"Forget what they think of a candidate or a party's other stances..." Okay. But, at least be aware and beware...

In her first year as governor, Palin’s earmark requests exceeded $550 million. She submitted $197 million in earmarks – more per person than any other state – in her 2008 budget. When she was mayor, the citizens of her little town got 50 times as much federal pork as the average American! She hired Washington lobbyists to fill her town coffers. She is no reformer. She offers no change.

Palin enthusiastically supported and defended the $398 million Bridge to Nowhere project before she was against it. During the RNC, Palin claimed that she said, “Thanks but no thanks” to the infamous bridge. Not true. In 2006, she supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” Palin dropped her support after the project became a notorious symbol of pork. She kept $27 million to build the approach road to Nowhere. Palin loves pork. She is no reformer. She offers no change.

Palin was the director of fundraising for recently indicted Senator Stevens’ 527. Stevens is alleged to have a long history of corruption. Palin is no reformer. She offers no change.

Palin really made an expensive mess of things while mayor of that poor little town. When she became mayor, the town had no debt. She left the citizens with a $20 million IOU for a Sports Center. No one can tell this story better than that bastion of liberal bias, the Wall Street Journal. http://tinyurl.com/5ky34t Palin ran that little town like a true borrow and spend Republican. She is no reformer. She offers no change.

I clicked on 'the views of Gov Palin's church' to find out what they are, and which Protestant church it is. There wasn't anything there about it.

Instead, there are rather strange observations such as this:

"The essence of neoconservatism is the protection of Israel - a shared priority with evangelical Christians," said Paul Erickson, the Republican strategist who managed Pat Buchanan's presidential bid in 1992.

Relevance? It's a political post, so it must be a good opportunity to spout off talking points you read on some blog?

Mr. Zmirak,

Everytime I hear someone vilify Halliburton I turn off from their mainstream media echo. I often wonder what company that had the depth and breadth of industry, oil, Middle Eastern politics, and orgamizational knowledge that the opinionated individual would have had rebuild an oil based economy. Would they have chosen Google, Boeing, Gallo Vintners, Freddie Mac?

It is complete nonsense to assign any other company that task.
Unfortunately all Halliburton's profits and corporate taxes are now scattered around the Middle East because Halliburton abandoned the US for a more business friendly climate in Dubai where Halliburton is now homebased.

"Thanks a lot for nothing" goes to the Media and their minions for forcing the export of another American company.

Incidentally, did you know that the Media Industry is 4th from the bottom of 33 industries traded in the financial markets. It is sure death to invest your resources of intelligence, emotion, money and time there. Traditional Media is dying and in critical need of reform. Careful what you feed on. The markets, and people who know better, know what is toxic.

Another excellent article by Dr. Zmirak. With Tony Blair and George W flirting with the Catholic Church, maybe Gov. Palin would convert.

Deal Hudson can sneak some Scott Hahn tapes on Romans into the VP residence, she will understand convenantt theology and leave dispensationalism behind, before entering the White House.

"Me vote pretty this time." Doesn't that just contribute to the slanderous tone taken by the media towards the first ever female GOP contender for VP? And why don't you focus on her policies, rather than trying to tie her to some kind of conspiracy against Muslims? You sound an awful lot like the anarchists who break windows at conventions. They oppose the mere idea of moral authority, and ask questions like this: why can't Muslim despots have nukes, if we're aloud to have them? Don't immanentize the eschaton, Mr. Zmirak. Yes, that's a line that can be used on you libertarians as well. We live in a dangerous world, and there is no assurance whatsoever that the paradise promised by Ron Paul will come about if only we crawl into a hole militarily. It will find its way to our shores. You should know that, and advocate a strong national defense. I suppose if non-interventionists ever got their way, and we lived in a country that did not exert ourselves in the world, it wouldn't really matter to them if one day we got leveled by a terrorist attack. Because in the interim they would have lived in a near paradise on earth. Perhaps God will reward them for their accomplishments and consume them all into heaven before the rest of us get leveled. I guess that would be kind of like a rapture of sorts.

Andy, here are today's Wall Street Journal "talking points" about Palin's abuse of power and love of pork.
http://tinyurl.com/5nfxe8 And another: http://tinyurl.com/6h34t6

Dr. Z lays it out there! You have to respect that- even if you can't agree with all of his conclusions- which I don't. I am very much in favor of taking the plank out of my nation's own eye first- so I think it best to use our considerable influence to square Israel's policies with the Holy See/International Consensus viewpoint- and then our offer our protection will be made more in touch with justices' sake- the problem in the Arab-Persian Muslim world is one where we and "the West" have become so entangled- I would like to ask Dr. Z if he has read Fromkin's - A Peace to End all Peace- and Dreyfuss' - Devil's Game- and what he thought of their case that Islamic extremism is something that "We" have helped cultivate in the modern era- more as a hedge against more secular nationalists who would be more likely to upend the neo-colonial economics that dominate things.

My other question for Dr. Z - and please note that I am not trying to be disagreeable or hostil in any way- I truly respect your intellect and humor- which is why I seek to engage your views and feedback. I am very, very concerned that the Republican strategy to rely on strict constructionst interpretations as the means to overturn R v.Wade and thus turning abortion into a state's rights issue rather than one of natural law with 5th and 14th Amendment back-up. Isn't this strategy of state's rights one that seems all well and good on the surface, but if it succeeds then we have 50 fights instead of 1 to deal with- and there will be lots of states swinging back and forth, and planned parenthood will use some their billions to organize bus trips to neighboring states complete with party favors for abortion-minded women and their companions. This is gnawing at my soul- it makes it very difficult for me to accept that this state's right approach is even at the end of the day to be considered "pro-Life"- when even Clarence Thomas goes on record to say that when he does his job as Judge, he isn't a black man, he isn't a Catholic- what does that mean other than he is looking at Law as a positivist- with no linkage to Natural Law- no humanity allowed in his decisions, just an objective view of what was in the original founding father's minds and words - with apparently no ability to even reference the Declaration of Independence's stating that we have the right to life? How can I be made to see that Thomas's view is somehow heroic- I thought that our Christian discipleship was supposed to underpin our every action- and every profession has to deal with personal responsibility to the Natural Law- are Supreme Court Justices exempt? Is saying it's my job good enough reason to say that there is nothing to be done on abortion but send it back to 50 votes in 50 state legislatures?

This article was going somewhere until you started talking speculatively about Christian-Zionism, and how that relates to Mrs. Palin's church.

I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. Especially in Protestantism as a whole, where the pastor of a church may not be responsible to any higher up church leadership or maintenance of doctrine. We have no way of knowing whether Palin has thought about, or believes this to be true.

And if it was.....does it really matter?

As I've written elsewhere, without knowledge of the details, this sets off a red flag for me. The first thing that comes to mind is that Alaska has a population of only 670,053 people (as of the 2006 census.) That means that any “pet project” is going to carry a higher per-capita cost than in a more populous state.

Compare, for example, a hypothetical road-building project. Let’s say it goes 100 miles and costs $30 million. (I have no idea if these numbers are in the ballpark.) For Alaskans, the cost of that road per capita will be about $45 per person. In Virginia, with a population of 7,642,884, the cost per person of the same 100-mile road would be about $4.

And yet, Alaska is more than 14 times the size of Virginia in land area. They are going to need a lot more road to support a smaller population just because of the sheer size of the place. It’s easy to see why the state would have higher per-person earmarks when projects of Alaskan scale are measured against the size of the Alaskan populace.

Are we being honest in our comparisons? I don't know enough about the facts and figures to say. I do smell a rat, however.

Now, my sympathies in the Arab/Israeli conflict are squarely with the latter. I'm a lot more frightened of Islamists breeding suicide bombers all over Christendom than I am of AIPAC lobbyists roaming the halls of Congress. The former would happily blow me and my hometown to smithereens; at worst, the latter might pull strings to get me fired.

I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper, terrorism was imported to the middle east by Zionist extremists, and not the reverse. The notional Islamic terrorist is more often than not, an Israeli false flag, war-by-deception stooge.

AIPAC's influence, and Zionist terrorism are more fearsome and historically proven, than misguided or duped young Islamic youths.

Christian Zionism has proven itself a 'useful idiot' in support of Zionist war-crimes. Abortion is indeed the 'carrot' that keeps Christianity distracted from other injustices.

John, your articles are always fun to read.

I don't care: if we're going to be led into another stupid, useless war (which we will if either Obama or McCain wins) I'd rather look at her on the TV screen than Joe Biden!

Yes, he's put the cart before the horse; decades of AIPAC and kindred lobby control of Congress have created the Arab/Islamic animus against us--and in a part of the globe where the challenge should be Europe's, not Monroe Doctrine-violating America's.

As someone who has served in Alaska, let me educate everyone about those "earmarks."

The vast majority of the earmarks for Alaska, not all mind you - just most, are for military construction. Each year a certain very influential senator's staff would visit all the military bases and ask about construction projects...we weren't allowed to "lobby" the senate, obviously, but his staff requested copies of our project lists through the National Guard Bureau Legislative Liaison, and the Services.

Each year, multiple projects appeared on the list. The Governor has little/no play in this as the senator's staff, and the Military Constructions Cmte staffers, worked through channels in Washington to get the info. They do NOT go through the governor's office.

So...she's probably not the hypocrite the Left would like her to be...just unable to stop everything.

See here for an example of what I mean: http://tinyurl.com/5dcrw8

Re Tom Shipe:
Let me begin by thanking your for civil tone, and recognizing your earnestness and sincerity. I would start by referring to your extensive use in a previous post of the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching. I urge you to inquire as to the Magisterial level of authority of this formulation of Catholic thought--whose lead author, Cardinal Martino, is renowned for somewhat grand (and occasionally eccentric) theological statements. The level of certitude which you grant this Compendium seems to me greatly exaggerated, given that it is simply a document published by a Vatican congregation, dealing at once with binding moral principles, and with prudential applications of those issues which laymen may dispute. Frankly, if the Compendium does indeed teach that no country may refuse merely economic migrants, I would have to dissent from it vigorously--pointing to the total absence of such a teaching in any papal encyclical, Church council, or universal Catechism. That position seems to me so absurd and historically ungrounded that I must insist you cite a solemn exercise of the ordinary Magisterium in its support. Before you again use the Compendium as if it were an ex cathedra proclamation, look into this question, please--and remember that whatever its level of authority, it is surely LESS authoritative than Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. Shall I use my own reading of THAT document every time I wish to make a point?

Regarding Natural Law and the Supreme Court: Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are not appointed to make law, or to overturn the wishes of the people to accord with their private interpretation (however correct) of the Natural Law--any more than police officers are hired to do that. If this WERE true, Catholic justices who were orthodox would be obliged to use their power to outlaw, for instance, contraception--regardless of the wishes of a mostly non-Catholic (or dissenting Catholic) majority. It was not the business of Supreme Court judges in 1860 to overturn slavery; that was up to legislators, and for them to have tried would have been as much an abuse of power as a presidential decree banning contraception--and using the army, or Secret Service, to seize all such devices and medication in the U.S., the Constitution be damned. Remember the speech given to Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons," which justly represents, I think the views of that great statesman and saint:

Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.

William Roper : God's law!

Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

William Roper: While you talk, he's gone!

Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.

William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?

William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?

Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

*****************
By safety here, I mean safety from tyranny, from arbitrary use of power, from the disrespect for law that it would engender, and the likely civil war and persecution of the Church which would ensue. Preaching the Gospel, and keeping the Church's liberty to do so, is actually far MORE important than saving innocent lives.

John writes,

"It was not the business of Supreme Court judges in 1860 to overturn slavery; that was up to legislators, and for them to have tried would have been as much an abuse of power as a presidential decree banning contraception..."

Before I say anything, I'm just curious - how do you think slavery should have come to an end?

The South shouldn't have seceded. When it tried, the North shouldn't have used force to stop it. Slavery should have petered out in America the way it petered out in every other country in Christendom, including Brazil and Russia--without a bloody civil war.

Steve Skojec, others:

Not sure if it's really relevant to the topic of this thread, but "Reader's" announcements about Palin's record seem to have been largely debunked at factcheck.org.

(I say "largely" because, while the factcheck observations seem to indicate that she is just as much of a reformer as "Reader's" posts claim she isn't, the particular accusations and corrections don't line up perfectly.)

BTW, who is "Reader," anyhow? I notice that since the Palin nomination there has been a flood of new names, most notable for their studied anonymity, who show up on these (and other) boards, lob in a few pro-Obama (or anti-Palin) posts like grenades in the midst of unrelated threads of conversation, and depart.

Is this basically the electronic equivalent of those "primed" callers who, under the guise of regular listeners, call in to political talk-radio shows, make a few unsupported points without any interest in conversing, and vanish into the ether?

I'm not asserting that's what "Chet" and "Reader" are (how could I know?), but it does make me wonder. The phenomenon sure does seem to have picked up in the days since the Palin selection.

Dr. Z,

I appreciate the feedback- I would like to have other opinions re: the weight we should give to the Compendium of Social Doctrine- because I do not use it as a proof-text for my own preconceived notions, I was genuinely excited to hear that it was coming out, and figured it would be the most up-to-date teachings comprising our social doctrine in complete/conscise formulations. The intro to the Compendium seems to indicate that it is very authoritative- my own bishop, Bishop Wenski, uses it very extensively in his writings- so I know that we are to look to our own bishops for particular guidance on moral teachings- so I am left with your comments and some confusion. If I am not to use and promote the Compendium, along with the Papal Social Encyclicals, to offer parameters for orthodox Catholic discussion of the important issues- then what am I missing here?

As for the Natural Law and Supreme Court- I am also confused- in reading Prof. Rice's book on the Natural Law, he is saying exactly that we must have justices and laws that reflect the Natural Law- which in the case of our own Constitution- much of the Natural Law is inherent- but certain 'new things' come around like abortion on-demand, and it calls forth the need for a contiuance of natural law reasoning- combined with principles already in play in most constitutions- ours included- which is why he recommends using the 5th and 14th Amendments to strike down legal abortions- Natural Law is to be the ultimate "Go to" source for enacting some types of basic justice into our systems, when there is no other means at one's disposal. Drawing upon the Natural Law is not the same thing as cutting down all the human laws- it is just enabling our laws to develop as time goes on and new challenges develop- sort of like Catholic doctrine develops- not changes with the times- our Constitution also will need some development beyond just the difficult process of adding formal new Amendments, it needs more ongoing work checking society to the standards of natural law as cases emerge- with the Supreme Court reflecting a bit of the institutional role of the Magisterium in the temporal order- the work of the Church and State is complementary- both are going to have to rooted in Natural Law- I don't see how can escape that fact- without throwing out quotes, this seems to be the lessons I draw from then Cardinal Ratzinger's book - Truth and Tolerance as well.

I love that dialogue from "A Man For All Seasons." It's a great arguement for judicial restraint. For perspective though, I'd go back a bit further to St. Augustine. He wrote, "An unjust law is no law at all." Perhaps the two of these taken together can form the basis for how we are to conduct ourselves in relation to God's law as written in nature, and man's attempt to interpret that law for himself. A person should never violate their conscience, and that is not what More was advocating, merely deference to the written law in all areas of prudential judgement. As we know, he went to his death over the issue, following God rather than the King. "The King's good servant, but God's first." I like that line even better.

R.C.,

Thanks for pointing out both factcheck.org and the recent increase in anonymous commentators here. I've been noticing the rise in anonymity myself, and wonder where the courage of convictions behind this anonymity is.

Truth be told, however, there are individuals using only initials (such as yourself) whose discourse here is respectful and productive, so I decided in lieu of my own comment on the matter that perhaps what's good for the goose...

John,

I've heard Ron Paul repeating that argument for a long time now whenever he is questioned about it.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the South was prepared to let slavery die a natural death any time in the near future, possibly because the South depended upon slavery in a way that few other places by that point had, while at the same time countries such as Britain which had "peacefully" banned slavery still depended very much upon the cheap slave cotton produced in the South. There were a lot of vested interests in keeping at least one part of the world enslaved.

Kinda reminds me of today, where in this country we have a democratic form government where workers have basic human rights, and we talk a real big game about human rights, while profiting and in fact doing most of our business in countries where there are no human rights - to benefit from that cheap labor.

Anyway, when you look at the violence that precluded the Civil War, when you look at "Bloody Kansas", the Boarder Ruffians, etc. it is clear that the South was prepared to use terrorism and violence to ensure the expansion of slavery and perpetuate it indefinitely. The fight to expand slavery was in reality a fight to preserve a Senate majority, since demographic trends saw the North's population outpacing the South and forever relegating it to a minority in the House. The Senate was practically all the South had left. With it gone, that "peaceful" resolution would have been within sight, and slavery may have been legislated out of existence, so the slave owners sent their goons and thugs to the territories.

For the South the option was - peacefully acquiesce to the inevitable demographic trends that would eventually lead to the passing of anti-slavery amendments, or, secede from the Union and preserve slavery by force. The whole point of the secession was to remain slave states because of the deeply entrenched economic interests, egged on by Britain and other places dependent on cheap Southern cotton. They even wanted to expand into Cuba and who knows where else; slavery could have been regenerated on a world-scale with a Confederate victory.

Joe H. makes an excellent point about the pro-slavery extremists. However, the leadership of the Confederacy, as opposed to the fire-eaters, was largely resigned to (or in favor of) the decline of slavery. Had the South been allowed to secede, perhaps it would have violated all its high-flown principles, and tried to conquer Central America and Cuba. I think it unlikely. Slavery was not as economically efficient as ruthless mid-19th century capitalism; Irish labor (such as my ancestors) was cheaper than slave labor, and more expendable. When they dug the New Orleans canals, they used Irish workers; it was too dangerous to risk valuable "equipment" such as slaves.

Slavery was almost a deep an evil as abortion. Should we be willing to fight a civil war over the latter? If we passed a pro-life amendment, and California, New York, and 1/3 of the other states tried to secede, would you really advocate fighting to keep them in? Perhaps, given abortion's death toll, such a war would be "proportionate," and hence could be just. In the case of slavery, I'm less sure. Bl. Pope Pius IX and Lord Acton didn't think so....

"Slavery was almost a deep an evil as abortion. Should we be willing to fight a civil war over the latter?"

I've heard that debate a lot too, and so all I can say is that we may well find ourselves at a similar impasse at some point in the future.

The thing is that, like the first civil war such a war would not be fought over the issue, be it abortion or slavery. Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, at least at first, and so the question is, is THAT a just reason to go to war?

RE: Joe H. Yes. I agree that Lincoln had as much right to go to war in 1860 as King George III did in 1776--to preserve the unity of his polity against those who would break it for reasons that did not meet the criterion for a Just War. However, since Lincoln accepted the principles justifying 1776, he had no consistent argument for preventing the secession of the states which had themselves rejected the sovereignty of Great Britain.

Since I question the Just War credentials of the American Revolution, I need not accept those of the Confederacy.

Here's a better case: If Southern slaves had risen up, THEIR war might have been just (had there been a reasonable likelihood of success). Promise of aid from the North might have made that likelihood reasonable, and an invasion by the North in support of a slave revolt--INSTEAD of the Union--would have been far more just, in my crank opinion.

What are your thoughts on John Brown's insurrection at Harper's Ferry? Does that count as a slave revolt, or an attempt at starting a just war?

John Brown's revolt... too chaotic, predicated on slaughtering families, with no provisions for restraining violence or restoring order... not to mention unlikely to succeed. So it violates all but ONE of the criteria for just war. I'm afraid that it's hard to imagine conditions under which the American slaves COULD, given their oppression, have formed an alternative government that might have imposed order in the wake of a revolt. My point was theoretical, I'm afraid--that the slaves' CAUSE was just, could the other conditions have been fulfilled, as they have been in other revolts throughout history (Ireland, 1916).

Joe, John:

What do you think about the notion that a lot of modern warfare, in the U.S. and elsewhere, has been caused by the failure of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. to integrate a notion of a "right to secede" into their writings?

What I mean is this:

In a "democracy" (I use the modern sense which actually refers to Constitutional Republics with Democratically-Elected Representatives), elections are a way to peacefully conduct a coup every few years.

Give them up, and there's no way to change the government without bloodshed.

Similarly, there should be a procedure for towns to secede from counties, for counties to secede from states, and for states to secede from federations.

It should require a super-majority vote, perhaps of the populace and the legislature, with a period of time sufficient for serious consideration. It should not be an act able to be taken willy-nilly.

It should also require a gradually-acquired eligibility to vote, so that one cannot "invade" by just sending a bunch of outsiders into a community until they become a majority, and then calling for a vote.

And, I think membership in a larger polity should require some semblance of geographical continuity. (I'd put Alaska and Hawaii as being just barely sufficiently contiguous.) The idea is that Miami can be a separate state if it wants; it can even join Cuba if it's that suicidal, but it shouldn't have the option of being governed as part of New York State, snowbirds or no.

Nevertheless, we live in an age of red and blue states, of the balkanized Balkans, of Quebecois and South Ossetia.

Thoughts?

Amidst all the enthusiasm for Palin, let’s remember that she herself is an “enthusiast” in the older, religious sense. I know whereof I speak. I was raised in the very same Assemblies of God, of which Palin was and remains a member. Bless your hearts, but you have no idea how nutty these people are. Even more alarming, her churches are into New Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave/Latter Rain neo-pentecostalism, so aberrant and extreme that even the A/G declared them heretical. This is Scientology-level creepy, without the aliens. Sure, Palin’s prolife. But "the devils also believe and tremble.” Necessary, perhaps, but not sufficient. She is laughably unqualified, a cynical sop to identity politics, and makes a mockery of the Federalist’s ideal of a “natural aristocracy.” Dr. Z, stop thinking with the little head. And trust me, you’ll be prying their Scofield Bibles from their cold dead fingers before they'll be willing to give up their crackpot apocalyptic theories.

Here's an insightful quotation on the psychology and political tendencies of enthusiasts from Monsignor Ronald Knox’s magisterial work, Enthusiasm. He could have added a new chapter about Palin’s churches with their distrust of reason, revivalism, glossolalia, prophesying, and dispensationalist expectation of an imminent Rapture, Antichrist and Armageddon. Would the good Monsignor vote for Palin? I wonder:

“A new set of faculties, and also a new status; man saved becomes, at last, fully man. It follows that ‘the seed of grace’, God’s elect people, although they must perforce live cheek by jowl with the sons of perdition, claim another citizenship and own another allegiance. For the sake of peace and charity, they will submit themselves to every ordinance of man, but always under protest; worldly governments, being of purely human institution, have no real mandate to exercise authority, and sinful folk have no real rights, although, out of courtesy, their fancied rights must be respected. Always the enthusiast hankers after a theocracy, in which the anomalies of the present situation will be done away, and the righteous bear rule openly. Disappointed of this hope, a group of sectaries will sometimes go out into the wilderness, and set up a little theocracy of their own, like Cato’s senate at Utica. The American continent has more than once been the scene of such an adventure; in these days, it is the last refuge of the enthusiast.”

Apparently, Alaska is now the last refuge of the enthusiast. But in an easily imaginable worst case scenario, this pentecostal sect won’t be like Cato’s senate at Utica, but Caesar ruling Rome. It remains an open question how enthusiastic an enthusiast Palin is, and how far she would push its underlying psychological, political and theological logic. But based on her exhortations to the Master's Commission students at her former church on June 8, she seems very much a true believer in their vision of a new moral and spiritual "revival" starting in Alaska then spreading throughout the rest of the nation. This is darker and creepier than simply praying that secular, pagan America turns back to Jesus. Her pastor declared at that same event, "I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them." This must be before the Rapture takes away all the born-again Christians (excluding Catholics). What divinely-ordained disasters are prophesied to make us flee north to Alaska? Thanks, but it’s cold enough here in New Hampshire. Palin seems to believe that she was elected governor as a result of a “prophetic call,” and it is her "divine destiny" to play a prominent role in immanentizing this eschaton. I certainly hope this prophecy doesn't come to pass.

To C.A.:

You may, of course, be right. And, if you are, we'll learn about it over the next few weeks. (A presidential campaign is typically rather thorough about such things, and the likelihood that they won't take every opportunity to make Palin's religion seem absurd is small.)

But it seems to me the logic of your post is as follows:

(1.) I was raised amongst A-of-G;
(2.) Having left them, I think the local church in which I was raised was populated by a bunch of loons;
(3.) I conclude that all persons in all A-of-G are loons;
(4.) Palin is in an A-of-G church (currently; formerly various other kinds of churches, denominational and non);
(5.) Therefore Palin is a loon;
(6.) In addition, I've heard about some other crackpots, a subset within the A-of-G, who're even worse;
(7.) Alaska tends to have a lot of these other crackpots among them;
(8.) Palin's current church is an A-of-G church in Alaska;
(9.) Therefore Palin's current church must be one of the other crackpot variety;
(10.) Therefore Palin is a crackpot, even by the standards of other loons.
(11.) All this resembles behaviors that one analyst ascribes to a group he calls "enthusiasts";
(12.) Therefore Palin is an "enthusiast" even though she herself doesn't use the term;
(13.) Therefore whatever someone else said about a different but possibly related group of "enthusiasts" must be true of Palin.

That's your post, rewritten more formally for clarity of logic...if that's the right word.

And you may turn out to be right. Who knows? Bad reasoning can, after all, arrive at correct answers despite itself.

But I wouldn't bet five dollars on it.

If we take religion seriously, we should take Palin’s religion and its potential influence seriously. I suggest you do some research on her churches and their theological beliefs and associations. Unfortunately, the only real documentation is being done by the left, who want to portray religion per se as absurd. I can’t reproduce that documentation (from the churches' own websites) here, but the underlying facts are indisputable, despite the leftish spin. Knox again: “Almost always the opposition [to enthusiasm] is twofold; good Christian people who do not relish an eccentric spirituality find themselves in unwelcome alliance with worldings who do not relish any spirituality at all.” I'm conservative, and find myself in the same unwelcome alliance.

As for my logic, although politics doesn't proceed by syllogism, let’s start with established facts. Palin is a member of the A/G (never of any non-denominational church). Basic tenets of A/G theology: Biblical literalism, glossolalia, prophecy, revivalism, and pre-millenialist dispensationalism. This theology, particularly glossolalia and dispensationalism, is considered aberrant at the very least by Catholics, Orthodox, traditional Reformation churches, and many evangelical and fundamentalist groups. In addition, Palin’s churches, particularly Wasilla A/G, have documented ties with Christian Zionism and New Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave/Latter Rain neo-pentecostalism. Even the A/G officially condemned this stuff in 2000. Do Palin's churches teach a crackpot theology? In my opinion, yes, and most Christian churches agree.

Now for inevitable speculation. Palin is a member of such churches, but is she a crackpot by association? Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but perhaps by a preponderance of evidence. Palin shows several indications she’s a true believer. Here’s what’s been documented. Listen to the address she gave to the Master’s Commission students at Wasilla A/G on June 8, 2008. I can't parse it here or give contextual documentation. But she specifically endorses the church’s prophetic belief that AK will lead a nationwide “revival” (the Wasilla MC website says as prophesied by "Dutch Sheets, Steve Thompson, Woody Woodson, and Dr. [Paul Yonggi] Cho just to name a few." Look these guys up and tell me they're not crackpots). She prays that the students receive the “spirit of revelation, also including a spirit of prophecy.” She also says she received a “prophetic declaration” that she'd become governor, and it came true. She clearly ascribes supernatural, prophetic power to this church, and seems fully on board with its prophetic, apocalyptic beliefs. Does this make her a crackpot? I’ll let the jury decide. But based on her own words and considering the source in dubious theology, I’d say most likely yes. I doubt we'll ever know her full views on dispensationalism and Alaska-centric end-times prophecy.

I brought up Knox to illuminate certain tendencies (not inevitabilities) in this religious type. I would argue that Palin’s churches clearly fit the taxonomy of “enthusiasm.” There is a tendency to mistrust reason, reliance on an rigid Biblical literalism and direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, obsession with prophecy, sectarian exclusivity, and sympathy (sometimes muted) for theocracy. These tendencies clearly manifest at the religious extreme. Perhaps Palin is just a “cafeteria” enthusiast, not a hardcore dispensationalist or dominionist, and her beliefs have no political implications. Many A/G folks (including my own family) are nice, normal middle class people, not crazed theocrats. And many normal-seeming people hold crackpot beliefs. But no matter how fanatical or not, their theology absolutely influences their judgment and politics, and at the very least, there is an alarming intellectual narrowness, if not outright crackpottery here that should be of serious concern.

C.A.
True.
Done.
True, they do...but why do you claim the left as the only source of documentation, if, as you say, their church websites are available?Fine, list them please.
Why then did she claim to have been a "non-denominational" Christian in her bio? And did not her family churchgoing include various denominations, not just A/G?
Yes. Typical rural protestant evangelical.
First, who believes what is more complex than you list, and could only be accurately represented by a two-dimensional matrix with "All, Some, and None" values placed at intersections between columns referring to the religious groups you list and rows representing the beliefs or practices.

Second, your tone suggests you find the list scandalously extreme. I'd bet the vast majority of evangelicals in America would disagree with you. While very few of them attend churches which regularly practice all of the above, the majority have some positive or neutral exposure to some of them. (Do you know many evangelicals?)

Glossolalia, for example, is accepted by the Church when it represents miraculously speaking in a previously unlearned human tongue for the purpose of witnessing; as at Pentecost and in rare miracles since then, but is utterly rejected when it involves intentionally speaking babble "without benefit of an interpreter" and "in a disorderly or disruptive fashion"...but then, the latter is also contemned by A/G. It is the middle-ground ("tongues of angels" in an orderly fashion only used for public edification when an interpreter is present) which is accepted by A/G, and often rejected by the Church. However, even the Church makes allowances, as in the case of the Charismatic Catholic Renewal. (See the 1992 cautious approval by Pope John Paul II.)

I'm unconvinced; I've been called a Zionist (the person didn't know I was a Christian) just for saying that when Palestinians shot a rocket at Israeli schoolchildren, I thought it reasonable for the IDF to respond by destroying the rocket-launch site. As for the other terms, do you know what they mean? Do all those who self-describe under such titles agree about what they mean? (It's not as if they have a Pope.)

...continued...

...actually I just ran out of time; I'll check back later if you're still hanging 'round.

Why did he pick one who is **currently under an ethics investigation?**

I mean, I saw this and I groaned. She has not been elected, and she already has a -gate attached to her name.

I think that *not being under investigation* is near the top on the requirements of a running mate. Of course, the top is *must be alive* as the voters are shamelessly prejudiced against zombies, vampires, and other sorts of ambulatory dead.

She insists that she did nothing wrong and that it is a political ploy. Maybe, but all the accused say that. Somehow the idea of a handcuff closing on her wrist as she raises her hand to be sworn is too grotesque for words.

What was McCain thinking?

Governor Sarah Palin belongs to am independent non-denominational protestant church.

They mark the latest trend in the atomization process experimented by protestantism in America.

MILLIONS MISSING or MILLIONS MISSLERING?

Many these days are abandoning the pretribulation rapture view, and the June, 1995 article by Chuck Missler (”Byzantine Text Discovery: Ephraem the Syrian”) reveals why there is such a mutiny! First of all, the authoritative scholar that Missler cited, Dr. Paul Alexander, referred only to “Pseudo-Ephraem” and not to Ephraem the Syrian. (If an unsigned ancient manuscript resembles the real Ephraem but there is a question of authorship, they assign it to “Pseudo-Ephraem” - the word “pseudo” meaning “possibly.” For some groundless reason, Grant Jeffrey, the one who reportedly found the “discovery,” changed Dr. Alexander’s terminology! For more info on Jeffrey, Google “Wily Jeffrey.”) And Missler’s scholarship is also questionable. According to the Los Angeles Times (July 30, 1992), about one-fourth of Missler’s 1992 book “The Magog Factor” (which he co-authored with Hal Lindsey) was a daring plagiarism of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s 1982 book “Foes from the Northern Frontier”! Four months later Yamauchi’s publisher revealed that both Lindsey and Missler had promised to stop all publishing of their book. But in 1995 they were found publishing “The Magog Invasion” (which was either a revision or a replacement of “The Magog Factor”) - which had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (Dave MacPherson’s 1998 book “The Three R’s” has complete documentation on this and other pretrib scandals.) After listing “1820″ as the reported date of the birth of pretrib (he should have said “1830″), Missler sees a pretrib rapture in that Medieval writer’s phrase “taken to the Lord” and, since he evidently favors rewriting others instead of researching, is unaware that Dr. Alexander explained that this phrase really means “participate at least in some measure in beatitude” - which has reference only to doing acts of virtue on earth and not being raptured away from earth! Alexander added that the same ancient writer held to only one final second coming (and not to any prior coming) which would follow the time of Antichrist! (Readers can Google “Deceiving and Being Deceived” by MacPherson to see how groundless the Pseudo-Ephraem claim is and to learn how desperate pretribs are to find any pre-1830 evidence for their escapist view. Dr. Robert Gundry of Westmont College has also demolished the Pseudo-Ephraem claim in his 1997 book “First the Antichrist.”) Since Missler also leans on Thomas Ice, readers can evaluate Ice’s qualifications by Googling “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Thomas Ice (Hired Gun),” and “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” (the latter part). For further light on the 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented pretribulation theory, Google or Yahoo “Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts.” Finally - why would anyone who has the brains of a rocket scientist want to be taken up with the concept of an any-moment pretrib rapture? The answer may well be that there’s more money in elevating a rapture than launching a rocket!