Jump to content
aj

Palin and ex-gays?

Recommended Posts

Saw this and thought it might be of interest.

Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through prayer.

By The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE ? Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through prayer.

"You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and his desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.

Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice-presidential choice. She is anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the "Love Won Out" Conference in Anchorage, which is about 30 miles from Wasilla.

Palin has not publicly expressed a view on the "pray away the gay" movement.

Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin's church, had no comment.

Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional.

But her reluctant support didn't win fans among Alaska's gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage.

"Less than 1 percent of state employees would even apply for benefits, so why make a big deal out of such a small number?" he said.

So, here we go again.

cheers!

aj

Link to comment

I confess to not knowing a lot about Ms. Palin, but she strikes me as what my partner calls "a bitch with a capital C."

One of the National Enquirer editors told Howard Stern last week they had sent five reporters to Alaska to start digging for dirt on this woman. I hope they uncover a lot of scuttlebutt.

I'm starting to dislike the McCain/Palin team so much, my partner and I have actually talked about the possibility of moving out of the country. McCain and Obama are only 1% apart in the polls right now, which is frightening.

Voting for Obama is a compromise, but there's no question to me that McCain is worse, especially for gay people. The anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell, anti-evolution thing from Palin is very troubling.

Link to comment

They have to press either the 'black' button or the 'woman' button. Granted, one is for a secondary position on the ballot, but it's still a stretch for some.

I'd think her strident fringes view would also turn off a lot of moderate Republicans, and there are more of those than people realize. The conservative, evangelical Christian wing is a noisy bunch. The moderates, in both parties, are much quieter.

I wouldn't worry too much about polls at this point. Late next month they might start being meaningful.

That's only my opinion, of course.

C

Link to comment
I am also waiting for the debates. I think that they will mean more than they have in past elections and I really want to hear what the candidates say.

Yeah, I totally agree.

You ever see the 1980s movie Dead Zone? I keep hoping that somebody will take a pot shot at McCain in front of an audience, and he'll hold a baby up in front of him as a shield... *sigh*

Link to comment

One problem with the debates is they've degenerated into a set piece where a question is asked, and the candidate uses it as a springboard to begin the relevant part of his stump speech. Rather than actually responding to the penetrating questions, the two debaters just deliver campaign rhetoric, leaving us thinking they're avoiding the specific issue brought by the question, which of course they are.

If that's what happens this time around, when people want to know specific answers, specific differences between the candidates views, it's going to be very disappointing.

C

Link to comment

Of course you all seem to be forgetting the horrible truth; that no matter what any of the candidates say, in a debate or anywhere else, they are politicians first and foremost and are basically liars.

Link to comment

The presidential debates are supposed to be different this time in that there will be eight ten-minute segments in the first and last debate and each segment will cover one topic. Each candidate will speak on the topic and then the moderator will encourage the candidates to ask each other questions and, of course, answer them. Don't know how well it will work, but it should be better than what has passed for debates in the past which was nothing more than an opportunity to spout talking points. The middle debate is supposed to be a town hall type meeting with the audience asking the questions.

Anyhow, for those who are curious here is the site about them.

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_111907.html

Link to comment

Any chance McCain had of earning my vote went out the window with the selection of Sarah Palin. Speaking as an avid reader and sometime writer, I have absolutely no use for someone who attempts to suppress writings and ideas they don't like by banning books, something Palin tried to do as mayor of her little town in Alaska. When the Librarian stood up to her on the issue, Palin later found a pretext to fire her.

The republican party used to bill itself as the party of ideas. Today, they are so bereft of ideas, they had to steal their campaign theme from the democrats. Today, they are the party that is afraid of anything that is new or different, especially if it contradicts one of their pet concepts. Central to this seems to be a complete lack of tolerance, driven by those on the extreme right of the party, for whom change and diversity is frightening. The republican party has become stagnant, centered around two or three core concepts that they cling to like a lifeline. Heck, they used to be the party of fiscal responsibility: yet this same party is responsible for spending away the national budget surplus while doubling the size of the national debt.

This country was founded by radicals, people willing to try something bold and new when it became obvious that the old way wasn't working anymore. Those radicals framed the Constitution of this nation, and enshrined protections for the people into the Bill of Rights, led by the mighty first amendment:

?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.?

What part of that simple clear statement do they not understand? This is not 1939. Book banning and burning is, and by rights should be, a thing of the past. I have no use for anyone who attempts to restrict what I read or write, and anyone who thinks such things are not at risk need only look at the odious "Patriot Act" to see how easily scared politicians can flush our liberties away in the name of security.

The upcoming election is important for those who cherish their rights and the free exchange of ideas. Its time to toss out the people who have run roughshod over the Constitution they have never read, and replace them with people who have new ideas: people with a bold new vision of America the way it is supposed to be; not the America that condones torture, the America that conducts preemptive war, the America that locks its own citizens away without recourse, the America that hates and fears the scapegoat of the week. Its time once again for America to stand for its ideals, to once again be a beacon for justice, progress, and equality: time once again to reclaim the moral high ground, to be the nation I was once proud to serve.

I don't have all the answers folks, there are lots of people out there way smarter than I am. All I ask is that you go out and vote, and that when you do, you look deep into your heart and vote for the people who represent this nation at its best: people who will move this nation forward again, uniting all of us in common purpose.

Ask not, what your country can do for you...

Rick

Link to comment

Hey! I'll vote for Rick, too! He already makes 1000 times more sense than McCain.

Some great Palin scandals in this week's National Enquirer, BTW. Among other things, let's just say her kids are not the "upstanding moral, Christian children" they would have us to believe.

Link to comment

Rick, you charge that Palin tried to ban books, but according to factcheck.org, such is not the case. From their site I offer the following,

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

It?s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla?s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla?s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Factcheck.org is operated by the Annenberg Institute which is not politically aligned. And understand, it is not your opinion of Palin that I am criticizing, only your facts. Just as I don't like people saying factually inaccurate things about me, neither do I like them saying factually inaccurate things about anyone else. If a person has to use factually inaccurate data to make his argument there is something wrong with that argument. Gov. Palin has many positions where a person can disagree with her and decide that he will not vote for her so it should be unnecessary to use inaccurate data to make your argument.

As to the general topic of this thread, I honestly don't know what Gov. Palin's position is on gay rights and I have looked. Yes her church is promoting a conference, but if we use the standard that a person is responsible for everything said and done in any organization a person might belong to, we are then forced to apply the same standard to Sen. Obama and TUCC where he was was a member in order to be fair. That would mean that Sen Obama would be responsible for all the things Rev. Wright has said and done during all the time that Sen Obama was a member. I personally don't subscribe to that theory and believe that it is possible to belong to organizations which have positions with which I disagree and I suspect that most of us feel that way. Just to give an example, my own beliefs would prohibit me from supporting either political party because both have positions with which I disagree. And while I do believe in a God, I have yet to find any church in which I agree with all their dogma and the further right the church, the more I disagree and dislike it. Anyhow, while Palin may not have much of a record on gay issues, the same is not true of Sen. McCain and there are many sites where one can find his views. In light of McCain's postitions on such things as gay marriage I would think that Palin's views are moot because I doubt that many supporters of gay rights will be voting for McCain. Anyhow, here is a statement McCain issued last June.

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

Searching McCain and gay rights will produce many more hits of this type.

Link to comment

Ah, c'mon, Fritz. Face it: Palin is an ultra-religious c@nt. The more facts that come out, the worse it gets. She is not a bright woman. Even the possibility of her becoming president is chilling.

I've never been political in my life, but this McCain-Palin team scares the yell outta me.

I'd be against her solely for her anti-abortion stance, but it's the "everything else" that worries me the most.

Link to comment

And yet, though one cannot hold a political candidate responsible entirely for what happens in his/her home church, it is indicative of his/her beliefs. Obama has clearly repudiated the statements made by his former minister, but I haven't seen anything from Palin saying that she does not support her church's efforts to convert homosexuals through prayer. Much can be seen by the nature of the people that one chooses to surround oneself with.

Though frankly, both Obama and Palin choose to surround themselves with politicians, so what does that say about their characters, eh? Nothing good, I can assure you.

cheers!

aj

Another thought: doesn't asking a hypothetical question about banning books in a public meeting strike you as a little disengenuous? She wouldn't be asking the question if she wasn't thinking in that line. I would never ask a question about banning books because it would never occur to me to want to.

Link to comment

Pecman, you misunderstand. I am not defending Palin. Rather I am saying that no matter our opinion of someone we need to be honest and stick to facts. Would you like it if someone ran around telling lies about you? Do you approve of dishonesty?

I have no idea where Rick got his information, but I strongly suspect he is repeating what someone else said and therefore I am not calling him dishonest. What I would say is that he is likely guilty of not checking facts and made the mistake of repeating factually incorrect information.

As I have continually stated in this thread and in the Olbermann thread, there is no need to resort to lies, hate, and dishonesty when there is so much ripe fruit within reach. As Cole can tell you, I am not a McCain supporter, but I am one who feels that when we resort to untrue information when trying to argue our position, we demean ourselves. I can make a good case not to vote for McCain on McCain-Feingold alone, and there are also excellent cases to be made based on his views on gay rights, abortion, and many other subjects. And I suspect that as the campaign progresses we will have more information on Palin and will find places where we can disagree with her and make good cases for not voting for her, but as of now there is not that much factual information on her available.

Ask yourself this question. Do I wish to be known as someone who is too lazy or dishonest to make factual arguments, or do I prefer to be known as honest? I, personally, prefer to be known as honest as I'm quite confident you do, but everyone will have to answer that question for himself. I will add that when one acquires a reputation for dishonesty his arguments become suspect and are therefore less effective. While your reputation for honesty may not have much effect when you are preaching to the choir, it will have a major effect when you are trying to convince someone who is not a member of that choir. For example, if you were on a jury and someone was giving testimony and was widely known as a liar, would you give that person's words the same weight that you would give the words of someone known for being honest? I think not.

Lastly, if you find it offensive when someone tells lies about a candidate or person you support or like, then you should be equally offended by someone telling lies about a candidate or person you dislike. That is known as being fair. It has nothing to do with the people about whom the statements are being made, but instead has everything to do with the kind of person you are. I can't control what others may say or think, but I can act in a manner that I am not ashamed of and in the end, that is all any of us can do. Your own moral code will tell you if you are right or wrong on this and my opinion, or anyone else's opinion is immaterial. I happen to believe that the people who use this site are a pretty nice bunch, but occasionally I feel they forget their values and I try to remind them of what they appear to be saying through their stories. I have yet to read one story posted here, although there are still many I have not yet read, where the author advocated that people go forth and lie. Only in the forum section have I found anything where it might be argued that someone is advocating or approving of being dishonest, and then seldom. My comments are meant to remind us to try to live up to our ideals. I may not be skilled at presenting that concept, but that was my intention.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...