There have been a variety of accusations running around that Sarah Palin is some sort of crazed bible beater that wants to do away with science, medicine and sex ed… all of which is patently ridiculous.
So, I have done a bit of digging on Sarah, and here is the real story….
- Sarah Palin was baptized a Catholic as a newborn (Like Joe Biden, myself, and lots of other people)
- Her family changed churches often during her childhood (which is not uncommon)
- They eventually settled on an “Assembly of God” Pentecostal church in her teenage years (Joshua Dubois, Obama’s Director of Religous Affairs, and Leah Daughtry, Howard Dean’s Chief of Staff and CEO of the DNC 2008 Convention, are both Pentecostal Christians)
- Since then she has attended a variety of churches and even today visits several, including Lutheran and Catholic churches.
- Most often she attends a non-denominational independent Christian church (as does a huge portion of the American population)
- In 2006, while running for office, the one time she was asked about ID v Evolution, she responded with the “teach both” approach (as did George Bush, much of the Republican Party and large sections of the American population). She has never made a move to make this a reality.
- In the 2007 and 2008 “State of the State” speeches, she doesn’t mention God or Religion or Religious Issues (HERE, HERE) Lot’s of economics… Lots of energy… Lots of security… No God.
- She is a member of “Feminists For Life” which is a pro-life, pro-contraception group. She wants to make adoption easier, promote abstinence, and advocates the use of contraception. (A view not completely different from even Hillary Clinton if we are going to be honest.) This group also advocates for women in college to get child care services so that they can finish their education. Palin has never introduced, proposed or supported an anti-choice piece of legislation. When asked about these issues, she always refers to how difficult and “personal” these decisions are.
- As far as I can tell, she has never sponsored or promoted legislation based on a religious ideal during her 10+ years in office and has upheld the law in opposition to personal religious beliefs more than once.
Ok, so I hope that this answers some questions about the real Sarah Palin, instead of the disgusting hate mongering rumor mill that the blogs are turning in to.
.
.
.
(Much of the source material originated from HERE and links contained there in. I lost track of everywhere I gathered the above info, so gave up trying to backtrack links, but if you want to fact check me… go for it.)
UPDATE – I just found this!- More Here -
Filed under: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin | Tagged: Daughtry, Dubois, Obama, palin, Pentecostal, Religion
Thanks for the perspective!
THANK God for you THC. Heh, heh.
Seriously thanks for all the research. I know Palin is religious but so is the left, including Obama. Not sure why people think she caters to the religious more than HE does.
I’m so angry at the sexist attacks, I’m spinning my wheels. Nice to see a non-sexsit attack related article.
I’m assuming this will be the next big thing they attack her on. Yet another vote motivater for the right wing.
Today I called all my state officials down to county and threatened to vote Republican all the way down the ticket if the sexist attacks on Palin didn’t stop NOW.
Mind if I link to the forum? j/k I know you don’t.
Actions speak louder than words. Thanks for the clarification!
I don’t think that tells the whole story, THC.
Q: Your stand on abortion?
A: I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.
Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com’s Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008
I don’t think we can assume she wouldn’t try to push to make abortion illegal.
http://www.issues2000.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
You have to click on the link for 6 full quotes.
Good job, THC. Great to get some positive info out there to counteract the smears.
Thanks THC. Nice to see some facts about Palin.
Mountain Sage… I understand your concern, but she has never made any moves towards making that a reality… or even anything remotely like it… ie “parental consent” laws, etc.
We have to remember that her opinion of what is good for Alaska may vary greatly from what is good for the country, and what constituency she is talking to.
Alaskans, by and large, are quite conservative, religious and patriotic… not to mention the overwhelmingly disproportionate male population.
If we are going to bombard Obama on just being words and no action, we are doing Palin a disservice by ignoring her actions.
She has never governed from a religious place… ever.
That’s not too shabby.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080904/D92VJQH80.html
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”
A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.
Palin told graduating students of the church’s School of Ministry, “What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys.” As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she’d work to implement God’s will from the governor’s office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
“But really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”</p>
Unless she has.
OMFG!!!! SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD DURING A SPEECH TO A SCHOOL OF MINISTRY!!!! SHE TALKED ABOUT GOD WITH RELIGIOUS STUDENTS!?!?!?! HOLY CRAP!?!?!?!?!?!?
AND OMG… GOD’S WILL – CREATING JOBS, BUILDING PIPELINES…. OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG… HOW HORRIBLE!!!!
Madmonq… please stop with your propaganda. It’s sad.
Your little quotation is crap, and does nothing to counter any of my assertions.
She has never ever once put forth or blocked a piece of legislation based on religious beliefs.
THC,
Nice work as you seem to present some factoids for what they are. Every day I’m learning more about her, so thanks for time.
boy, thanks TH!
you’d never know it by what’s swirling around the b-sphere…thanks for sharing ‘just the facts’….
btw, i went to st. paul – and sarah was electrifying in person — i wish i could convey the thunderous reaction to her jokes — they (I) went nuts …finally, someone calls O out for his lack of substance & experience…FINALLY!!!!!
(well, actually hillary did try – but look what happened to her)
cheers,
princess
Thank you, THC, for this well-written, well-researched, well-reasoned article. This is the kind of solid information voters need instead of the ridiculous sensationalistic opinion that passes for ‘news’ from most of the mainstream media. Such articles as yours should be required reading for all voters before Nov.
thank you for your facts.
I wish I had a bit more sympathy for her, but after watching her speak at the convention, I’m thinking….if she can dish it, she can take it. while being capable of throwing out some lies herself, what bothered me most was her tone. it was very mean spirited, sarcastic, smug, those nasty insults. she seemed to revel in it.
also, her comment on clinton below-
she regretted Clinton’s “whining” about sexist treatment toward the end of her 2008 bid. “When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, ‘Man, that doesn’t do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress in this country,’ ” Palin said.
“I think that’s reality, and I think it’s a given, I think people can just accept that she is going to be under that sharper microscope,” Palin went on. “So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate. . . .”
I think the media is dissecting her and religion and beliefs because it’s something mccain is using to win votes from conservatives. why is it ok for them to use it for their benefit, but when the media divulges in it, then it’s called bashing?
Hi mik
What hillary also didnt have was other people defending her because the DNC abandoned her, unlike what the GOP has done for Palin.
Palin has not had to point out the sexism herself…. dozens to hundreds have done it for her.
creationism info
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
well mik, you have your facts wrong– palin did not say Hillary was whining she was talking about others, why dont you go back and listen to it with both ears this time and try to use your commin senxe while you are?? it will help you!!
Explicit sexual education will NOT find her support.
This is religion entering into the public sphere. Public education is not only for those who believe that sex before marriage is wrong!
Creationism is not science. It does not meet the basic requirements of a scientific theory (see Popper): It is not falsifiable. That Palin wants the bible taught in science class is an overt example of allowing her religious views dictate public policy.
Simply because she has not had the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, is not any indication that she will not try to in the future. It is only an indication that she has not been in the position to, yet.
Iraq is a task from God. Who cares who she was talking to? This war is not a crusade (NO MATTER WHO THE AUDIENCE).! It is not Christianity vs. Islam.
Palin is a zealot. The American experiment relies on the principle of a pluralistic society where individuals are able to pursue reasonable life pursuits without threat of religious persecution or interference. Legislating to bring the bible into politics is an instance of the tyranny of the majority. And this is not a virtue of democracy.
She is simply an awesome woman. Regardless of party.
A person who could, to such an extent, allow belief in a god to govern her life and that of others, is never truly fit to lead.
Thanks for the lesson in reality. The spin from the left is outrageous.
It was a pleasure meeting and talking with you in Denver.
All religious leanings aside, she is not prepared to assume the role of President should anything happen to McCain. Which really is what people should be focused on. Since the separation of church and state the ACLU has done a pretty good job of keeping religions of any kind out of our legislative bodies. Religion is used by politicians for marketing purposes generally.
Think about the kind of experience and education it takes to become even a VP at a company like General Electric…and then think about Palin, and for that matter O’bama’s experience…neither is qualified for the job they seek. Yet our system allows it for generally good reasons, but in my opinion should be amended.
Barry Lauterwasser, I agree that the religion thing is window dressing and marketing and I agree that Barry is not qualified to be Prez, BUT she isnt going for the presidency… she is going for the VP slot.
I dunno about amending the system tho?
ellenyc…
sex ed already has her support
she has never attempted to have ID taught in schools
even Antonin Scalia calls Roe a “stare decisis” decision, which means that it is a founding principle of law and even he doesnt want to screw with it at this point.
besides, it is not the president that puts SCOTUS judges into place, they nominate, Senate approves…. tell your Senate to get a damn spine and maybe we wouldnt have to even worry about any of this shit.
not to mention the fact that Obama wanted to vote for Roberts and actually scolded democrats for blocking his appointment, but only changed his mind because a staffer told him it was politically a bad idea. And so I am supposed to trust that man as President and not Palin as VP????
Reactionary much?
Very nice post! Thanks for the extra information and the insight. It is nice to know that there are people who will do there homework and not just take what everyone else has to say!
Much like Hillary Clinton? No, not if we are being honest. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice, not anti-choice.
Hmmm… you reference, more than once in your post, that many of Sarah Palin’s views are in line with large portions of the American population.
Is that really a reason to support a candidate? Because her views are similar to a lot of other Americans’ views?
I support the candidate whose views are most closely in line with MY views… not everyone else’s.
Also, just wanted to point out… Feminists for Life is an extreme organization… opposing abortion (not just opposing it- lobbying to make it illegal) even in the most extreme of circumstances- including that of incest, rape, and for the most part even when the mother’s life is in danger.
In addition, Feminists for Life is currently under fire for giving false information to teens, stating abortion is linked to deadly reproductive cancers. That claim is categorically false.
I’m not willing to support a woman who supports an organization that thinks it’s their duty to lie to my daughters.
dems which will support MCC
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/07/video-citizens-for-mccain-press-conference/
Great piece, Texas Hill Country. Yes, indeed, Scott Ferrarello, Palin is an “awesome woman.” Palin has proven that women can have it all — kids, a career, and the good-looking guy to boot. Isn’t that one of the concepts we in the women’s movement have been fighting for the past 35 years? The fact that women are every bit as competent as men to hold positions of leadership? Come on, Palin is a dream come true for the women’s movement! The other concept of the women’s movement that we’ve been fighting for is a woman’s right to choose. We won that fight already. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. So is Brown v Education. So is Civil Rights Act of 1964. We don’t have to keep fighting those battles! We won those! Not only do we have the right to choose, but we now have more access to birth control pills, the day after pill, IUD’s and all sorts of contraceptives that were not available decades ago. Women have more ways of not getting pregnant today than ever before, so really, we should all be trying to find common ground and work towards making abortions rare in our society, which is what President Clinton and Sen. Clinton have promoted since the 1990’s. No need for women who have fought side-by-side for decades to improve the lives of women to now oppose this accomplished Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin. In fact, we should all celebrate her!
Fantastic post, I am so tired of the slinging and just want to hear the facts. As an independent, the way that the democratic followers have attacked her make question their “loyalty” or “support” of women in general.
Makes me want to vote republican just because the dems followers are so biased in their attacks.
Thanks for the insights. I appreciate your detective work.
Please learn the proper use of the apostrophe (’) before posting again. Thanks.
Dream come true? For Phyllis Schlafly, perhaps, but Palin is a nightmare for this progressive feminist. To celebrate her would be to celebrate the further erosion of my rights — and I’m a second class citizen as things are now, which is intolerable enough. What little THC has written is accurate for what it is, but much is omitted and ignored — or insulted, should someone dare respond with additional fact that THC doesn’t like (such as the lipsticked pitbull’s documented statement that the Iraq occupation was the will of God and God’s task).. I agree that some of the media coverage against her has been sexist — I mean, would we question a man with five kids about whether parenthood would clash with his job duties? Of course not, and it is beyond the pale that people would focus on that with her. And yes, the media all around have been awful. But that doesn’t make Palin palatable. The fact remains that she is known for library censorship (putting her beliefs into practice in a way that would affect the people she “serves,” that she has said publicly that God is behind GOP schemes such as Iraq, that she is a warmonger and anti-wildlife, that she is anti-GLBT, that she pooh poohs the work of scientists in favor of her Pentecostal mumbo jumbo (”creationism” is a ghost story, not science), that she is ruthless and vidictive and willing to do just about anything to get her way (google Anne Kilkenny; read about her in-law problem and looming corruption case). Sarah Palin is a reason to cry, not to celebrate. And if her views are in line with the majority of American opinions (and I don’t believe that for an instant), that’s just more reason to cry and to book a one-way trip out of this vile place, because the America she wants doesn’t sound like what America pretends to be. Yes, she is running for VP, but one of the duties is to be ready to assume the presidency if needed. I can’t take a risk like that. I have a daughter to protect from the GOP. Bottom line: having a vagina does not mean any candidate with a vagina will do, because I have a brain and a soul too. Palin is smart, but I imagine her soul is black and cold. And I believe Wasilla and Alaska would be better off without her.
I’ll give her this: She gave the nation a great example by standing by Bristol, who should be left alone by the press, however, given her promotion of abstinence-only sex ed (despite her FFL membership, and I know they are ok with birth control), we have living proof that abstinence-only education does not work. In fact, her membership in pro-contraception group FFL shows she’s a hypocrite — and idiot — for insisting on abstinence-only sex education. If that’s what you want in the White House, then I need to worry about you.
Why all the adulation? Over a speech? Is that how you pick your doctor? Or your lawyer? Or your spouse?
ellennyc,
this is not tyranny of the majority…more like whining of the minority. These issues are NOT examples of bringing the bible into legislation. I am tired of hearing people use this argument out of context. Examples of bringing the bible into legislation would be requiring children to pray in school or requiring everyone to go to church on Sundays. Sex education and abortion are examples of public policy that can be BASED on one’s religious beliefs. Teaching creationism in schools and not allowing evolution to be taught WOULD be putting the bible into law, but asking that all sides of the story are presented is far from tyranny of the majority. Many people vote for or against public officials BASED on their religious beliefs, knowing that these are their beliefs and that they will influence how the candidate will lead and do their job. There’s nothing wrong with this. think about it: being religious isn’t even a requisite for Palin’s views on any of these things. Please stop abusing the separation of church and state argument.
Just remember, people can be elected for their religious beliefs and can enact law BASED on their religious beliefs, so long as those laws are consistent with those freedoms we are allowed as Americans.
I don’t think the issue is what she has tried to push through her state legislature, and I think it’s fair to question her personal beliefs, and also to contrast them against her actions.
“In 2006, while running for office, the one time she was asked about ID v Evolution, she responded with the “teach both” approach (as did George Bush, much of the Republican Party and large sections of the American population). She has never made a move to make this a reality.”
I don’t think “most” of the American population would agree to teach “both” ID and Evolution, that is why it hasn’t been widely adopted by school districts around the country, and her never having “made a move” to make this a reality, I think is more a testament to the idea’s unpopularity with mainstream Americans, then an example of her restraint.
“She is a member of “Feminists For Life” which is a pro-life, pro-contraception group. She wants to make adoption easier, promote abstinence, and advocates the use of contraception. (A view not completely different from even Hillary Clinton if we are going to be honest.) This group also advocates for women in college to get child care services so that they can finish their education. Palin has never introduced, proposed or supported an anti-choice piece of legislation. When asked about these issues, she always refers to how difficult and “personal” these decisions are.”
Being a part of this group is great, and I applaud her for it, but the group also advocates supporting single mothers as a community with social programs, and the Republican platform is 100% against welfare, WIC, and food stamps. It’s OK to promote alternatives to abortion, but promoting alternatives, then simultaneously pulling the rug out from under women once they do become pregnant is hypocrisy. It’s nice that Bristol will have the loving support of her family leading up to and after giving birth to her new baby at such a young age, but many American women don’t have that support and their need to be programs to support them too.
The problem isn’t her faith, it is what effect her faith based legislation will have on those with dissimilar faith backgrounds.
Good investigative work, though. I applaud your effort, even if I disagree with your assessment. Keep up the good work.
Next Gen Politics
Next Gen…
My quantifier of the American population was “large sections” not “most.” I agree that 51% of the population probably doesn’t hold similar beliefs, but I would say that the portion of the population that buys into the whole ID theory (which I think is crap btw) is not insignificant.
Also, i think your characterization of the Republican platform being 100% against social programs, welfare, wic and food stamps is unfair. It seeks to reduce dependence on those programs, but does not eliminate them, nor would it. I think you may be confusing the Republicans with the Libertarians/Objectivists/Minimal Statists.
Also, I am not saying that it isn’t fair to question her personal beliefs, but we should also take into account how they affect her policy decision making process. In addition, it helps to be factual about things unlike Kos or Huffington Post have been about Palin.
Just trying to clear the record.
You may not agree with her politically, but she is no fringe freako, and is most certainly a very impressive woman.
I concede that she is most certainly a very impressive woman. Thanks for your response and for your caring so much about the issue. You do us all a service with your efforts to inform citizens about facts, rather than rumors. Good Job and keep up the good work.
Jerame Clough
-Next Gen Politics
thanks next gen…. one of my largest issues throughout this whole election cycle has been the massive amount of dishonesty and straight up slanderous suggestion that has been flung around, not to mention the virulent sexism.
I am tired of it, and tired of those that perpetrate and propagate such vile innuendo, rumor and falsehoods.
Oh, and checked out the site… good stuff!
“Teaching creationism in schools and not allowing evolution to be taught WOULD be putting the bible into law, but asking that all sides of the story are presented is far from tyranny of the majority.”
creationism is not science. it does not meet the basic requirements of science. it is not falsifiable (see Popper).
so, it is not another side of the story. It is forcing non-scientific/religious beliefs into classrooms. Prayer is not the only way that religion can enter a school.
Not only is this a travesty for our ability to compete globally in a society where children are not taught basic science and the principles thereof (do away with any potential advances in biology, genetics and medicine) but it is also an instance of minority groups being forced to endure the denominational beliefs of a majority group.
yes, we read you the first time, it’s not falsifiable. But it is also NOT forcing religious BELIEFS into classrooms. If you’re simply arguing that it shouldn’t be taught in science class, I would have no problem with that. But if you believe it should be kept out of school altogether, you are missing the point. presenting it as the beliefs of one group of people does not breach seperation of church and state. It’s placing the religiously based opinion of many people into the curriculum so that students are aware of it. Like it or not (and I myself am NOT religious, nor do I adhere to the creationism theoory), it’s a large part of our society and there’s nothing wrong with presenting it for students’ information. wouldn’t you like your child to be well-educated on the religions of the world, rather than be ignorant to them?
“Not only is this a travesty for our ability to compete globally in a society where children are not taught basic science and the principles thereof (do away with any potential advances in biology, genetics and medicine)”
That might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. First of all, teaching creationism ALONG SIDE evolution does not mean that children will not be taught basic science. You’re actually implying that if we were to teach creationism ALONG SIDE evolution, it would prevent advances in biology, genetics, and medicine??? That’s just silly.
I mean, are you saying that there should be no mention of religion in any context? Where does it stop? Would you like to take any mention of religion out of the curriculum? Should we not present any religiously influenced historical events for fear that our children might be infected with the religious beliefs of the people involved? Should we likewise not mention anything of the different religions of the world and their beliefs? Should we hide students from in for fear that they might be INFECTED by it? Should we not teach about the theories of ancient civilizations? Should we keep the Aztecs’ or the ancient Egyptians’ beliefs about the evolution of life out of the curriculum? I think you’re way off base here. The notion that teaching creationism theory will halt scientific process is downright ludicrous. We’re not talking about indoctrination here. We’re talking about education. What you’re talking about is censorship.
(By the way, wouldn’t some definitive proof of evolution pretty much falsify creationism??? Not the point, but I’m just throwing that out there).
Religion as religion. Not religion as science. There is a clear distinction. Please take note of it.
A class on world religions is fine. Students can study the Bible, the Koran the Torah and the Bhagavad Gita.
If however, students are taught religion as science then this undermines their ability to understand basic scientific principles and the scientific method. And this is a threat to the sciences, technology and innovation.
and in terms of falsifying creationism, and definitive proof:
in the philosophy of science, one of the basic principles is that theories cannot be proven, but only disproven, That’s what falsifiable means (as opposed to verifiable). Since creationists say that everything in the world is the way it is and the things that seem to go against the Genesis account of creation were made to look like that by God, means that there is no evidence that could go against such an account.
Take for instance dinosaur fossils and carbon dating. This would seem to be evidence against creationism, but the creationists simply counter that God made it seem this way (he’s tricking us, basically). So any evidence is consistent with creationism, hence it is not falsifialble.
Just like it is impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. Just like I can say that the world was created yesterday BUT everything in it is exactly the way it would be if it were created 10 billion years ago. How could anyone present evidence that this is untrue? They couldn’t because I built it in that if there is any evidence of the world not being created yesterday, it is only because when it was created yesterday, it was made to look like it was created 10 billion years ago. See?
btw, it is also impossible to prove that you are not a brain in a vat, but that’s another story.
“btw, it is also impossible to prove that you are not a brain in a vat, but that’s another story.”
Is that a Steve Martin reference? WOW.
Greatness.
no. basic epistemology (study of knowledge). This sort of stuff begins with Rene Descartes in the 17th century. He’s considered the father of modern philosophy and the father of modern mathematics.
ellen… i am very familiar with descartes, but a boy can always hope, right? LOL
Then we’re in agreement…or at least I don’t have a huge problem with your beef. Religion certainly does belong in history class somewhere, but your argument to keep it out of SCIENCE class makes more sense to me. Although, I don’t believe it would be out of line to include it in science class as a statement of what is now defunct in the eyes of science. It certainly would not be the first of its kind. And while I realize that this is not what Sarah Palin is talking about, I guess my point is that statements like “this is a threat to the sciences, technology and innovation” seem alarmist and dramatic to me. I think students are smart enough to take things for what they are.
In a history of science class, i wish! right along with “people once believed the earth was flat” and “people once believed that the earth was the center of the universe”. What is more accurate, given the times, is that it belongs in an anthropology of science class, but still. I think we agree.
See, we can work together!
And students will be smart enough if we educate them to THINK!! (not just to believe!). The difference between education and indoctrination.
oh, and texas hill country, steve martin was a philosophy major…so maybe that’s where the brain in the vat comes from.
Professors, thanks for that definitive lecture series on how we all got here. Seems the concensus among you is we crawled out of the swamp. O.K. I tend to believe otherwise, but that’s the cool thing about having a brain and living in a free country. I get to believe what I want to believe, definitive or no!.
I think what you meant to say was that it’s totally o.k. if VP Sarah Palin has a core belief system that will be of supreme importance as she helps McCain lead and govern this nation. She won’t however, try and force her core beliefs on anyone else, especially since we have that old dusty document that gives all of us freedom to have a religion or not.
God bless ya’ll.
[...] left has screamed about how she wants to overturn Roe v Wade and teach creationism in schools but these attacks have not worked, so they continue to scream about these things and [...]
[...] left has screamed about how she wants to overturn Roe v Wade and teach creationism in schools but these attacks have not worked, so they continue to scream about these things and [...]