any more!

SO with Palin, we don't get 4 more years of the last 8- we get 4 more years retrograde policy fropm the beginning of Bush's term- minus the lessons even old dull George learned!

You are proof that education does not impart knowledge, nor wisdom.

This is one of the worst examples of commentary I've ever seen. It is also one of the most blatant examples of extreme stupidity it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. If Ms. Doniger had even a shred of integrity she'd immediately resign her job, tear up her diploma, and get the only job she's intellectually qualified for: "Would you like fries with that?"

I couldn't have gotten away with turning in a writing assignment that bad in junior high English class. To think that she pretends to teach college students is astounding.

Dear Ms. Doniger:

I do not agree with you at all.

1. The media has been "pushing" for answers from Sarah Palin. She is answering them with her opinions and expressing her stand on specific issues. They may or may not sit well with you, but at least she's answering. Obama skirts the issues.
2. Re: her daughter. Palin was in a no win situation. If the daughter's pregnancy was kept secret then Palin would have been accused of hiding something. Since the pregnancy has been made public she is being criticized by people like you for "outing" her daughter. Shame on you.
3. Re: guns. I grew up in rural North Dakota. We didn't run around killing things or people, just for fun. There's no difference in killing a deer or other animal for food than for you to walk into the supermarket and buy meat. Same difference. Yes, there is some "sport" hunting. There is a season for hunting. If there is an overpopulation of animals many of them die during the winter months because there's not enough food for them.
4. Global warming. Check your facts. Yesterday there was new information announced that we may in fact be entering a "global cooling" rather than a "global warming."
5. Re: abortion. Ever since I've had ears I have heard politicians express their viewpoints on the issue of abortion.
6. Re: abstinence. Just because parents teach their children certain values, there is never any guarantee that the children will follow by example or lesson. This in not Sarah's fault. Plus, no one has examined whether or not the boy was forceful or intimidating.
7. Re: religion. I agree that this is personl. However, why can't a politician express their personal religious beliefs?? Sarah is not forcing them on you, she's telling you how she views events based on her personal faith.
8. Re: books in the library. You are jumping to conclusions without knowing all of the facts. There is more to the book story.
9. Re: evolution vs. creationism. Why do we teach anything? How do you know that we weren't created by God? All theories should be taught, not just those embraced by atheists.

Monk, I did not make an assertion in my previous comments on Ms. Doniger's article. I merely indicated the overall grade I would have assigned to Ms. Doniger's work. You assumed, incorrectly, that in my posting I needed to give my reasons for Ms. Donigers grade.
As a teacher, we were cautioned about writing our reasons for a grade on the students work. Comments could be embarassing to a student if they were seen by others. Students were given free access, yes even encouraged to meet with us privately to discuss the basis for the grade they received.
Giving you my reasons for Ms. Doniger's low grade would violate a very important educational principle that states, "specific evidence that determines a students final grade on their work shall be kept private and shall further more only become public by written permission of the student".

You are going to miss those guns when they come to drag you to their church or kill you. How did American politics come to be so much about religion ? Religion is used to control people. Real Christians don't hate or want to take control like these people do...

.......and the self-righteous piety of the republican right is truly nauseating. To be honest, I can't believe I'm living in the same country with the bulk of the born-again idiots on this thread.

So this is what has been living next door to me all these years? Had I known, I'd never have left the house....

Monk, I did not make an assertion in my previous comments on Ms. Doniger's article. I merely indicated the overall grade I would have assigned to Ms. Doniger's work. You assumed, incorrectly, that in my posting I needed to give my reasons for Ms. Donigers grade.
As a teacher, we were cautioned about writing our reasons for a grade on the students work. Comments could be embarassing to a student if they were seen by others. Students were given free access, yes even encouraged to meet with us privately to discuss the basis for the grade they received.
Giving you my reasons for Ms. Doniger's low grade would violate a very important educational principle that states, "specific evidence that determines a students final grade on their work shall be kept private and shall further more only become public by written permission of the student".

So what we're seeing in these 700 and some posts is the face of the republican party?

Today is a very, very good to be a Democrat.

Givem both barrels Wendy. You really shouldn't have pulled your punches - take a lesson from McCain and tell the Big Lie, and then keep on lying! That way your fans never suspect the truth.

Imagine Mcliar in the Whitehouse - it's like Bush never left. Did I say left? Now that's a very bad word.

I meant to say, Bush was never right, and neither are McDufus and his born-again VP.

Vote Obama/Biden in '08!!!!!!

Doniger -
You don't have to worry about abortion - no man would come within 100 yards of your ugly face.

Clearly you're not a Constitutional scholar ... Abortion-choice is NOT "in the mother-lovin' constitution" as you purport.

Too liberal to function?

Your vitriol takes my breath away. Liberals really are wired differently.

Gov. Palin is not the one who has interjected her religious beliefs into this campaign. Nor is there any indication whatsoever that she intends to impose her beliefs on all of America. That bit of propaganda is the work of the Obama campaign and its unpaif press agents, the witch-hunting liberal media.

Why does it not surprise me that you are a college professor? You have no idea what the average American woman is like. We are like Sarah Palin! No, most of us are not as articulate and ambitious, but she speaks for us. She seems incredibly honest and intelligent AND she wants smaller government. After seeing what has come out of Washington during the last 20 years, I'd vote for her for PRESIDENT!

You remind me of Madeline M. O'Hare. Barf.

Madam, I would like to point out that people who own guns legally, rarely ever harm amybody. I would direct your attention to the animalistic underclass in this country that committs almost all of the crime. If you remove their commission of crimes from statistical analysis, the United States would have a per capita crime rate less than Switzerland. I would further direct your attention to our corrupt congress and senate. They are the ones who enacted the legislation which created and nurished a large uneducated underclass.
As to your opinion of Ms Palin. I would like to point out that it is extremely illogical to base an opinion on a political speech from any politician since it was written by a committee of profession speach writers and handlers. You have no idea what Ms Palin's values are or Mr. Obama's for that matter and neither does anyone else. If you believe you do then you delude yourself.

You and your friends don't get to decide who's a woman, or a person, and who's not.

I don't know if you will read all of these responses, but I wanted to write and say that I appreciate your input on the situation at hand. As a female, I would appreciate the choice of Palin as McCain's running mate were I not so absolutely sure that her choice stems solely from McCain's desire to be elected and not from any preparedness to govern on her part. She frightens me viscerally, particularly because she allows her religious beliefs to cross so heavily into the political spectrum. Judging by many of the other responses to your writings, this might not be the place to write this... but it almost makes me understand why the Ancient Romans outlawed Christianity and Judaism. As monotheistic, exclusive religions, they seem to be in conflict with their purported underlying message--one of love for all humanity. I do not want to take away the church from anyone and even if I am not a believer, I think that religion can be extremely beautiful. I spent every Sunday of the past year singing for three different church services and had the wonderful opportunity to learn about a beautiful and wonderful tradition in a very personal manner. I was there during Holy Week, singing every day, moving from plainchant and tears and bare walls to the bright, jubilant strains of flower-filled Easter morning. And I loved that every Sunday, these people gathered together to hear messages about love and about caring and about reaching out to the community, about their soup kitchen and the sick members of the parish. Religion should remind us of the good we can do for other people, of the positive interactions we can have with those who believe in Christ and those who believe in luck and those who believe in nothing at all. Insofar as this relates to politics, I have trouble understanding how anyone can justify overturning legal abortion while upholding the death penalty. In fact, I think it is an insult to us as human beings to make the decision for us, as if we cannot be trusted to know what is right and what is wrong. We know that it is wrong to kill other people. Abortion is nothing like going on a shooting spree or even plotting the death of another sentient being. Or animal. It is the result of a long and torturous self-examination, of deep regrets and of much sadness. Anyone who does not feel this way probably should have their head examined. But it doesn't mean that abortion should be illegal. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. And tell your friends not to have them. And feel free to disagree with the views of those that do have them, just as I disagree with those who picket at abortion clinics and support Sarah Palin. But don't legislate morality. Furthermore, for Palin to say that her daughter made a choice to keep the baby is assuming that her daughter had a choice--a choice that Sarah Palin would take away from every woman in America if she made abortions illegal. If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.

But as far as hypocrisy goes... they're ALL politicians. What do we expect? I will vote for the democratic candidate, as I always have planned, but it does not mean that I believe in everything Obama says (or that Hillary Clinton said). They are politicians, and nothing more. Not regular moms. Not regular dads. Not anything. They are playing a game, a very high-stakes game, in which they hope to find themselves controlling a large number of people and a whole lot of money. We will probably disagree with things they do. We will probably not want to be those people. We probably don't even want to have their job, since it must be a rather difficult one. But even the hypocrisy of politics does not stop me from fearing the irrational, calculating minds of Sarah Palin and John McCain.

I do not purport to change the beliefs of all that have written before me, nor would I want to. I just hope that we can all learn to love each other for who we are, to not treat the different amongst us as abominations but as "members incorporate of the mystical body of" humanity. Wherever we get our sense of morality, be it our church or our temple or our parents or our books, we need to recognize that all of us are humans even if we can't understand them. Will making Christian-themed legislation or involving ourselves in wars of religion solve this problem?

You are as ignorant maam as the studies suggest radical liberals are.....there's nothing about abortion in the Constitution!!!!! and yes Palin has real breast and a vagina...hence she is a really woman and American. But to you one has to hate America and its white people and their culture to be a good American....right BRAIN DEAD ugly woman?

I know you can't wait for the constitution to be a living breathing document so you can kill it for good.....disdain for it is the proud Progressive way since Pres Wilson.

By the way you idiots have no clue how to hold a conversation....you don't know anything about your past or present (not the virtual kind). and you never stay on track. The more educated you are the more stupid and pulseless you are.

The only type of people you talk to are yourselves...and you love congratulating each other on your brilliance and pervesions....but I promise....bad things alway catch up to you...have fun when they do.

I KNOW YOU WON'T POST THIS...YOU RADICAL "PROGRESSIVES" NEVER DO SHOW THE OTHER SIDE OF ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR MANTRA. HOW "OPEN-MINDED" (ie. NO BRAIN IN THE HEAD)!

BUT HERE I GO......

YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! "A HYPOCRITE FOR PRETENDING SHE'S A WOMAN"???!!! GUESS WHAT...I THINK ANYONE WITH 2 NEURONS CAN FIGURE OUT THAT INDEED SHE IS A WORKING WOMAN, A MOTHER, AND AN AMERICAN ONE AT THAT.

WHEN DID YOU LAST REPRODUCE YOURSELF?..AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE AN AVERAGE WOMAN!

ARE YOU JUST ANOTHER SCARED ELITIST...TRYING TO DICTATE YOUR WARPED SENSE OF ELITIST ETHIC ON OTHERS. DO YOU HATE THE FACT THAT SHE'S BEUTIFUL, INTELLIGENT, FAITHFUL TO HER GOD, FAMILY ORIENTED, AND MOST OF ALL GOT TO WHERE SHE IS WITHOUT TOTING YOUR PASSE FEMINIST FASCIST SLOGANS/DOCTRIN?

I'M NOTHING LIKE YOUR TYPE TOO BUT MADE IT QUITE NICELY IN PROFESSIONAL LIFE...I GUESS I'M A NONE ENTITY TO YOU....UNTERMENSCHEN EH?

AS IF YOUR TYPE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAN SHOWING OFF YOUR CAPACITY FOR MENTAL MASTURBATON TO YOUR OWN ENDOCTRINATED/NARROW MINDED KIND. YOUR DOCTRINE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING REGULAR PEOPLE SUCCEED AND BE HAPPY, AND SELF SUFFICIENT...IN FACT YOU NEED EVERYONE TO FAIL IN ORDER TO KEEP YOUR FLUFF JOBS. PATHETIC AND ALARMING THAT HITLERS LIKE YOURSELF ARE STILL OUT THERE AND PEOPLE LISTEN.

YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE...YOUR TYPE KEEP PREACHING ABOUT TAKING OFF LABELS AND HAVING THE FREEDOM TO BE YOURSELVES ETC...THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO BE AND THAT IS YOUR WAY. IF NOT, ONE CASES TO BE A RATIONAL HUMAN BEING...OR A WOMAN...OR A BLACK WOMAN AS IN MY CASE.

I ONCE WAS A WACKO LIKE YOU UNTIL I STARTED READING SERIOUS LITERATURE/PHILOSOPHY ETC AND REALIZED HOW RICH IN IDEAS OUR WESTERN CULTURE IS AND HOW VAPID AND DANGEROUS THE SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVE" MOVEMENT IS....THE ONLY REAL RELIGION THAT HAS CAUSED DEATH BY THE BILLION IS "ATHESTIC COLLECTIVISM"...DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW SCARED YOU ARE OF CHRISTIANS WHEN YOUR TYPE HAVE PERPETRATED UNTHINKABLE ABOMINATIONS AGAINST HUMANITY ON UNMENTIONABLE SCALES IN THE NAME OF THE LITTLE GUY...YOUR GOALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LITTLE GUY OR IT WOULD BE DONE BY NOW.....IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH YOU HAVING POWER AND BECOMING THE NEW ELITE...JUST LIKE SANTANA DESCRIBED.

EITHER YOU ARE IN ON IT OR YOU ARE BEING USED BY IT. EITHER WAY YOU AND WE WILL LOSE WITH THIS DEADLY DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

...AND I REALLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE EITHER WAY.

OUR CULTURE IS DEAD AND YOUR TYPE KILLED IT. WHY? BECAUSE OF HUBRIS AND RASCISM. DEEP DOWN YOU SECRETLY THINK THAT OUR CULTUR/RACE IS SO SUPERIOUR THAT IT CAN TAKE ANY ASSAULT ALL IN THE NAME OF FUN, GAMES, MONEY, AND YOUR EGO. WELL ITS NOT...AND AS YOU WILL FIND THE CULTURE THAT TAKES OVER WILL NEVER BE AS FREE AS THE ONE YOU ENJOY SHOOTING YOUR MOUTH OFF AT TODAY. THE PEOLE YOU MAKE FUN OF ON A DAILY BASIS AND EVEN HATE WILL NOT BE THERE TO SAVE YOU.

NOPE...I HOPE YOU REAP WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN..My guess is that when that day comes you'll be begging for the society based on christianity that yielded your "rights" to come back!!!

I KNOW YOU WON'T POST THIS...YOU RADICAL "PROGRESSIVES" NEVER DO SHOW THE OTHER SIDE OF ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR MANTRA. HOW "OPEN-MINDED" (ie. NO BRAIN IN THE HEAD)!

BUT HERE I GO......

YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR MIND!!! "A HYPOCRITE FOR PRETENDING SHE'S A WOMAN"???!!! GUESS WHAT...I THINK ANYONE WITH 2 NEURONS CAN FIGURE OUT THAT INDEED SHE IS A WORKING WOMAN, A MOTHER, AND AN AMERICAN ONE AT THAT.

WHEN DID YOU LAST REPRODUCE YOURSELF?..AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE AN AVERAGE WOMAN!

ARE YOU JUST ANOTHER SCARED ELITIST...TRYING TO DICTATE YOUR WARPED SENSE OF ELITIST ETHIC ON OTHERS. DO YOU HATE THE FACT THAT SHE'S BEUTIFUL, INTELLIGENT, FAITHFUL TO HER GOD, FAMILY ORIENTED, AND MOST OF ALL GOT TO WHERE SHE IS WITHOUT TOTING YOUR PASSE FEMINIST FASCIST SLOGANS/DOCTRIN?

I'M NOTHING LIKE YOUR TYPE TOO BUT MADE IT QUITE NICELY IN PROFESSIONAL LIFE...I GUESS I'M A NONE ENTITY TO YOU....UNTERMENSCHEN EH?

AS IF YOUR TYPE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAN SHOWING OFF YOUR CAPACITY FOR MENTAL MASTURBATON TO YOUR OWN ENDOCTRINATED/NARROW MINDED KIND. YOUR DOCTRINE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING REGULAR PEOPLE SUCCEED AND BE HAPPY, AND SELF SUFFICIENT...IN FACT YOU NEED EVERYONE TO FAIL IN ORDER TO KEEP YOUR FLUFF JOBS. PATHETIC AND ALARMING THAT HITLERS LIKE YOURSELF ARE STILL OUT THERE AND PEOPLE LISTEN.

YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE...YOUR TYPE KEEP PREACHING ABOUT TAKING OFF LABELS AND HAVING THE FREEDOM TO BE YOURSELVES ETC...THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO BE AND THAT IS YOUR WAY. IF NOT, ONE CASES TO BE A RATIONAL HUMAN BEING...OR A WOMAN...OR A BLACK WOMAN AS IN MY CASE.

I ONCE WAS A WACKO LIKE YOU UNTIL I STARTED READING SERIOUS LITERATURE/PHILOSOPHY ETC AND REALIZED HOW RICH IN IDEAS OUR WESTERN CULTURE IS AND HOW VAPID AND DANGEROUS THE SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVE" MOVEMENT IS....THE ONLY REAL RELIGION THAT HAS CAUSED DEATH BY THE BILLION IS "ATHESTIC COLLECTIVISM"...DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW SCARED YOU ARE OF CHRISTIANS WHEN YOUR TYPE HAVE PERPETRATED UNTHINKABLE ABOMINATIONS AGAINST HUMANITY ON UNMENTIONABLE SCALES IN THE NAME OF THE LITTLE GUY...YOUR GOALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LITTLE GUY OR IT WOULD BE DONE BY NOW.....IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH YOU HAVING POWER AND BECOMING THE NEW ELITE...JUST LIKE SANTANA DESCRIBED.

EITHER YOU ARE IN ON IT OR YOU ARE BEING USED BY IT. EITHER WAY YOU AND WE WILL LOSE WITH THIS DEADLY DYSFUNCTIONAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

...AND I REALLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE EITHER WAY.

OUR CULTURE IS DEAD AND YOUR TYPE KILLED IT. WHY? BECAUSE OF HUBRIS AND RASCISM. DEEP DOWN YOU SECRETLY THINK THAT OUR CULTUR/RACE IS SO SUPERIOUR THAT IT CAN TAKE ANY ASSAULT ALL IN THE NAME OF FUN, GAMES, MONEY, AND YOUR EGO. WELL ITS NOT...AND AS YOU WILL FIND THE CULTURE THAT TAKES OVER WILL NEVER BE AS FREE AS THE ONE YOU ENJOY SHOOTING YOUR MOUTH OFF AT TODAY. THE PEOLE YOU MAKE FUN OF ON A DAILY BASIS AND EVEN HATE WILL NOT BE THERE TO SAVE YOU.

NOPE...I HOPE YOU REAP WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN..My guess is that when that day comes you'll be begging for the society based on christianity that yielded your "rights" to come back!!!

Hey Wendy, if you had half the brain of Sarah Palin, you would know that abortion can be found nowhere in the constitution. It takes an amendment to the constitution to put abortion into it. That is why there is such a debate about it. The people never had a chance to vote on it.

All beliefs welcome is one of the most dishonest, misleading and disgusting posts I have read. Is this person a regular contributor to KOS? Why can the left never debate the issues honestly without all the personal vitriolic comments?

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” — Matthew 5:22

If I were you I would step back and review my CHRISTIAN beliefs.

Like Joe Biden is NOT a Catholic Christian because of his actions regarding abortion. Check with the actual Catholic Church before you teach falsehoods.

It’s continually amazing when someone from the so called free-thinking, tolerant and diverse side is confronted with someone from the traditional side whose beliefs are different from yours, how intolerant and averse to diversity you become and how put out you are because that side must represent an end to this great, evolved world of yours. You criticize the Republican party for believing Sarah Palin could capture the hearts and votes of women just because she has a womb and makes lots of babies? But don’t you think because YOU, or women like you and Hillary, have a womb and can make lots of babies (or kill them if you so choose) that the heart of the American woman is with you? Are you really so “enlightened” and “evolved” when you can’t fathom that women like Sarah Palin believe more in the life of an unborn child than the right to claim her body as her own when it comes to killing the life she’s carries? I bet if you took a minute to shake that jumbled mess of a head of yours to clear it from all the crap that’s in it, you would understand that the reason Sarah Palin has taken this country by storm is because she does represent and speak for so many women that you don’t speak for! Women who haven’t had a representative or voice in quite a while because people like you do your best to quash it at every turn – but that must be in the name of tolerance and diversity to protect YOUR enlightened and evolved world! And it’s hard to square Palin’s attitudes on family and abortion with McCain’s policy on abortion? Maybe they will have to agree to disagree on differing issues, such as abortion, as I’m sure President’s and VP’s have had to since elections began. But also, since we are already living in an America where women have the right to abort their unborn child, Sarah Palin, as well as all the women who believe as she does, have already had to learn to accept and live with many things we fundamentally disagree with and don’t believe in. But it freaks you out to imagine a world where you would have to accept and learn to live with something contrary to what you fundamentally believe in – you, the standard bearer for tolerance and diversity. How ironic that is!

Your comments are so ridiculous that further comment is useless. You claim to be open to people having religious views (as long as they keep them to themselves.) OBAMA strays from traditional Christianity by saying that "Jesus is one of many ways," and yet you don't complain of that airing. Yet SP has traditional views and you say she imposes them because she has them? She demonstrated her traditional views in loving her daughter in view of the daughter's straying from "the way." Isn't loving the sinner part of traditional Christianity? If she hadn't brought the fact to the public's attention, the vindictive press would have. She did it the right way, and yet you call her a hypocrite.

Sorry, your wisdom truly escapes me!

OH ... MY ... GOD !

Sorry ... Oh My Goodness! -- would probably be more acceptable to you.

It is mind-boggling how one person can get so few facts so wrong in so many ways. I am in awe.

I will pray for you.

Ah, yes. Christians, do only your beliefs matter and everyone else is "going to hell in a handbasket"?

If you were true Christians you would not be saying or doing what I have seen on this site. What is that saying of yours? "What Would Jesus Do"? Think about it...would he be doing and saying what you are or would he be for peace for all people and tolerance of others. RTFB - Read the F*&%ing Book!

I dunno if you read the polls... but apparently women are flocking to McCain/Palin and the horrendous attack, of which yours is mild in comparison I must admit, are not helping your case.

sorry... NObama.

Slaughtering the unborn is in our Constitution? Ms. Doniger will have to show me where...

Well, I was so dumbfounded at the overwhemingly negative response to this article that I had to re-read it, very carefully. And now I begin to see the problem. Over 700 posters on this thread are simply unable to read with acumen. They hate anything they perceive as 'liberal' or democratic, and read/react accordingly.

The born-again 'feminists' here are died-in-the wool republicans with republican values - the real feminist movement was conceived and carried forward by liberal democratic women, and really, the movement as a political statement is long dead. I think many of it's goals have been achieved. Working women and highly educated women in powerful positions is no novelty.

No indeed - women and mothers are everywhere in the workplace, and have been for decades. Trying to capture the 'feminist' title for yourselves just ain't gonna fly - anyone with a memory knows better.

You've got to hand it to the republicans though - some 30-40 years late, but they're finally getting the gist of what democratic women were talking about in the 1960's and 70's!

Furthermore, a good many of these posts are the very definition of 'knee-jerk' responses. I've seen any number of posters that claim to be former democrats now voting for McCain -and what a load of crap! You were never a democrat!

The best liars are invariably republicans in my experience (thinking of the Bush administration now) -they do it with such indignent self-righteousness!

In fact, there are over 700 republican voters on this thread, whether they admit it or not.

This piece simply points to the truth - Sarah Palin is eminently unqualified to be the Vice President of the USA, but is at the same time an effective strategy for getting John McCain elected.

This is the dark genius of Karl Rove at work - surely none of you think McCain is capable of such successful political maneuvers? Karl Rove must be laughing his ass off - he's got you right where he wants you, all of you Palin drones.

Now, I was an early Hillary supporter, and thought that she was indeed qualified for the White House - but it didn't work out. A real democrat will suck it up, and vote for their candidate.

As to Sarah Palin, compared to Hillary Clinton, the only thing they have in common is the lipstick.

OMG! When this poor farmer's daughter got an academic scholarship and went off to be indoctrinated at the Univ of Fl in 1969; this is what my daddy meant when he said he would never send another child off to college.

You liberals are not more highly evolved, not way more intelligent than the rest of us; you are all mentally ill.

I pray God will explode the scales from your eyes so you can see.

In reading several of the apparently Right WIng responses to the original article -- I would say your anger and characterizations indicate that you have difficulty reading anything without debilitating bias that binds you to the actual words that were written.

This makes it extremely difficult to hold an intelligent and informed conversation or dialog with you.

Many of those Right Wing comments make completely unfounded accusations about what WENDY DONIGER actually wrote -- The consequence is that you are presenting yourself as uneducated and/or possibly mentally incapable of correctly interpreting something was clearly written and which was NOT by any stretch as over the top as your responses.

Shame on you if indeed you think you people are Christians! Shame on you for you are the worst of the worst and if you are not aware of your misrepresentations you are ignorant as well as being fools.

OMG! When this poor farmer's daughter got an academic scholarship and went off to be indoctrinated at the Univ of Fl in 1969; this is what my daddy meant when he said he would never send another child off to college.

You liberals are not more highly evolved, not way more intelligent than the rest of us; you are all mentally ill.

I pray God will explode the scales from your eyes so you can see.

Wow. That's all I can say to this article. Clearly, her "god" that she does not want to inflict on "others" (except the lives of the unborn - it's okay to inflict on them?) is very confusing. I do wonder if her god may be political, instead of sciptural?

The words used in this article are very judgemental, contrary to what she dictates in her own words. Search your heart, Ms. Doniger.

This is too logical. A person AGAINST choice, against the environment, against so many things most women are FOR -- may be bad as a VP. But if that person is a woman, that'll sway some women. Especially if marketed appropriately. That's what Republicans are so very good at.

I just don't know why democratic national campaigns can't match the single-mindedness of the Republicans in spinning the facts and slogans to their advantage. Facts don't matter; policies don't matter. All that matters is winning the election. If facts and slogans can be harnessed to sway hearts and opinions, the Republicans will use those. If facts and slogans hurt them, they discard them on a dime and will spin abject lies as new truths.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. "

Wendy,

Who appointed you the arbiter and definer of womanhood? What this inane statement reveals is YOUR HYPOCRISY! Guess that you just couldn't help yourself from appearing like a fool given your outrage. Apparently after years of correctly complaining about the sexist and biased rejection of talented female candidates, the radical feminists have decided they would rather not have a woman president (which Sarah Palin would certainly have a good chance of becoming if the Republican ticket was elected) than have a woman president who challenges their moral definition of right and wrong and would prove that they do not speak for the majority of all women. They would no longer be able to claim to set the "feminist" agenda, and you all would be marginalized.

Yes, I did graduate from an elite liberal university, but used my wisdom to understand that the best place to live is in rural America if you want to live among hardworking typical Americans.

I like the analysis presented in this article. It is inline with my thinking as a non-religious yet deeply patriotic American.

The worst hypocrisy is that of the person using their religion as a shield from behind which they lie and repeatedly lie after the facts are already exposed.

I simply do not understand how the Republican party has fallen to such deplorable depths as to have nothing substantial to talk about and yet delights in outrageously absurd misrepresentations and lies.

They must covet the power of the Presidency very very much... Which should give pause to even the most rabid Republican.

Ms. Doniger - By what right or authority would you strip Ms. Palin of her erstwhile claim to female-ness and judge her a mere pretender to such? Is it for anything other than the fact that she does not agree with your understanding of what it is to be a woman? Are there no other women that favor Ms. Palin's understanding of their femininity? Are they all fraudulent pretenders as well? ...just because they don't agree with the likes of you???

You, Ms. Doniger are NO WAYS NEAR so tolerant as you'd apparently like to claim yourself to be.

Secondly, by what right or authority do you proscribe all people of faith from holding that their faith is of BOTH private and PUBLIC value? Who exactly are you to define all faith as being a strictly private matter unfit for the light of day or public practice and application?

Your clumsy summation crassly references the 'mother-lovin' constitution, ...but as I recall that document was the one that guarantees freedom OF religion in our public lives; which is the POLAR opposite of the freedom FROM religion you are demanding all our political leaders agree to as a condition of participation in public life.

If our religious lives are obliged to be kept closeted, exactly how it that we are religiously free???

Is Wendy Doniger on medication? What's with the desperate hysterics and tired leftist talking points? As for her being a religion "professor", who let this wolf in with the sheep?

I am surprised to hear that you did not know that Sarah Palin, who I am almost positive is a woman, believes in Pro Choice. She and her daughter have chosen life as their choice. Isn't that what being "Pro-Choice" all about?

The vitriolic attacks against this woman are unfortunately not surprising. In the arena of ideas, you have been found wanting.

I truly had no candidate before Sarah Palin came on the scene. May she not be the only one out there who stands up for the principles that people like yourself have worked so hard to erode over the years.

Another benefit of the leftist implosion is that it is exposing the rot festering in our universities, the last bastions of Marxism, Maoism, and fascism.

Keep it up, leftist professors. Soon the public will realize that the credential of a degree from the so-called elite universities isn't worth $200,000.

A degree from an elite college only shows that the graduate met high admissions standards. Employers will soon catch on that they can use SAT scores and high school records just as efficiently as college admission committees, cutting out the middle man.

--Mondonico

PS: No, I'm not an envious prole, I'm a traitor to the meritocracy! (BA Yale 1985; where did you do your undergraduate work, Prof. Daniger?)

"You need to study your law before posting stuff like this."

"No, overturning a law does NOT require an amendment of the constitution. It merely requires that the law be declared un-constitutional." >> Chris

No Chris, you need to read what I wrote and study up on *your* law before posting.

You quoted me, but yet didn't read or maybe understand what I wrote. How could you possibly miss what I wrote? Here, I'll explicitly point it out for you;

"Forth, to overturn Roe vs. Wade would require an Amendment to the US Constitution *** or for the SCotUS to over turn it ***..."

In order for a law to be declared unconstitutional *after* the SCotUS (that stands for Supreme Court of the United States) rules on it, ONLY the SCotUS can then overturn that decision. If you knew anything about US Constitutional law, you'd know that the SCotUS is the final arbiter and no other court can overturn that decision. There are ONLY two options for overturning a SCotUS decision, an Amendment to the US Constitution or for the SCotUS to overturn its previous decision. But, I'm just repeating myself. Perhaps you care to enlighten me now?

Reading these comments, I wonder where the Christians are: such a lot of name-calling, vicious comments. Perhaps Prof. Doniger has upset their worldview and suggested they should start thinking why people disagree with them.

Or, perhaps, the right-wing mafia just does a number on these comment areas: swift boating anyone who dares to disagree with them and attacking with dirty names anyone who deviates from their dogma.

The University of Chicago has long been a Conservative's Mecca. (I went there and know what they've promoted over the last 30 Conservative years.)

Maybe some of these people could use a little course on how to argue without character assassination.

Bravo, Prof. Doniger, for waving the flag in front of the conservatives' bull.

"And as for religion, I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who)... and, incidentally, a lot of polar bears and wolves, not to mention all the people who will be shot with the guns that she thinks other people ought to have."

There is yet to be any definitive proof that humans are the cause of climate change. You do know that 2007 saw the steepest temperature drop in recorded history?

Clearly you know nothing of the repurcussions of adding Polar bears to the endangered species list.

First, the whole basis for adding them to the list is that the ice caps are going to continue melting. This is pure speculation.

Second, the current system enables Inuit tribes to sell their hunting licenses to American hunters for $30,000. The selling of a license does not ensure a kill, and the proceeds provide sustenance for the local population.

The removal of this hunting process would undoubtedly increase the threat to Polar Bear populations, as the Inuits would no longer be selling their permits and would instead hunt them themselves, allowing the entire season to score a kill rather than a single hunting expedition.

And you've apparently ignored the fact that Polar Bear population has only been rising over the past decades.

"But he has gone out of his way to insist that he would not impose his personal views on others, and has indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion. That is the right answer. It's in the Constitution. It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's in the mother-lovin' Constitution."

Whether you like it or not, abortion is a moral debate that should not be decided by politicians or Federal law. Roe v Wade IS imposing his personal views on bible thumper states that view abortion as murder.

I don't know what you are saying is in the constitution. It seems you rely on what are known as "Activist Judges" to pass unconstitutional social policy. If you want Abortion to be a federally mandated legality you should amend the constitution. As of now, it should remain up to the democratic process of local state populations.

Using the central government to enforce morality is not Constitutional by any means, and Biden is probably the biggest opponent to Constitutional law.

I am personally pro-choice, but the debate shouldn't be made in the Supreme Court, it should be localized to state voters so that it doesn't pollute our national elections, and confuse simple minded "professors" like yourself.

???!!! The right to abort children is spelled out in the "mother-lovin'" Constitution? What version - Version 1973.0??

Joe Biden's reasoning fails logic, as does Ms. Doniger's. It's an embryological (not religious) fact that life begins at conception. This is a fact of Natural Law, something that the advances in science and technology have shown more vividly that at any other time. Yet in the face of these facts, Ms. Doniger and Mr. Biden encourage us that our response should be to "not impose our beliefs on others?" Cover your eyes, they say, this is none of your business.

I find it interesting that they would blindly invoke the Precautionary Principle in the face of the great uncertainty surrounding the idea of anthropogenic global warming, yet toss this same principle aside when confronted with the facts of life.

To Ms. Doniger and our misguided Senator from Delaware - thanks for showing your true colors. Apparently this faulty reasoning is not above either of your pay grades.

Your piece is quite something. Leaving commenting, per se, aside I have a question.

If Sen. Biden believes, as you note, that life begins at conception, how is he not imposing "his personal views on others..." when one of those "others" is the human he believes to exist from conception. This "other" is killed without an opportunity to advance his/her point of view on the overall situation. He/She is just killed.

If Sen. Biden believes that this unborn child is a life, isn't he imposing a view on the child? Aren't those who would kill him/her?

I know exactly how you feel when someone claims to speak for you as a woman, but doesn't have even the slightest understanding of who you are. Apparently women are pretty complex, because I have been offended for years to hear NOW claim to speak for me when I am nothing like their definition of a woman. Perhaps you ought to be applauding a society where women - you, me, and Sarah Palin included - can be so successful. I would love to see women encouraging each other; not tearing each other down just because we don't agree politically. You have taken a lot out of context and your rude demeaning tirade does not seem to be bringing civility to politics.

Wendy,
To get to know the women who connect to Sarah Palin - please go to www.GetterDoneGals.Blogspot.com
Thank you.

Too bad there isn't a "report offensive posts" button for the original article.

Methinks that Dr. Doniger protesteth too much and brag too much about how liberal and tolerant she is.

The Lying Doctor typed:

"I am on record in this blog (and have not budged an inch) as not objecting to any candidate's religious views.

But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual)..."

Actually, if Dr. D were honest, she would now admit she not only has "budged an inch" she is now on record as objecting to a candidate's religious views.

CASE CLOSED!!!

For all those preaching that "abstinence did not work" for Sarah Palin and her daughter. How do you know that they did not have a failure of birth control? Were you there at the moment of conception?

Funny how thin-skinned and bigoted some "tolerant" Liberals are...

Wendy Doniger (O'Mentally Ill).

Kinda says it all. Wendy, you are a sick individual. You incorrectly said Palin "outed" her daughter's pregnancy and "hid" her own.

Actually, were you intellectually honest you would at least have a clue that it was the media that did both of those things.

But then, Liberalism means never having to be intellectually honest (or any other kind of honest).

You are awfully mean-spirited, for a "tolerant" person.

You small-minded bigot!!

Ms. Doniger:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. "

You are a disgrace to your profession, your educational institution, and your gender. I pity you for your transparent bitterness and your obvious envy of a truly accomplished and fearless woman. You, on the other hand, are a failure in your desire to diminish her.

Michele Monopoli

So, you do not object to anyone's religious views unless they try to live them? How inane.

Sarah Palin makes not pretense of being a woman, is is a woman. You seem to be mixing the term woman (a biological designation) with the term Militant Feminist (a political designation). How small minded of you.

RS BUNKER

I haven't read the other comments, and I am not going to try and point out all that was wrong in this essay, because I don't think there was one sentence, certainly not one paragraph, in this entire thing that did not contain a falsehood, a lie, or something profoundly wrong.

Professor of Religious History, huh? How long ago was it that you sold your soul to the gods of political correctness and relative morality?

Her "pretense that she is a woman"? Her outing her teenage daughter in front of millions of people? I didn't feel as though any religious, maternal or family views were being "inflicted" upon me; I was happy to see a proud mother showing the world her family, a family that Sarah Palin is obviously very proud of. Would you rather she "hide" them from the media, what eyebrows would that raise? Your assessment of the Republican nominee for vice president has missed the mark, and by a wide margin. You don't get it; this woman is true to her convictions, family and to her country. She is what this country needs!

Suppose (though very unlikely) Sarah Palin were to become President and engineer an overturning of Roe v Wade. The separate states would then be the source of any health and safety Code pertaining to the subject. Anyone who thinks that abortion would be totllay illegal everywhere in the US for years after that is wrong, perhaps there would be a need for some to drive to a nearby state, but it wouldn't be illegal everywhere. What would happen though if there were a sea-change in attitude toward abortion? A demand for and therefore development of better birth control along with a perhaps more appreciate of the human fetus, or the Post Traumatic Stress some who have aborted feel (even males who caused -- can feel he "has" to be wild and crazy for longer becasue he was rejected as a man ready to take on fatherhood -- even subconsiously that can weigh on sensitive people)
So why can't we look at a woman who is not pro-abortion? We are free to discover who we relate to as women.

I'm sure this will be deleted, but, Doniger, you are worse than an idiot. You are a fool who demonstrates that, while ignorance can be cured with information, stupidity is terminal.

JFC! What is wrong with you people? You think since you believe in a book that told you God made this world you should be the ones to rule it? Why should I, as a woman, have some idiot in the Supreme Court or Congress or even the Presidency tell me what to do with my body? Just as abstinence did not work for Palin's family (including her) it will not work for others. Let the others make their choice. Since I don't believe in your God, I don't believe in your faith. I have a more intelligent aspect on life and do not let others tell me what to do with my personal affairs. Since these people who believe abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy do not teach it (or any other form of prevention) to their children, the schools are going to have to step in. By the way - since Palin's daughter is pregnant, she must not have used a condom...is that how you teach your children about STDs?

GROW UP!

Looks like somebody sounded a dog whistle. Even atheist Susan Jacoby's column hasn't gotten this many replies.
I must say, I'm glad I finally came upon a place like this full of such mature adults.

Bunch of rhetoric. No valuable content. Made to sell, not to get a real point across. This writer is not loving by any stretch because if she were, she would not have written this. She does not love Sarah Palin as a person on this earth.

Well done, Wendy, you have made yourself lower than when you started writing the article. And if you don't think that you point at her and you don't have three fingers pointing back, you are a liar. Horrible, absolutely horrible thoughts - in essence Ms. Wendy would just assume to have Mrs. Palin dead.

Oh, no, not that, because that would be intolerant!

I think the cynicism behind selecting Palin is very frightening: the purpose for selecting her escapes me, but I would guess that one reason might be that she's the "anti-Cheney" pick. That is, the promise that she would not be the powerful VP that Cheney has been. If McCain died in office, the power mongers would squash Palin into a flat-disk Lady Bug and take over our country IMO.

Govenor Palin increased the funding for the home, not as much as requested, but still an increase. Your prejudice shines through.

Funny, I haven't heard Palin try to force anyone into believing her way. But I do believe she doesn't think it's ok for governments to force others to pay for abortions. "She Palin does not speak for women." That's really an intelligent statement, Ms. Doniger writes. Palin never claims to speak for every woman or any woman. She is voicing he opinion, just like Doniger, Sally Quinn, and the others like to do. It's so funny. I used to think it was about "women." But now the truth is coming out, the curtain has been drawn back to reveal that Doniger and her ilk are not about "women." They are about their own liberal beliefs. These beliefs have been forced upon us for years, but now we finally have someone who speaks for those who haven't had a voice in the past. And guess what? Doniger and her buddies are running scared!

Um, Sweetie, being really, really well educated on certain things doesn't make you an expert on others. Nor does being exceptionally bright and well-informed confirm your views on American civics. But, I'll leave those at that.

The real embarrassment is your view of religion in civic life. You should know better. Religious views throughout the world, throughout time, have worked to both liberate and give dignity to human (and animal) life as well as to denigrate and destroy the same. Separating a person's moral views from their religious (or irreligious) ones is, quite simply, impossible. But you should know that.

It is better to show that the particular expression of a politician's moral views do not comport with the moral views of the populace than to presume that moral views arising (presumably) from one's religion should disqualify her. But, again, you should know that, too.

Thanks, and try to keep that angry, arrogant liberal shoved a liiiittle bit deeper down. It makes the rest of us Democrats nervous and the Republicans happy.

P.S. - By the way, the right to an abortion (or even bodily integrity) is not in the Constitution - anywhere. It's in a series of Supreme Court opinions. I'm sure UC has some law professors who could explain this to you.

Let me put this in terms even you moronic conservatives can understand. In your world, women would be FORCED to carry a child to term regardless of the circumstances. When was the last time you heard someone pro-choice advocate the forced abortion of your child?

That is the difference in the interpretation of "tolerance" between liberals and conservatives!

If Palin's greatest pretense is that she is a woman, then Doniger's greatest pretense is that she has something intelligent to say.

I wonder if this atheist shouts out against the violant Islamic faith and its medieval tenets of stoning, women being less than men, unable to work, etc.? Or does she just abuse Christians? She is jealous of Sarah Palin's accomplishment amongst her strong family values. Let's see: she loves Obama, who believes babies that live in botched abortions don't deserve to live, and Biden, whose church leaders have denounced him for his abortion beliefs. I just can't take this so-called "professor" seriously.

Perhaps my lack of higher education is the root cause of my confusion, but I have two questions for the professor.

Question 1 - Where does the Constitution guarantee a woman's right to an abortion? I must have missed that article.

Question 2 - How is Gov Palin not a woman? Does the term "woman" imply that one must have left-of-center views? I guess all those womb-bearing conservative life forms who like guns, religion, hunting, and don't believe in killing unborn babies is right must not be real women. I guess I better tell my wife and have her pass it on to the majority of the military wives in this country.

What a jealous, shriffled up old fart the eiditor is! Sarah DOES represent us working women--at least those of us who worhship our God, believe in morals and values which come ONLY through religion, and who worked after birthing children. And as a professor of the history of religions, I'm sure then that you despise Islam, which is imposing its doctrine through violence, right? I doubt it. Now Barack--let's see--he believes babies born in botched abortions should be stowed away in a closet to die. And Joe Biden? What a joke! He doesn't believe in ANYTHING, much less his Catholic religious doctrine. He, along with the fool Pelosi, has been renounced by a passle of church leaders about their abortion beliefs.
It's religion you oppose, correct? So my real question is---just what if it you fear about religion? Jealousy prevails!!!!!!!!

Oh dear... another Victorian Feminist taken to having fainting spells. I hope Ms. Doniger has someone nearby with some smelling salts.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as religious and anti-abortion, but neither has led their political lives with that belief, ever, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform of government, not society! In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays, put the ten commandments in every classroom and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. This all negates Obama's simple contention that McCain=Bush=more-of-the-same. Instead it was Obama who chose that demosaur Biden as running-mate.

The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters because they know many voted for her simply because she was a woman, that it was just "About time..." (for a woman in high office). Palin is much more attractive to them than Obama, and the fact that McCain is old is an asset rather than a liability -- they like the fact that she's but a heartbeat away from the Big Chair. It appeals to their Cinderella Complexes, that they too might be the Pretty Woman who is Flashdanced to celebrity and stardom, and become the next American Idol interviewed by Oprah.

And it's all working splendidly for the R's. They've done this masterfully, once again calling into question the D's continual claim that R's are just a bunch of dumb yokels.

What the...?

At least half of the "facts" in this rant are false. And an amazing little tool called the Internet will show you all kinds of interesting sites that have actual quotes on record to dispute your lunatic theories about Sarah Palin.

Keep believing in fairy tales. Does wonders for the Dems credibility with the average voter.

And to think I almost decided to vote for Obama until all of his "helpers" have let loose with their typical fringe insanity. I don't want you people within 50 feet, let alone the ear, of the president.

First, let me say that I'm disgusted with the amount of name-calling both in this piece and in the comments section. Act like adults, don't throw around names because you lack a better argument. Intellectual discussion degenerates with the first claim of someone being a left-wing baby hater, or right wing nut job. Relax, take a deep breath, and talk about the real issues.

As to the article's suggestion that the right to privacy is found in the Constitution, it's not. The ruling on Griswold vs. Connecticut, which first established the precedent for reproductive privacy rights, found there was a penumbra of this right in the Constitution. In other words, there was the faintest of shadows in the Constitution that supported a couple's right to use birth control. This same argument was used in Roe vs Wade.

The Supreme Court thought there was a shadow suggesting the right to privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution.

The line "As for sex, the hypocrisy of her outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people, hard on the heels of her concealing her own pregnancy (her faith in abstinence applying, apparently, only to non-Palins)" is a nonsensical waste of language. First, the circumstances were different for her pregnancy and her daughter's. Rather than let the Obama campaign find the skeleton in the closet of her daughter's pregnancy, Palin decided to be honest about it. Good parenting? That's a matter of debate. Hypocrisy? Please. And the insinuation that Palin only believes in abstinence for non-Palins is ridiculous. If a child does something, does that automatically mean that their parent's support that? NO, it does not. It's called disobedience, and it happens all the time in any parent-child relationship.

@ Joe, Katy Texas:

"Wow I just read some of the replies, You Republicans are running scared. Did the author hit a soft spot? Lets face it Palin maybe attractive, but she's still a Dragon."

Running scared because we commented on some old hack calling Palin a man? Why don't you admit that this isn't Joe, but rather the Author? No one would be stupid enough to back this wacko up in her claims that Palin is not a woman.

DESPERATE DEMS. DESPERATE.

@ Joe, Katy Texas:

"Wendy,

The article is awesome, you hit the ball out of the park."

I am embarrassed that you live in the same State as me. Please, move to California where water heads like you belong.

Wow I just read some of the replies, You Republicans are running scared. Did the author hit a soft spot? Lets face it Palin maybe attractive, but she's still a Dragon.

@ alex y.:

"Wow, 677 comments and more pouring in. That's a real solid fan base for sure."

If by "Fan Base" you mean "Outraged Public at Callous Remarks" then...yes. Quite a large base.

This old lady is the typical Democrat. Believe you can cast magical spells on people, summon the earth to "speak and walk like a human"...but when it comes to a GOD loving his CREATION (See: Unborn Child) you claim it's NOT POSSIBLE.

Did you come up with this while riding on your UNICORN like you wrote about? GET OFF THE CRACK, PSYCHO!!!!

Wow, belief in God is a private matter? I totally disagree - it is completely public and is everyone's business. She's totally misleading about her facts, as well. I Google'd her insinuation that Palin cut funding to a teen pregnancy center - she more than doubled the funding from 1.5million to 3.8million, but didn't support the 10 million sought. Only a democrat defines that as a "cut in funding."

Wendy,

The article is awesome, you hit the ball out of the park.

Wow, You are one rabbid sounding lady. Your rant does not sound vary distingushed or divine. I hope your splean is OK, venting it with that much force could put your health in danger. If this is an example of your high minded examination of Mrs. Palin's political comments, well, let's just say you sound more like an angry party hack than a professor of divinity. Next time, stay away from the keybord untill you cool down a bit. LOL Ed...

@ Chris:

You wrote:

"When she mentions the constitution she's referring to Thomas Jefferson's discussion of the first amendment, and within that, the separation of Church and State. Abortion, being an issue combining of sexual & religious values, and having no bearing on the governance of the state, falls on the Church side of the separation"

Why is it that when a pregnant mother is murdered, it's considered 2 counts of murder (1 for mother, 1 for unborn child) but when it's abortion, you liberal pukes claim "CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE!"

I claim MURDER. MURDER. MURDER.

You should take a minute to read your own full rules governing commentaries and discussions:

-degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability, or other classification
-is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass

Uh, Joe Biden would have the power to influence the change in the abortion laws which should be changed.

If he had the courage. I think the Serenity Prayer is most applicable.

Those who pray it know what sort of "change" is truly expected of the human race. And by Whom.

Wow, 677 comments and more pouring in. That's a real solid fan base for sure.

I agree that Palin fails to represent many women in America, myself certainly included, but I must ask the question, should she? Do we wonder if McCain or Obama represent American men suitably? It's regrettable that a sort of tribal mentality still exists; that when we disagree with a woman, particularly one who is supposed to be representative in some way, we oust her from the sex. Palin is a woman, and one whom I passionately disagree with about almost everything. Personal politics notwithstanding, the question is whether she is capable of running the country "tomorrow"-- a criterion McCain famously called for--and the answer is clearly no. This can be substantiated without the acrimonious gender politics that will in the end give spin-happy critics more substanceless ammunition.

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.

I guess she is some sort of neo-gendered creation. Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy in feminist ideology is the pretense that all have the be the same. If having lots of kids and driving them to school disqualifies you what qualifies you? Aborting as many as possible?

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.

I guess she is some sort of neo-gendered creation. Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy in feminist ideology is the pretense that all have the be the same. If having lots of kids and driving them to school disqualifies you what qualifies you? Aborting as many as possible?

You are in error. "It" is not in the constitution.

With all respect, I don't think you fully understand the real concept of Feminism, and a womans RIGHT To choose, that liberals push so ignorantly.

A woman has the RIGHT to give birth to her unborn child just as much as she has the right to kill her unborn child, in this country. What about that don't you understand as true feminism and equality for all women.

But I'm curious, what is it about the God that Sarah Palin and many others believe in scares you so much? Is it, that He has the same standards of a civil society that values life of all? Including the unborn?

You claim she is pushing her agenda that it REALLY IS OKAY for women to have children and raise a family, and work, or choose to stay home and have kids and raise their kids. But yet, you want to push your agenda that those things are some how wrong.

Do you believe as Obama does, that Children are some how a punishment?? When you reason that type of thinking out to it's most logical conclusion about what he's saying, he's telling his own children, they are a punishment to him and his wife. How sad it will be for them when they are old enough to realize that is how their parents really feel.

you see, that is the difference in thinking between those who push abortion and those who stand for life of the unborn, those who stand for life of the unborn see children as a Blessing not a punishment.

But are you afraid to face that truth? Did your own parents believe you were a punishment for them? Is that what you grew up to believe? Or do you believe that your parents love you and that you were a blessing in their life? If they believe you are blessing how could someone elses child therefore be a punishment???

Thank you, thank you! The cynicism that guided McCain's choice--as in, she's got a womb(I wanted to use the v-word but someone will probably say it's profane) so other women will vote for her-- riles me to no end. I really don't care that she photographs well or is tough, gun-toting mama, like one of the boys. What I care about are her stands on the issues.....I wish more women would peer through the haze and see her for what she is - another right-wing, anti-choice, book banning, etc etc candidate that the Republican Party has been spitting out for a long time. And there were many other qualified, experienced Republican women he could have chosen, but they were not far enough to the right to appease the minority right-wing base of their party. McCain keeps talking about change (a line which he stole from Obama because he isn't that original) but he's picked yet another clone.....what a disappointment.

Any more of your "Save the Caribou, Kill the babies", psycho-babble and you might have a coronary arrest.

Calm down. We're all in this together. Stop the hate!! Besides, it makes you look foolish.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman"

Wow! That is perhaps the most breathtakingly evil statement I have ever read in my many years of following politics.

It's no wonder Gov. Palin has made such an impact...and would have without even opening her mouth. She just runs a dagger through the heart of people like yourself, who in your ivory towers (the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School....SO impressive) are so far removed from real life that when someone REAL like Palin comes along, so many people are so energized and embrace her so heartily.

I'm sure the Obama campaign is just thrilled to receive this kind of support!

When she mentions the constitution she's referring to Thomas Jefferson's discussion of the first amendment, and within that, the separation of Church and State. Abortion, being an issue combining of sexual & religious values, and having no bearing on the governance of the state, falls on the Church side of the separation

But in the past eight years have lost sight of this incredibly important separation. Mixing church and state is what leads to countries like Iran, and I fear soon, the US. Please, please, consider the consequences of such a leader (Palin) in such contentious times. And drop all the self-righteous hate-mongering & pathetic indignation. It doesn't become proud Americans.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. "

Do you realize what you just said? She's not being hypocritical by claiming that she's a woman, she IS one!!! That's one of the stupidest things I've read yet on the smears against Sarah Palin. And another thing, I don't know if you jealous Dems realize this, but she's not the one running for President. Oh I know, you all love using the fear tactic, "OMG! McCain is sooo old, he's going to die in office, then you know who will have to move to the # 1 spot!"

You Dems are just pissed that you couldn't produce a woman candidate like Sarah Palin, so you attack her and her family mercilessly like the sad curs that you are. You're pathetic.

Research this nut job! She believes she can cast spells on people. She believes in Unicorns and regularly practices levitation.

SHE IS ON DRUGS OR IS MENTALLY HANDICAPPED.

The Washington Post has gone off the deep end this time. In constantly trying to influence the public's vote by spreading LIES and outright HATE towards the Republicans, they actually had a "Professor" that believes in FAIRIES write a commentary on how PALIN is actually a MAN???

This "News Source" is a joke.

You're kidding, right?

Was that article meant to be a joke, or an exercise in poor writing and poor communication skills?

Since when is a woman who has given birth to five children not a real woman?

When an angry, left wing, deranged individual says so?

There is no way that person is a real, authentic "Professor."

If they are, then that speaks volumes to the poor quality of education and the selection process in this day and age.

They'll let anyone become a "Professor."

Next article in this site should be written by our cat, who has better communication skills than this hate filled "Professor."

The hatred and distortions drips off the page!

Ms. Doniger,
Please provide us with the excerpt of the "mother-lovin' Constitution" where it says that one of our inalienable rights is the right to have an abortion on demand. I am not in favor of reversing Roe v Wade, and, despite all the clamor to the contrary, I have never heard Palin or McCain, or any conservative politician on the national scene say they would reverse Roe v Wade if elected. But, to claim, as you have done, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to abortion is ludicrous and exactly why conservatives claim that liberals are constantly rewriting the Constitution to fit their own peculiar take on life. It's curious to me that a professor of religious history is such an avid supporter of abortion on demand. And it's further curious that such a professor thinks that all modern women want is the right to have an abortion whenever they want. It's exactly how the left has misjudged American women for years now. The feminist agenda is rejected by the majority of women in this country because it is so life-negative, secular to the point of being anti-religion, and suffused with the notion that "Sex in the City" is a realistic portrayal of what women want.

I know the Washington Post has been one of the furthest left "news sites", but....come on!!! This article is so horrible that I am saving it for future posting! To think that someone out there let this wacko write an article shows how desperate the left is! This old lady believes she can CAST MAGICAL SPELLS AND RIDE UNICORNS!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA.

What about this "Palin is not a woman" remark? Hilarious! How desperate you look! Why don't you just CAST ONE OF YOUR SPELLS ON HER?? YOU ARE THAT THREATENED, AREN'T YOU????? Unbelievable. I normally read the articles in the Washington Post for a laugh, but letting this nut job write an article MUST BE A TAX WRITE OFF. LETTING THE MENTALLY HANDICAP EARN A PAYCHECK????

I hope that she reads this and realizes what a fool she looks like. The epitome of someone trying to be TOO ELITIST while maintaining that they are INTO ART. In the end, we know you look for substance in this world because YOU LACK ANY YOURSELF.

DIAF.

As a Pastor serving a large mainline church, I am glad to have this opinion piece as one more proof: No wonder the mainline protestant churches are dying!
Mean, uninformed pieces like this one stand as such wonderful examples of the hypocrisy/double standards of liberals. Liberals- and the out of touch people who claim the title "professor"- love to talk ad nauseam about their compassion, inclusivity, love, tolerance, etc. Yet this is only practiced towards those who agree with them.
Comrad Doniger is a perfect example of a small and petty person, who uses her position and title to get attention for her hate-filled worldview. The good news is that statistics continue to show the truth that fewer and fewer people are listening to her or people like her.; they have become cartoons characters!

Also, the drastic over-representation of the right wing in these blog comments (as well as nearly every OTHER blog on the damn internet these days) tells me that the responses here are being coordinated and manipulated to try and give the impression of an overwhelming consensus against the author. Classic Rovism, it's called ASTROTURFING.

NOONE'S BELIEVING THE ASTROTURD, DUMMIES.

I think Ms. Doniger's, to use her own words, "greatest hypocrisy" is her pretense that she understands women. Granted, she is a woman and likely understands herself. But Ms. Doniger's projections of her own beliefs and ideology on the rest of America's female population is over simplified and naive. Maybe she can relate to a specific beltway class of "hyper-educated" progressives, but she must concede that a significant percentage of women in the rest of America (outside SF, Manhattan and other bastions of liberal thought) are, like Gov. Palin, pro-life.

Ms. Doniger might consider taking an impartial look at why women like Gov. Palin choose to give birth to a child with down syndrome. She might also consider a candid look at why a large percentage of women find Gov. Palin so energizing and fresh. As a result, maybe Ms. Doniger would see a less partisan, more respectful and more excogitative discussion of the issue.

This "Professor" is a by product of our educational system. That is one area Sarah should focus on during her next term at the White House.
Is there mandatory Drug Testing of Professors ?

I don't need the future commander in chief of my military blowing kisses to people during an acceptance speech.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage."

It's exactly this kind of venom that makes up the tiniest people of the world. Sarah Palin doesn't need to worry about defending herself as a woman, it's obvious you believe a woman must be for all things and all people, what a joke. What a small person you are...

You certainly are full of your self.

You stated that Palin used, "a line-item veto to cut funding for a transitional home for teenage mothers in Alaska." This is, in fact, not true. Since you have based your opinion on false premises, your opinion is groundless. Know your facts before you base an opinion on them.

Thank you.

Thanks doc, one less school for my very gifted children to interview now that I know the caliber of mind "teaching" at U of C. You might want to wander over to the law school and read a book. Even very leftist jurists admit that abortion rights appear no where in the constitution, hence the need for penumbras and eminations. But of course the religion department joined the long marxist march of the english and social science departments long ago. I'm encouraging my kids toward the science world where facts, not feelings (with exception of global warming) still matter.

This is just another example of the extreme liberal view many of our educators convey to our children while they are captives in a classroom.

I am making sure my child is ready to weed through the liberal propoganda and make his own decisions based on well grounded beliefs.

I have always said, "beware the politician that wears his faith out on his sleeve". It is evident and plain to me that the idea of Palin becoming Vice President was not seriously entertained until recently - how may years has she prepared herself for such a position?

I am distrustful of anyone that wears their faith out on their sleeve when trying to earn my business and/or when asking for my vote.

We hear the talk of less government. It is not a question of less government but more effective government.
Come on folks! Snap out of it!

This poorly written, poorly thought ought screed was written by a professor??? Is far left zealotry the sole qualification required to be a professor today?

In Wendy's world, the desire to punish a thief for stealing is the imposition of one's morality on society. Someone who opposes criminal punishment then is also imposing their morality. State voters who vote for OR against gay marriage are imposing their morality on others. Every election is about one's sense of what's right and what's wrong, one's own morality.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, including Gov. Palin, who speaks for no one but herself.

As to comments made about Jesus being a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate being a Governor.

A couple points:
It was not Pontius Pilate who was the decider to put Jesus to Death, but the 'masses'. Pontius Pilate said that he had found nothing that would cause him to sentence Jesus to death. He would gladly have acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts in that direction, but gave way at once when his own position was threatened by the masses / mob rule.

Jesus is certainly beloved as my Saviour, but I don't know that I would vote for Him to be my Governor or my President. As Jesus said Himself in the Gospel according to Luke, Chapter 20, "24 Show me a penny. Whose image and inscription hath it? They answering, said to him: Caesar's. 25 And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things, that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's." In this comment, He clearly shows that He is of God, not of the local government. They have their role and He and God the Father have Theirs.

Would you please show me where the constitution advocates murder?

Was the receding of the icebergs from the US the work of human hands?

For a professor, you are pretty gullible in believing liberal doctrine.

In paragraph six you speak of how Obama said that we should leave people's families out of the election. While I agree with him Ms. Palin is quite a pickle here. If she covers up her daughter's pregnancy she will be ridiculed when it comes to light - and it eventually would have. So from a public relations standpoint it is better to get this out in the open early to prevent a scandal later. At any rate, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. People are looking at her and saying she shouldn't have made this announcement. While others would have thought that she is devious, dishonest, and unworthy of being a VP in this country because she didn't tell us up front. Either way she loses. I Believe that women in your position are jealous because you didn't get the nod. Could this be the female equivalent to penis envy? I think so.

Apparently, Dr. Doniger didn't even "review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions" for this blog as some of them are very apropos for posting as well. Shame on her for that. Twice the shame on the Washington Post for not accepting her article.
Furthermore, the U of Chicago needs to review its tolerance policies and apply them across the board... Don't think that will happen.

Prof. Doniger:

Isn't all law about imposing your beliefs on others? Why exactly is it wrong to kill someone or to steal? If I don't think it's a problem, why should your religion-based morals be forced on me? I really don't see how we can separate morals (religious or otherwise) from legal issues. I don't know why there's a difference between opposing abortion and opposing lying. Shouldn't they both be controversial since they are fundamentally belief issues?

Wow.

You've taken a full drink of the Kool-Aid, that's clear.

Shorter Doniger: "You are a woman if you deny your womanhood, kill your babies (especially the retarded ones) embrace APGW, agree with everything I say and vote Democratic. Anything else with a uterus that does not meet these guidelines is a hermaphrodite at best, monstrous alien at worst."

Time for the U of Chicago to find another Eliade Professor.

Basically, your article is a dishonest attempt at honestly analyzing Sarah Palin. You are obviously a left-wing person who may understand the "history of religion" but does not understand, or believe in religion. In fact, you probably fear people who believe in God unless it is done your way...if at all.
It is articles like yours that convince me and millions of Americans like me that hate is what the media is about. College professors are just as intellectually dishonest.
Maybe "you know who" really exists and you are wrong? Maybe global warming is partly caused by the normal cycles of the earth (there is lots of evidence to this point even if you don't want to acknowledge it). Can you admit that to be a contributing factor? Probably not because it is not according to your agenda.
At least on abortion and her daughter's pregnancy she has been open and honest. And she did not say so disingenuously, "it is above my paygrade."
You folks in the colleges and in the media just don't get it. You do not represent America's conscience!

Ms. Doniger:

This is one of the best articles I have read on the circus that has now become this election. Bravo for your honest comments and for pointing out a few "inconvenient truths" about Sarah Palin. I don't have anything against her, but for some reason people are only seeing that she has pretty glasses, is a "working mom," and so, therefore, somehow has the ability to lead our country. We are headed in such a dangerous direction that I shudder to imagine what would happen if Sarah Palin was suddenly our president. Thank you for such brilliant, on-the-nose observations. I am forwarding this to everyone I know. You've just won a new fan.

Hey Paul,

Thanks for all the facts you used to support your assertion, hypocrite!!!

Having taught for some 36 or more years in both public and private high schools here,in New Hampshire and Vermont, I have been on the lookout for a good example of what the decline in education has turned out to be. To be sure, we did succeed in teaching our students to write. What we failed to do was to teach them to think about the validity and accuracy of their writing.
I want to thank you for providing me with the case, in point, I have been looking for.
If you had turned in the above piece as a writing assignment stipulating fact and only fact, you would have been given an F for a grade.

Sophomoric persiflage masquerading as erudition.

I smell jealousy on you. Try another perfume, Sweetie (in the words of your savior, BO)

Your appearance shows that you have absolutely no respect for yourself. No wonder no man will have you.

Dog.

Ms. Doniger brings up some good points, but her method of presentation only seems to validate the assertion made by some moderates and conservatives that feminists look down and/or hate women who are strong advocates of conservative values. Ms. Doniger should have left such sneering comments as "Her greatest hypocrisy is her pretense that she is a woman" and "... that because she has a womb and makes lots of babies she speaks for the women of America" out. In fact, the entire column seems scornful. I am personally acquainted with many women who share Mrs. Palin's beliefs. Rather than attacking the views of these women with scorn, Ms. Doniger should have calmly and rationally explained why she disagreed with these views. Instead, Ms. Doniger only alienates those she disagrees with.

Why do you all leave responses for Wendy Doniger, do you actually think she would read them? She is far to enlightened to listen to us hopeless racist sexist bigots, who cling to our guns and religion.

Fortunately those on the left know whats best for us and will guide us to a greater understanding. Since we failed our indoctrination at the Government run liberal ideological schools, Obama can create a program of re-education camps.

The point of this piece, to all you conservative reactionaries that had to post personal attacks directed at the author, is to indicate that religion is individual and ANY attempt to legislate your religious morality runs counter to the first amendment of the constitution (Melvin, the first amendment trumps the fourteenth amendment, that's why it's called the FIRST amendment). I would argue that any time any religious person of any religion attempts to legislate their religion's morality, tax exempt status should be removed immediately from that religion and all of that religion's property across the entire country and it should never be restored again for any reason!

Hard to believe this ugly, hyper-partisan rant was written by someone associated with the same institution as Martin Marty.

Denigrating anyone's gender, race, religion, or social status for petty partisan reasons is the mark of a truly weak character and intellect. If this tripe is the product of a "distinquished professor", it's no wonder Amercians have little regard for modern academia.

You need to put some clothes on and stop pretending you are a woman.

I am so embarrassed for Sarah Palin after watching her interview with Charlie Gibson. If anyone including even the most partisan republicans still thinks she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency I have some beautiful swampland I would like to sell you.

Being a Democrat I have to admit that I was expecting her to be highly coached but I had not idea that she would ramble on when she obviously didn't have a clue about what the answer should be. I had no idea how scary she would be either. If I had a son heading overseas I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at Russia, especially when most of the credible evidence supports Russia’s story about the clash being Georgia's fault. It sure didn’t give me a safe and easy feeling learning that Palin was in contact with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. I wonder is she also got Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or Russian President Dmitry Medvedev take on what happened or did she just take John McCain’s version of the events? She say she doesn’t like corruption. I wonder how she would like to find out that the attacks were orchestrated to effect the U.S presidential election.

I knew the Republicans were capable of doing almost anything to stay in power, but I absolutely sincerely pray that George Bush and his cronies had nothing to do with encouraging Georgia to attack Russian peace keepers to effect the U.S presidential elections. I hope even they can’t be that hungry for power that they would risk a nuclear war. Explain to me how all of us being dead would help their corporate backers?
Russia has flexed their muscle a little recently, but nothing like the days of old. This is a Russia that is getting rich on energy sales to Western Europe. So why would they jeopardize such a good thing for so little gain and such bad public relations?

This woman is not only not someone that I don’t want as president, but the idea of her attending State funerals around the world as Vice President with her nonstop blabbing and know it all attitude scares the hell out of me. After hearing her I seriously question if she is even sane. What kind of person is asked to take on such a momentous task that will not only change her life but everyone around hers life and doesn’t even hesitate for even a split second to think it over? Only an insane person with grandiose delusions would act this selfishly. She is acting like someone called up and asked her to help make sand bags for a flood or asked her to go bowling. She doesn’t even have a clue of the vast amount knowledge that is in the heads of the people that are actually qualified for this position. You can’t learn it in a quickie cram session. It takes years to have a firm grasp of these matters.

For those of you that think Joe Biden doesn't know when to shut up, wait until you hear this woman drone on repeating herself in an attempt to try to avoid the next question.

How could any serious candidate for national office and especially a republican not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

Some might find how absolutely naive Sarah Palin is as refreshing but frankly I think it is dangerous and down right scary and choosing her was an absolute insult by John McCain towards the people of America, Democrats and Republicans alike. How could anyone that claims to love his country betray the American people in this way? He had so many better choices of both men and women most of which I would not have agreed with politically, but at least I could not have said they were absolutely incompetent for the job at hand.

I imagine after last night most of you Republicans feel the same way even though you dare not breathe a word of it for fear of being ostracized by your party bosses, but I beg of you to stand up and be heard and demand that your party put a qualified person in her position, please for the sake of our country.

"But he has gone out of his way to insist that he would not impose his personal views on others, and has indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion. That is the right answer. It's in the Constitution. It's not in the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's in the mother-lovin' Constitution."
****

I must have missed that secion about Abortion in the Constitution - can the esteemed professor please point me to the Article wherein our Founding Fathers established the right to kill our children? It is not in the base document; maybe is it in one of the amendments? Or maybe it is just another instance of legislation from the bench, contravening and bypassing the Constitution and the people's right to vote on this atrocity.

Wendy,
I thought your assessment of Palin intellectually dishonest and an unconvincing rant.
Accusing Palin of pretending to be a woman because she doe not conform to a lock-step ideologue, dishonors all feminists.
Pam

I'm amused when Extremists scream that Liberals are trying to make everyone believe the same ideology. This is just the opposite of what is really happening.

If you don't want an abortion don't have one. But don't restrict everyone's choice. Don't force your narrow definition of religion on the population. Don't ban books that don't agree with your limited view of the world.

In other words, "Live and let live". Now, were have I heard that before?

Eric

Amen, Sister! You have hit the nail on the head. Thank you!

It bothers me that women are only allowed to believe that abortion must be an option and that feminists invariably speak for us. Feminists do not speak for me and I do not consider abortion an option. I consider it murder. It is refreshing to me that Sarah Palin exemplifies many of my beliefs. There are too many of us who haven't been allowed to have a voice. This article is quite disrespectful to me and to my views, which I have not just accepted from others, but have thought out for myself and firmly believe. At the same time, even if we disagree with this blog, we must treat the author with respect. That's just basic courtesy, and I'd hate to live in a would without it.

I am the proud "fly over" parent of 3 young women who are voting McCain/Palin, because they believe in the right of freedom of thought as independents, not as hypocritical socialists.

They attended college in the Midwest (not East), they attend church by choice (Catholic) and they believe that abortion is wrong, and that leftists are "mean spirited" and elitist.

I am very proud of them, and their understanding that all women, not only leftist women, can reach for the stars.

Too bad for you, that your world is so constricting. Just another angry socialist.

Try reading the 14th Amendment: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

There is nothing quite like a political hack dressing up like an intellectual. This is nothing more than an in kind contribution to the Obama campaign. If you want a real eyefull, read some of the other article by this "Professor".... This person has propelled herself so far above it all that she can hardly be expected to relate to normal human experiences. When she makes the absurd assertion that Palin's claim to womanhood is a pretense it begs the question "how would she know?" Is the "Professor" now the arbiter of all things relating to womanhood? I don't think so. She is merely a frustrated person who seeks to find personal meaning by projecting her own sense of self loathing onto a perceived enemy. This is a pathetic individual. How enlightening that she is a University "Professor".

Karl's comment

"I agree with Wendy 100%. Barack Obama is our Hope. Only he will bring Change into everyone's life. People like McSame and his pig with lipstick have no business running for President. They are Nazis, just like Hitler Bush.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden had already anounced they will bring criminal charges against Hitler Bush and crimenal Cheney. They should go to jail, and this Palin pig and McSame should be put to jail too.

Obama/Biden 08"

With such a rational and reasoned debate being put forth, it's amazing how people can maintain different points of view!

---chortle---

I agree with Wendy 100%. Barack Obama is our Hope. Only he will bring Change into everyone's life. People like McSame and his pig with lipstick have no business running for President. They are Nazis, just like Hitler Bush.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden had already anounced they will bring criminal charges against Hitler Bush and crimenal Cheney. They should go to jail, and this Palin pig and McSame should be put to jail too.

Obama/Biden 08

Great Work Wendy,

I could tell way back when that you were smarter than the rest of us, and this article (or whaterver) proves it!

You Go Girl!!!!

Your pretence that you 'speak for women' demonstrates how blindly full of your self you are. You are blinded by hate and anger. Your intolerance and hatred of diversity is impossible to hide. You are hateful.

Wendy,
I actually dig your glasses, you've a got a late 80s/early90s chic thing going on(seriously), but back off of Sarah. Until you have the facts, and being able to put them together in a less hateful way, please do us a favor and shut up.

People actually read this crap and pay for a subscription besides. Incredible! This isn't journalism it is just liberal hate of all that is different than themselves. A liberal's idea of free speech is to take away all speech that is not in line with their own by calling it hate speech. I only see hate in this article. I guess it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Abortion seems to be the high sacrament of feminism. It is like offering your children to Moelek.

Is this idiot a colleague of William Ayers at U of C?

These are Obama's pals... Yep, let's let them govern this country.

Are those TV screens on your face, or are you a fashion disaster as well as a faith disaster?

This is probably the most disgusting piece of trash, disguised as journalism, that I have read in a very long time. WP should be ashamed for allowing stuff like this to be published on its pages. This is beyond the partisanship, this is vile.

It seems that the only ones that are losing their minds are Obamaniacs, such as this one. Can a woman really be so hateful towards another one?

I am a former Hilary supporter, and now a proud supporter of John McCain and wonderful Sarah Palin.

No Obama! No way! No how!!

Sandy

"And as for religion, I'd love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment" Wendy Doniger

I'd like to know how the Good Lord conveyed to you so clearly that slaughtering an innocent child is in the Constitution.. Hint.. It's not!

This blog is riddled with inaccuracies and shameless distortions.

First, legislation is written and passed because its authors believe that it is good for society. How do we know that it is good? We don't. We just know that the majority of us BELIEVE that it is. In democracies, the majority rules. So any law could be considered right by some people and wrong by others. Those who think a law is wrong will always feel like others' beliefs are being forced on them. Some people feel that government programs like welfare and social security are the result of someone's beliefs being forced on other people in the country. Why should some be forced to pay for social programs that benefit others? Because some lawmakers believe that it's the right thing to do, and they're forcing their beliefs on Americans.

So why is abortion any different? Some people think that abortion is okay. Others don't. Why not go through the normal democratic process of voting and see which one wins out? What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid that the majority of American women might choose to forfeit their right to abortion? If they do, then who was wrong? Them or you? The majority is right, of course. That's why society works. If everyone did whatever THEY thought was good, anarchy and chaos would follow.

Secondly, it was very distasteful of you to speak about Palin and her daughter the way you did. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when they're young. We've all done some things in our lives that were contrary to what our parents taught us. Do you really think that when a child does something wrong, it paints his/her parent as a hypocrite? If that's true than the world is full of them.

Besides that, I don't quite know what you mean regarding abstinence only applying to Palins. Parents create rules in order to protect their children from having to endure certain difficulties in life (The same reason God gives rules to all humans). When a child fails to live by those rules, he/she will suffer the natural consequences. In this case, the Palins taught their children to strive for abstinence until marriage in order to avoid the physical and emotional trauma that sex outside of a permanent committed relationship can cause. Pregnancy is one thing that can result from premarital sex, and it's obviously something that can disrupt life for a young girl who is still working to get an education and become independent. Because of this, Christians would prefer not to get pregnant until they can provide a stable home and loving family environment for the baby. If a teenage girl gets pregnant by a person that won't be around forever, the baby won't have a father, and that's not the ideal situation. However, that happens sometimes, and when it does, the same families that cautioned against premarital sex must come together and work to make the best of the situation. It happens every day in America, and that is what Sarah Palin is doing right now. The fact that she still loves her daughter even though she made a mistake does not mean that Palin is a hypocrite. It means she's a loving mother who is trying to help her daughter through a tough situation. What would you have had her do? Disown her own child? For someone who teaches about religions, you don't seem to know anything about forgiveness.

When you talk about Palin "outing her pregnant daughter in front of millions of people," and say things like "don't humiliate members of your family in order to get elected to public office," it sounds like you think it was inconsiderate of Palin to tell the truth about her daughter... If you think that was rude of her, when are you going to criticize the radical left bloggers who forced Palin to "out" her daughter? After all, she had no choice. They claimed that Palin's daughter was the real mother of Palin's youngest son. The hateful rumors already made her daughter out to be not only an unwed mother, but also a liar. Palin had to step in and say "hey, it's physically impossible for her to be the mother of my son because she is 5 months pregnant right now" Palin had no choice, and I think you know that. Why do you have to be misleading?

Also, Palin did not cut funding for the teenage mothers program. She actually increased the funding from $1.3 million to $3.9 million. The accusation that she cut funding was misleading. The program was expanding, and they proposed to increase the funding to $5 million, and she decided to increase it to $3.9 million instead. That's not cutting funding, that's increasing funding by 300%. Do you ever look at primary sources?

Your fourth paragraph is just an outrageous and stunning rant that makes no sense. What makes a woman less of a woman? Because she has different opinions and a different sense of right and wrong than you? Wow, you're so enlightened.

Again, I really think it would be a good idea for you to check into some primary sources before you just spread every rumor that crosses your path. For example, a quick trip to youtube would show you your error in saying that Palin believes God is rooting for the destruction of the lives of thousands of soldiers and innocent bystanders. I believe you're referring to the accusation by some that she claims to know God's will and that the troops were sent on a mission from God. That's based on a quote which was deliberately taken out of context so as to destroy its original meaning. The people who quote this can't even quote the entire sentence or else the truth of what she meant will become clear. The full quote was this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God...That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

This was a simple, standard Christian call to ask God for guidance. She wanted people to pray for the government and for the troops. She wanted people to pray that God would guide our leaders in their decisions so that God's plan would be fulfilled, whatever that may be. She never claimed to know God's plan. Again, you should understand that if you teach about religion.

Here's the link to the youtube video (Skip to 3:17):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0UQbA0ZmmM

As for the guns. Whatever. The notion that anyone who gets their hands on a gun is going to kill someone is just laughable. If you take guns away from good people, the only people left who will have guns are the police (and there will never be enough of them to protect everyone), and the bad guys. Nobody else will have any way to protect themselves from criminals.

Another rumor you tried to make people believe was that Palin tried to have books banned. That is completely untrue. The person who was librarian at the time says that Palin NEVER tried to ban any books, EVER. If you have seen a list of books that she supposedly tried to ban, you can rest assured that it's fake. Some lists include the first four Harry Potter books which hadn't even been published yet at the time.

And finally, you remarks about Biden are truly comedic. You just said that Biden should not vote according to his convictions. But if he's not voting according to his own convictions, how can you trust him to represent the people who elected him? People elect others based on their convictions with the faith that those people will represent them accordingly. If I were to vote for someone who believes that the social programs are essential and that it's a moral duty for those with more to provide for those with less, I would expect that person to vote for legislation that funds social programs. If they don't vote for the things they said they believed in, then what was the point in voting for them?

Abortion is just another issue like all the rest. People holding office (including Joe Biden) "impose [their] personal views on others" EVERY SINGLE DAY, and if the majority doesn't support a candidate's personal views, then they don't have to vote for him/her. That's how a republic works.

Sorry for the length, but there was just so much garbage I had to wade through.

Jaldhar:

I am a Hindu priest and what I want to know why on earth this story has a Hindu tag on it? While I suspect the majority of my community support Sen. Obama (not me BTW) they are conservative in their personal lives and they are apalled by the scurrilous attacks on Gov. Palin. She is practically the ideal woman by classical Hindu standards. On Faith should make clear that Prof. Donigers perverse views are entirely her own and do not represent Hindu opinion in the slightest.

September 11, 2008 8:57 AM

________________________________________

I concur! Not Hindu at all.

Governor Palin is an authentic and admirable woman who has achieved much with her own efforts. It is shocking that being against abortion counts as *not* being a real woman, when logic and feminine instinct would conclude otherwise.

The Obama-Biden team have some great policies, and it would be quite right for them to win the election. But there is no need for this kind of unfair attack of Governor Palin (and Senator McCain) in order to show support for the Dem team. And quite shocking it is when it comes from someone who teaches religion and has specialized in Hinduism among others.

As a fellow scholar, I find your lack of support for statements, poor logic, and use of incorrect and/or falsified information an embarrassment to acedemia. Unfortunately, I'm discovering more and more professors who espouse similar points of view and flawed logic. I am embarrassed to be even distantly associated with such tripe.

Thanks for sharing your views Wendy. I am glad that you support Joe Biden and his desire to impose my will on all unborn babies and potential conservative voters. You are right. A mother of five is certainly no represenatative of today's free thing enlightened woman. Keep up the great work!!!

Beelzebub

I'd heard of people that think like this.
I didn't believe they really existed.

Despite Wapo, Newsweek. and the Academy in the banner, Doniger (O’Flaherty) exhibits a surprising lack of erudition in this distortful little screed. Sadly, our nation still has several years to wade through the righteous but vapid indignation from the boomer generation of which Doniger (O’Flaherty) is so obviously a member.

I'm sorry Wendy, you get an F.

Sarah Palin is everything most feminists have ever wanted women to be - except wives, mothers, and conservatives.

This gives the lie to the feminist mantra of being “pro-women” and “pro-choice.” Many of them, apparently including yourself, have proven by their own words over the last week that they are only pro-women-who-agree-with-them, i.e., pro-abortion, etc., ad nauseum. I’ve never forgotten my mother’s comments when we were discussing feminism years ago and, more recently, Sarah Palin’s nomination. My mother’s generation came of age during the 1960s when a more radical feminism was being born. Her choice to stay at home and be a mother to four children, one of them with special needs, was devalued and denigrated by many women in the radical feminist mold who went to college and had careers. Some of them haven’t been shy about informing her that her choice was unimportant or that she was, somehow, a lesser person for having made such a choice. Nevertheless, like Sarah Palin, motherhood hasn’t stopped her from being involved in many activities outside the home.

As for myself, I am not of the impression that many feminists are looking out for our best interests. The advancement of women’s issues always seems to come at a cost that is more than I would want my son to bear, and because it generally involves injustice by one group towards another. I do not think that the ends (equality for women) justifies the means (oppressing men, unborn babies, and anyone else not agreeing with radical feminist ideology). It leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. All women are equal, but some women are more equal than others.

(By the way, that's not a religious argument. It's rational argument using, of all things, logic! And what's this about "embryological theology?" Who do you think you're fooling? Embryology is science and it's either true for all or it isn't true at all. The University of Chicago apparently needs to raise the bar in its hiring and tenure processes.)

Of course, we’ve seen all of this before during Clarence Thomas nomination to the United States Supreme Court. I made this observation early on after hearing some of the ridiculous comments about Sarah Palin that have poured forth. Feminists like you are now doing to Sarah Palin, what black activists did to Clarence Thomas. They considered him a traitor to his race. Palin is considered by radical feminists to be a traitor to her gender. It’s all eerily familiar. And unfortunately, par for the course.

Clarence Thomas explains it best:

"My new friends and I also made an effort to develop relationships with black staffers on the Democratic side of the aisle, many of whom viewed us with a mixture of curiosity and disapproval. Since nearly all of us were political moderates or outright liberals, I couldn’t see why they should be so disapproving, but they were, not because of our political views but simply because we were willing to work for Republicans. When Coretta Scott King visited Senator Danforth to ask for his assistance with a fund-raiser for the Martin Luther King Foundation, Alex Netchvolodoff asked me to accompany her to the Capitol to meet with the senator. After the visit was over, I walked Mrs. King to her waiting car, mentioning on the way that the senator was a good man who cared deeply about the plight of blacks in America. (He had a long, close relationship with Morehouse College, a historically black college, and had been a member of its board of trustees.) I lamented that so few blacks had voted for him. “Well, he is a Republican,” Mrs. King replied. I knew at once that I just learned something very important about the way most blacks felt towards the Republican Party

It didn’t surprise me, for I, too, had reflexively disliked most Republicans (John Bolton had been an exception) prior to going to work for Senator Danforth in Jefferson City. Still I found it hard to accept. “Black is a state of mind,” one black Democratic staffer told me, by which I assumed he meant being a liberal Democrat. That kind of all-us-black-folks-think-alike nonsense wasn’t part of my upbringing, and I saw it as nothing more than another way to herd blacks into a political camp."

Thomas, Clarence, My Grandfather’s Son, Harper Collins, 2007, pp. 124-25, [emphasis added].

This woman will not be herded. I, for one, am grateful that Sarah Palin speaks for me. I would venture to say that many other women, who have been woefully unrepresented by the radical-feminists-in-charge, will feel the same way.

To bad your mother didn't believe in abortion.

The real tragedy is the amount of bandwidth, and perhaps even a tree or two, sacrificed to put this in the public view.

This screed isn't journalism and it certainly isn't about faith. What can anyone expect from graduates of our institutions of higher learning. Communism has prevailed.

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman." Who are you to define the limits of what a woman gets to be? It seems to me women can be anything they choose to be (including conservatives).

"her faith in abstinence applying, apparently, only to non-Palin". It is clear to any halfway-intelligent (or honest) person that Palin's support of abstinence is referring to underage and pre-marital sex. (I'm not so dense that I don't get sarcasm, I just don't think it adds to the conversation very often.) And clearly, the fact that her daughter chose to have sex is not a decision Palin is happy with, but an abortion would in her opinion be a worse choice. Contrary to what you believe, many even today still practice(gasp!)abstinence before marriage.

Why is it that religious people on the left are absolutely clear about what God thinks about killing people (peace, not war, no death penalty, etc.), taking care of the poor (every government program you can possibly think of), but absolutely refuse to listen to what God says about sex, i.e, "thou shalt not commit adultery"?

Dear Wendy,

You might consider taking up jogging. One, it really does help clear your head, and given your apparent inability to construct a factual intellectually coherent argument, that would be a great benefit to you. B, it can help with moving your bowels. Clearly you need this as badly as anyone.

And thirdly, you really could stand to lose 60 or 70 lbs. And you'll contribute less to global warming in the process!

wendy, you are possibly the least intelligent person i've ever had the misfortune of reading their opinion

Wendy Doniger - take some time off - you're flipping out. This is the biggest load of hooey I've read in a while.

Oh, and you don't get to say who is or is not a woman. Oddly enough, the world does not revolve around you and your opinions.

Folks take a close look at this woman and her writing.

THIS is the type of garbage that has infested the modern American university in the guise of "scholarship".

Wow, that was a whole load of crap in just one post. Wendy should be congratulated on her colossal ignorance. To write several paragraphs and to get nearly everything wrong in her assessment of Gov. Palin is just astonishing.

Doesn't William Ayers also teach at the University of Chicago? Hmm, they'll employ any lunatic there, won't they? Wait, didn't Obama teach there as well? Birds of a feather, I'll say.

There always seems to be a common theme among these liberals. Stick together no matter how stupid it may make them look, distort a political opponents religious views as extreme and promote abortion whenever possible.

Oddly enough, when I googled "Feminism" I had to search through several definitions before I finally found one that actually mentioned abortion. I found that odd because it seems to be the only determining factor by the liberal hacks as to whether a woman can actually be called "a feminist."

This article also proves Rush's Undeniable Truth of Life #24: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society. What's up with those glasses? I haven't seen glasses like that since Robert Deniro wore a pair in the final scene of Casino!

It's sad what the liberals claim to be in the constitution, isn't it? Explains why most of them believe that the SCOTUS should base their rulings on fairness. They're just not smart enough to know that they're not that smart.

Assclown Wendy Doniger has done the impossible...unanimity within the blogosphere.

Mrs Doniger,
are you OK?
Is everything alright? I mean, from your commentary, it seems that you are very unhappy.

I hope you manage to work through your troubles.
You know, God has not provided a theory as an answer to our problems; he's provided a person.

All the Best

It would do Wendy Doniger good not to force her beliefs on others and take her own advice.

Jealousy sure isn't pretty

It's truly impressive the response this piece of garbage is getting. I have rarely seen any post anywhere, no matter how one-sided a blog or news site it is get such a universally bad reception.

Wendy Doniger may just be the dumbest person to ever post on the internet. How can she not have ONE positive response? Sorry, I haven't read all 600+ responses, but what I have read is universal panning of this ill-thought piece of agit-prop. Surely SOMEONE has to have a good word to say for the fine professor... Someone... ANYONE!?!?

What I am impressed with is the number of people who have found ways to respond to this without being offensive. Considering the utter worthlessness of the original screed, for that I commend all of you commenters. Way to bring your "A" games!

Firstly I am very curious as a person who has studied the constitution vigorously, in which line do you believe that the right to kill an unborn child is written on? It is certainly not anywhere I can find. Furthermore, Sarah Palin did not throw her pregnant daughter to the wolves that are the media, the wolves came to the door and she fought them off by giving them what they wanted: information. Sarah Palin's daughter made a mistake, something all humans are destine to do eventually. After all to error is human. But with this mistake they decided to do the right thing. They decided not to murder the child, and to have its lifeless body cast away into a dumpster behind an abortion clinic. They decided to act like adults and live with their burden. A burden that will become a beautiful child and live a long productive life. It will receive the chance to live and love and become a valuable member of our society. Lastly I find it terribly ironic that you even mention Governor Palin's inexperience, when the democratic presidential candidate is so severely lacking. In his entire tenior in the US and state senate Barack Obama has never found the time to author a single bill. Furthermore, when it came time to make the important decisions, entrusted