Video: Noted party boss castigates Akin for not withdrawing

posted at 9:21 am on August 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Count Sarah Palin among the politely unimpressed with Todd Akin’s dedication to principle in his decision to stay in the race.  “Bless his heart,” Palin told Greta van Susteren (whose own displeasure is couched in less-generous tones), “but you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.  Believe me, I’ve been there.”  After saying that she knows what Akin might have been trying to do in defending life, Palin emphasizes that the Senate election in Missouri is bigger than one person.  And if Akin won’t get out, Republicans have to find another way to beat Claire McCaskill — by running Palin’s original endorsee in the race as a third party [see update]:


In any other context, having Palin urge a third-party run for a Senate seat would have been the ultimate slap against the GOP establishment. Now, it might be their only option left, unless groups like the NRSC and American Crossroads are willing to eat crow and place some ads in Missouri backing Akin. It depends on the polling, but it’s hard to imagine someone with Akin’s current negatives remaining competitive for long. In October, McCaskill’s campaign is going to start running ads with the video of Akin attempting to claim that “legitimate” rape victims have super-uteri that can resist rapist sperm or something, and the race will end up looking something like Alan Keyes’ competitiveness against Barack Obama in 2004 — unless Missouri voters have another option.

So, has anyone looked up the rules on independent Senate bids in Missouri? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s already a matter of considerable research on the Right.

Update: Allahpundit shot me a link to Jim Geraghty last night, who did do the research on third-party bids. The good news? Republicans can get another name on the ballot. The bad news? Missouri has a sore-loser law that disqualifies Steelman and John Brunner. They can put Jim Talent, John Ashcroft, and pretty much anyone else on the ballot they wish — except anyone who was on the primary ballot. Palin actually says in the interview that the GOP needs to run someone like Steelman as an independent, not Steelman herself, which commenters have pointed out to me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

Point #2: Having non-Christian citizens being subject to public displays of recognition of the God of the Bible does NOT constitute the establishing of non-Christians as second class citizens.

thin line there. its obvious that atheists and people of other faiths have to endure certain stuff that can makes us feel unwelcome or not belonging.

Contrary to popular belief, we “fundies” (and I include “Sweater Vest” in this) are not trying to establish a Theocracy.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

sure, as long as people have the higher power regarding the laws of the country, it will never be a theocracy, even if people end up supporting laws that god approves.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

.
This issue is about overturning “the abolition of public displays/expressions of Christianity.”

There’s no “thin line” there. The Founding Fathers had every intention that the laws of the U.S. reflect the WILL of the God of the Bible, and the Bible doesn’t condone any government requiring membership in Christianity (or Denomination thereof).

But that’s not what your main contention is. You’re implying that the FEELINGS of discomfort/”being unwelcome or not belonging” should constitute a valid grounds-basis to abolish the wide-open displays/expressions of Christianity in the public square.
And (started another sentence with “and”) I REJECT that totally out of hand.
I absolutely insist that there is NO “freedom from religion” implied or otherwise stated in The Constitution.

Christians can’t escape the expressions of atheism (or any other religion) in the public square, and atheists cannot demand to be free from any expressions of Christianity entering their eyes and ears in the public square.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Palin name mentioned, instantly the most commented on thread at Hot Air. How does that make you feel Rombots, knowing that romneycare, the sociolist, has less pull than a housewife from Alaska.

Palin IS a conservative with principle, Romneycare is not

Palin IS a fighter, romneycare is not

Palin has people like me that will crawl over glass for her, romneycare can only buy elections

If romneycare loses to the most inept president in the history of the world it’ll be on the heads of you mittbots.

By the way mittbots, you say Palin endorsed Christine O’Donnell in an election two years ago where over 80% of the people SHE ENDORSED WON, didn’t romneycare endorse the leftist loser Mike castle in the same race. After endorsing other losers like Bob erlich the liberal from maryland, among others. I’d take Palin’s record over Romneycare’s any day of the week.

Rombot’s way to get Palin followers to vote for your liberal, insult her.

Danielvito on August 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Just curious, but how many of you think the 17th should be repealed now?

ButterflyDragon on August 22, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It never should’ve passed to begin with. One of the main reasons why States have lost much of their sovereignty is due to the direct election of Senators. Senators no longer serve at the behest of the interests of the State and instead work to consolidate their own (federal) power.

njrob on August 22, 2012 at 1:23 PM

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM

.
Page five Bishop! . . . . . . AWRIGHT ! ! ! . . . . .
.
What do I win? . . . (crickets chirping)

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Give me a break….when she said “like Steelman”, she meant Steelman herself,and anyone who is being intellectually honest knows it”

xblade on August 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Uh, no, sorry, xblade. When she said “like Steelman,” she actually meant “like Steelman.” That’s what the two words “like” and “Steelman” actually mean. When these two words are joined together, they have a specific meaning, and the meaning isn’t “Steelman.” (This seemed obvious to me, but I guess it isn’t to everyone.)

What’s not always well understood or appreciated by Palin’s detractors is that she actually chooses her words very carefully.

Burke on August 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Noted party boss? She’s like that mad old uncle to them and they won’t even invite her to the wedding.

The GOP fears her more than Obama. Nothing changes for them if he stays in power, but if she were to become President, their good old country club days are over with, and they know that.

Don L on August 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I shut up with a simple a or b answer! what do you value most:
a) that your religious “rituals” be present at official state events?
b) that all your fellow countrymen feel included in the social institutions that we share?

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM PM

Your feelings are your’s to control.

You can get mad, happy or fell included, all in the same britches.

The is a land of freedom. I’m free to publicly worship God and sing His praises.

And you’re free to worship yourself, if you want to.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:18 PM

a or b!!!!! you evade like a politician!

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Shut up, Sarah. The decision belongs to Missourians and no one else.

Of course, this comes from the intellecutal heavyweight who couldn’t name a SCOTUS decision she disagreed with, thinks we have a two-party system, and told people they have to pick a party.

Dante on August 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

We do have a two-party system, which is why she said we have to pick a party. Speaking of intellectual heavyweights, if you can’t understand why people speak of a two-party system and want to imply that it’s somehow a stupid statement, you’re lacking a little intellectual heft yourself.

Shut up, Sarah. The decision belongs to Missourians and no one else.

Of course, this comes from the intellecutal heavyweight who couldn’t name a SCOTUS decision she disagreed with, thinks we have a two-party system, and told people they have to pick a party.

Dante on August 22, 2012 at 9:41 AM

So you’re personally attacking the woman for simply having an opinion?

GOPRanknFile on August 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I think Dante is attacking Palin for being a Republican. It fits into his M.O.

gryphon202 on August 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Dante’s just as prone to criticize Reagan because he wasn’t Ron Paul, so he’s definitely a little fringe on the issue of a two-party system.

Though I’ll admit, when you see some of the geniuses we get stuck with in a two-party system, it’s pretty frustrating.

And Reagan did have to make a lot of compromises to get as much of his agenda through a Democratic Congress as possible. That used to bother me a lot, until I realized he was doing the best he could within a muddled system.

That’s why RINOs are so typiccally in the government. They tend to give up when they meet opposition Reagan was about as determined and effective as you ever get in a president, and he still had to accept compromises.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Todd Akin is right not to bow to political pressure .

Both Democrats & Republicans have spread a stat (5% or 32,101 rape-related pregnancies) from a *phone survey* in order to paint him as a kook. Phone surveys on rape belong in magazines like Redbook or Cosmopolitan; they do not constitute “legitimate” medical research. The CDC cherry-picked an opinion survey study that is two decades old in order to serve the Left’s agenda…and Republicans not only fell for it but they used it against one of our own.

Republicans took the bait and then poured kerosene on a fire they could have easily stamped out. If we lose that senate seat, it won’t be Todd Akin’s responsibility; it will sit squarely on the shoulders of Republicans (esp conservatives), who chose political correctness over truth and right action.

Todd Akin deserves your support. You owe it to him and to the rest of America.

It’s also time to fight back and reveal the junk science that the Left passes off as fact.

TXJenny on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

If it was up to me, every government meeting would begin with prayer. God knows, we need it.

Stop whining and get over yourself.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Portia46 on August 22, 2012 at 12:35 PM

You’re assuming quite a bit, hon. “End run” my a§§! Do you think Obama gives a rat’s posterior about what Palin thinks? He’ll do what it takes for him to retain power…even if it means bringing his enemy closer (giving he the opportunity to be groomed for 2016, which I do NOT want to even *think* about now).

What’s to GAIN if she’s right?
A trophy for Snark.
What’s to LOSE if she’s wrong?
A following that wonders why the hell they should listen to anyone who predicted the other side’s eventual winning ticket.

And THEN this “3rd candidate” cr*p: really sloppy. NO excuse for that; if she wants to be a commentator, she ought to do her research a bit better before flapping her jaw on a matter of such importance it *could* adversely (for our side) affect the result of the Presidential campaign.

Czar of Defenestration on August 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Todd Akin deserves your support. You owe it to him and to the rest of America. TXJenny on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

We owe him nothing.

If Akin loses the seat, we might lose the Senate.

We lose the Senate, Obamacare stays.

Obamacare stays, more babies die (HHS Mandate/other regulations).

PP remains federally funded, more babies die.

This isn’t about principles, this is about saving Religious liberty and try to save whatever human life we can.

Bluray on August 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

It’s ludicrous. Taking on the level of caricature and hysteria evinced whe Larry Summers was ousted for having the temerity to state that men and women are different.
Akin and folks of his mind on abortion issues have taken an anecdotal but unquantified effect of stress hormones affecting pregnancy or causing spontaneous abortion and contorted it into this ‘legitimate rape’ concept, as some form of justification / rationalization for their position towards abortion on demand for pregnancies resulting from rape. Their idiot argument is that in a ‘legitimate’ rape – their weasel word for ‘real’ or ‘true’ – the impregnating doesn’t happen, or doesn’t take hold, ergo there’s no need for an abortion. And thus any woman presenting their pregnancy as a product of rape is therefore lying and is just seeking an abortion as post-coital abortificant. And should thus be denied.
The whole thing is a series of dipshitted positions, linked together like some platform-jumping level of SuperMarioBros, IMAO.

Such idiocy shouldnt be in office. But neither should a Claire McCaskill. The question now is which is worse. And it’s not ‘who can we slam in there at the eleventh hour.’ That ship has sailed. Any attempt to foist a third party or write-in candidate will surely fail in the time remaining. And the torpedoes fired at the guy over the last 72hrs BY HIS OWN SIDE trying to force him to quit have likely irrevocably damaged his candidacy to at least the same degree as his own remarks. So of the 20-some democrat senate seats up for grabs this November, this one is likely staying democrat. Maybe the Missouri GOP can find their ass with both hands over the next five years and really field a decent candidate next time. Surely there is someone more worthy than the likes of McCaskill. They have an entire state to pick from. Some good person is going to have to take a pay cut and a rectal exam.

rayra on August 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

… and it’s a crappy form or journalistic propaganda to attempt to lead an audience around by waving icons at it. It’s clumsy and ham-fisted.

rayra on August 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Republicans took the bait and then poured kerosene on a fire they could have easily stamped out.

Oh good lord, yes let’s have a debate about abortion and rape from now until the election.

Not the horrific economy – rape and abortion.

Nothing the Democrats would like better.

Akin is a piece of garbage for staying in this race. He needs to resign now. If any Republican group gives money to him, they’ll never get another cent from me.

NoDonkey on August 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

No, I won’t relax. You asked for an answer, and I gave you one. I’m sick of people trying to legislate situations so that they can “feel” a certain way.

MadisonConservative on August 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

… and it’s a crappy form or journalistic propaganda to attempt to lead an audience around by waving icons at it. It’s clumsy and ham-fisted.

rayra on August 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

WTF?

idesign on August 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

You aren’t quite understanding the response. There is no such thing as “all” feeling the same way about anything. There is never a universal response to a principle or action. Everyone can agree that a referee blew a call, but everyone won’t be unhappy about it. The “feel included” concept isn’t valid. We are individuals.

wolfsDad on August 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

what do you value most:
a) that your religious “rituals” be present at official state events?
b) that all your fellow countrymen feel included in the social institutions that we share?
nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The question itself is a non-starter, as whether rituals are present, or whether someone “feels included”, are utterly irrelevant to the function of government.

The function of government is to protect and defend the rights and safety of the citizens. Not to give people nice happy feelings.

A society will tend to enshrine its culture in the way it shapes its government. Our government was shaped by the Christian faith of our founders and their belief that people should be allowed to live as free as they are able. So the existence of these rituals establishes nothing and harms no one.

The GOP is Akin, Akin is the GOP.

bifidis on August 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Yeah, you wish this was true. There’s nothing you’d love more than to hang this guy around the neck of everyone who disagrees with you. You’re in good company, though: McCaskill basically trolled Missouri Republicans to vote for him so she’d have an easy target in November.

The Schaef on August 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Czar of Defenestration on August 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Well, it worked. Obama and Akin have a few things in common. Like stubborness and narcisism and maybe stupidity. IF Obama were clever enough to see he could have won this thing easily by being nice and throwing a few bones to the Republicans, don’t you think he would have? No way will he, who so depises everything Sarah Palin stands, place himself in a position that will acknowledge her greater wisdom. No way.

Dumping Joe after all this? Quite unthinkable for a man who thinks he’s untouchable.

Akin is a creep who won the nomination with the help of 1.5 million from the Dems running dog whistle commercials and through Dem cross-over votes. And if you think it’s wise to fall on your sword for a confirmed idiot, I’m very glad you’re not a Party Boss.

Now is not the time for Picket’s Charge.

Portia46 on August 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

And Reagan did have to make a lot of compromises to get as much of his agenda through a Democratic Congress as possible. That used to bother me a lot, until I realized he was doing the best he could within a muddled system.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

.
Muddled system provided, courtesy of “Tip” O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

If there is no ritual, who gets offended? and why?

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Most of the time the rituals are to give comfort and encouragement to the participants. If it is important to them than I think that is the benchmark. I would be very sad if the national anthem was taken away from sporting events because some in the audience are either not from the US or for whatever other stupid reason liberals can think of. I love it!

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

How does Palin know who to endorse? Does Sarah just endorse those that she FEELS, would make competent legislators? NO, she does her freaking research! She has a small, tight team that also reads lots of blogs, and not just the posts, but comments as well. She’s done this for years, it used to drive the blog trolls in Alaska nuts, they would accuse perfectlly innocent commenters of being Palin. Anyone digging in a little bit can find that Mr. Akin has been competeing with Joe Biden, but Joe gets more air time up until now. Akin has not claimed that Guam might turn over, but give him more airtime and practice!

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I do *not* think the NATIONAL GOP would be (though they *would* be called by the Left) “evaders” if they were to take the stance that it is a matter for the states to decide, and that the Federal Government should get out of it. No need to imply ending Roe v Wade; let the Left whine about bitterly clinging to State Power.

This whole “under what circumstances is it okay” cr*p just bothers the hell out of me from people who should be focusing on the forest (Federal), not the trees (State). Let the states grapple with it. That’s not shrugging off responsibility, it’s affirming the citizens’ powers, best articulated in each State.

Today’s GOP does NOT “thirst for death”:
they look at an exposed landmine like a child and
say to themselves
, “let’s play jumprope here!”

Czar of Defenestration on August 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The best part of dredging the Castle/Coons Race back up is that Castle is still done and RINOs are still mad about it.

SurferDoc on August 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ok, that made me laugh.

Seriously, it was way past time for Castle to be gone. I don’t know how the future will work out, but 6 years of a largely insignificant Coons may be worth it if we actually get a decent Senator in the end.

tom on August 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Precisely. I would suggest that when someone prays at a public event, he sticks his fingers in his ears and turns around 180 degrees. He’ll look silly, but, judging from his posts…

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Conservatives should just vote for this guy and be more careful in selecting their candidate next time …

https://www.facebook.com/dine2010

HondaV65 on August 22, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I repeat, the guy is a kook. NORML, hahaha.

njrob on August 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

rayra on August 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

If this were a one-time run in with his own mouth, you might have a point. But apparently, his stupidity and ignorance is chronic—as he’s proven repeatedly over the last two days. The smartest thing a united Republican party did was push the eject button.

And, BTW, I’m thinking that the bloggers and conservative commentators who are talking about this just might be the necessary sledge hammer needed to hit this pompous pig’s rump up side the head and get him out of the race. We’ve got plenty of time to reverse it if it were done quickly.

Portia46 on August 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

This issue is about overturning “the abolition of public displays/expressions of Christianity.”

There’s no “thin line” there. The Founding Fathers had every intention that the laws of the U.S. reflect the WILL of the God of the Bible, and the Bible doesn’t condone any government requiring membership in Christianity (or Denomination thereof).

let me get this straight, if we in this country, do not make laws that are coherent the will of god, then we are not following the founding fathers intent?
its like us atheist and people of other religions will always be traitors to the spirit of the country or something. again, the idea of 2nd class citizen comes to mind.

But that’s not what your main contention is. You’re implying that the FEELINGS of discomfort/”being unwelcome or not belonging” should constitute a valid grounds-basis to abolish the wide-open displays/expressions of Christianity in the public square.

it seems that I, as a second class citizen in your eyes, I no right to complain about christian rituals performed by my government but you get to complain as the 1st class citizen that you are, that those ritual are not being performed enough.

And (started another sentence with “and”) I REJECT that totally out of hand.
I absolutely insist that there is NO “freedom from religion” implied or otherwise stated in The Constitution.

I can just label my atheism as a religion and get past those missing words in the constitution. I am a Pastafarian if you will. when you have freedom of religion, the pragmatic result is that you also have freedom from religion

Christians can’t escape the expressions of atheism (or any other religion) in the public square, and atheists cannot demand to be free from any expressions of Christianity entering their eyes and ears in the public square.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM

agree! but we are not talking “public square”, we are talking government. there is a difference! don’t I have the right to ask that certain religious ritual be excluded or included in government functions? you seem to claim that no, I have no right!

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

If you had no rights, you wouldn’t be posting here.

Now, come on down. We need the wood.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Sarah’s right, as usual. Too bad Steelman can’t run, but they can find someone who’s not Alan Keyes to step in. The conventional wisdom would say this kills the chance to knock off McCaskill, but you never know. It’s 2012.

J.E. Dyer on August 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

May be the perfect time to visit the restroom but be quick about it.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

True.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

what do you value most:

a) that your religious “rituals” be present at official state events?

b) that all your fellow countrymen feel included in the social institutions that we share?

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

.
False premise.

The practice by the government of formally recognizing the Christian God at official State events should not cause any FEELINGS of exclusion within the heart and soul of atheists.

By implying that atheists shouldn’t have to go through these experiences, you are the intolerant one here. Intolerant of having expressions of Christianity in the public square enter your eyes and ears, without being offended or feeling excluded.

I repeat again:
“There’s no freedom from religion in The Constitution”.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Actually, it’s Republicans who are always trying to hide. You guys are showing absolutely zero backbone. Pathetic, soft-tummied keyboard warriors one and all.

bifidis on August 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

And you scum want to kill babies after they’re born. See Obama and the born alive act. You’re disgusting.

njrob on August 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Most of the time the rituals are to give comfort and encouragement to the participants. If it is important to them than I think that is the benchmark. I would be very sad if the national anthem was taken away from sporting events because some in the audience are either not from the US or for whatever other stupid reason liberals can think of. I love it!

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

the anthem is not a religious symbol. and also, I really don’t care about non US nationals. I was talking about members of our society, thus american citizens!

I am think more in public praying in government institutions, swearing on the bible in courts, “in god we trust” written on our currency.
I am asking what is more important to Christians:
a) to have these religious rituals?
b) remove these religious rituals so that other non christian American citizens feel more included in our society?

important, I not asking for their removal! its just a very honest question to help me understand!

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

There is ONE good thing about Akin continuing to run for Senate, at least it gets him OFF the Science and Technology Committe. WTF! Yes, that was the Committe he was on.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You already understand. You just wish to play Rhetorical Games…and whine.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

agree! but we are not talking “public square”, we are talking government. there is a difference! don’t I have the right to ask that certain religious ritual be excluded or included in government functions? you seem to claim that no, I have no right!

nathor
on August 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

.
I’m unequivocally stating:

NO, you do not have a right to ask/demand/require that Christian rituals be removed from formal government ceremonies. Period.

I say again (this is getting redundant), the Founding Fathers absolutely intended for their American government to formally recognize the God of the Bible.
That does not mean that all citizens must believe in the God of the Bible (but you’re allowed ( : . . . )

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

False premise.

The practice by the government of formally recognizing the Christian God at official State events should not cause any FEELINGS of exclusion within the heart and soul of atheists.

I know many atheist that do feel excluded, not to mention members of other religions.
but use you imagination, its not easy to stand silent in the middle of a room full of people praying. either you put up with it, or you WILL feel excluded very fast.

By implying that atheists shouldn’t have to go through these experiences, you are the intolerant one here. Intolerant of having expressions of Christianity in the public square enter your eyes and ears, without being offended or feeling excluded.

public square is not goverment! we can indeed complain that those experiences are not pleasant or ridiculous. for example, what is the point of swearing on a bible when an atheist testifies in court?

I repeat again:
“There’s no freedom from religion in The Constitution”.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

the pragmatic result is the same. see my reply in my previous post.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

You already understand. You just wish to play Rhetorical Games…and whine.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

and you are afraid of stating your true beliefs for political reasons.
to be honest, I really not sure if I understand. but your silence makes me think the worse of your political position.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I really don’t care what you think. My 877 Blogs more than state my position and my love for my Savior and this blessed land.

You are a pitiful, whiney little individual, and I feel sorry for you.

If you are interested, I suggest you read the Gospel According to John, Found in the New Testment and visit wallbuilders.com, to find out whoat the Founding Fathers belived, in their own words.

Or, you could just continue to whine.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The implication of Akin’s statement is that, if a woman becomes pregnant following a “rape,” then she must be lying. That is intolerable. Further, it is also ignorant on a galactic level. History is replete with millions of examples of women becoming pregnant following being raped by invading armies. You don’t even have to go back that far…just look at the Rape of Nanking and the children born to German women, who were raped en masse by the Soviets in the chaotic, final days of WWII in Europe.

Congressman Akin is either ignorant enough to willingly suspend disbelief and buy into truly dubious, crackpot theories or is incapable of basic analysis and evaluation. Either disqualify him for a seat in the Senate…as a Republican…if he wants to become a Democrat and move to Delaware, well…

The most troublesome part of this entire matter is that Mr Akin has demonstrated that he is willing to put his own political ambitions above the interests of the country, his party, and the people of the State of Missouri. Further, he seems blissfully unaware of the absolutely critical nature of this campaign year.

People used to ask questions like “Who lost China?” and “Who lost Iran?” Todd Akin had better hope that he doesn’t become the answer to “Who lost America?” History will not be kind.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I’m unequivocally stating:

NO, you do not have a right to ask/demand/require that Christian rituals be removed from formal government ceremonies. Period.

why can’t kingsjester be clear like you!
thank you!

of course I do not agree! a follow up question. does a citizen has the right to ask for christian rituals to be performed? or performed differently? if so and if there is conflicting christian opinions, who will judge the correct one?

I say again (this is getting redundant), the Founding Fathers absolutely intended for their American government to formally recognize the God of the Bible.
That does not mean that all citizens must believe in the God of the Bible (but you’re allowed ( : . . . )

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

the pragmatic result is the same! we can still be whatever we want in this supposedly christian nation! why you care? so that you can make the political statement to people of other religions or no religion that not being a christians is not being a good american as the founding fathers intended or something, thus, ostracizing them?

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

First, I am a traditionalist. Second, I think that trying to accommodate the possible discomfort of individuals has this country in what is impolitely termed FUBAR. If you come to my home I will do all I can to make you comfortable, in public, your comfort level is your problem.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

The practice by the government of formally recognizing the Christian God at official State events should not cause any FEELINGS of exclusion within the heart and soul of atheists.

I’m an atheist. I don’t mind prayers at formal events; however, I would very much oppose a limitation only to Christianity. There are other religions that have played a great role our history. In fact, it can legitimately be argued that, without Jews like Haym Solomon, the American Revolution would have been lost.

I know many atheist that do feel excluded, not to mention members of other religions.
but use you imagination, its not easy to stand silent in the middle of a room full of people praying. either you put up with it, or you WILL feel excluded very fast.

I don’t feel excluded. I haven’t a problem with religion as long as it is not forced down my throat and I am not expected to abide by its tenets. In fact, I think that religion plays an important role in society. As for Judeo-Christianity, I am loathe to see it marginalised. As a native Brit, I watched as the CofE became more and more liberal until it became irrelevant. Just like in Europe, a secular society — despite what many have been led to believe — does not actually result in a society without religion. Instead, what we have seen is the most radical form of Islam step into the vacuum and begin to impose their demands.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Sarah’s right, as usual. Too bad Steelman can’t run, but they can find someone who’s not Alan Keyes to step in. The conventional wisdom would say this kills the chance to knock off McCaskill, but you never know. It’s 2012.

J.E. Dyer on August 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I have read recently that the only way Steelman can run is
if 1)Atkins bows out and 2) the Mo. Repub party committee
(whomever they are) puts Steelman in his place.

All other options, write in, third party, Conservative Party, etc.
are off the table.

Perhaps Atkin will bow out when he finds his money and support
have dried up. That may take a few weeks.

I personally think that since the democraps are making his comments
a “women issue” against Romney/Ryan that Steelman as a conservative woman would be the perfect choice to counteract
the damage.

However, I won’t hold my breath!

Amjean on August 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Will he or nil he, Akin will be the one that Dems point to when Republicans point out how stupid Biden is. So he takes that impact off the table too.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Danielvito on August 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Is Sarah Palin a RINO for supporting Romney?

Rusty Allen on August 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Here’s the problem: Romney/Ryan are being tied to the ooze of vile of bilge that Akin said and they’re going to SINK because of 1 man.

They were on an upslope trajectory when this happened and instantly, the DNC pivots like a shark and will hammer it until election day. R/R are anti-women. Guess what? IT WILL WORK. There’s not enough spread in the men support vs. women non-support for R/R. Romney/Ryan needed women to cross over and that won’t happen now for 1 reason: AKIN.

I don’t want to hear from the whiny socons that this is just a blip on the radar screen, its the current du jour outrage, its white noise. SNAP OUT OF IT. Akin is a huge problem for romney/ryan and even if he leaves now? R/R is still tainted by Uncle Fester’s craziness. That seat in MO needs to be had by a women candidate. Its the ONLY way this can possible be saved from the crap storm of losing the white house.

Akin now has to go to court to have his name removed. Problem there! The judicial system in MO is ruled by democrats. You think they’re going to let him off the hook? You’re smokin’ something. They’re going to keep him on that ballot and those 14% socons who voted for Cuckoo for coco puffs will probably support him (again) vs. the WOMAN candidate that might get on the ballot.

Akin has missed the easy off ramp and has put the entire election of R/R in danger because as I sit in my state and I’m an independent, I now am no longer willing to put my neck on the line to vote for R/R because they won’t win! Old votes can be called up and in this regime? I’d rather be on their side and have a job than be on your side with no job!

Missouri? You guys blew it! You put in a guy who is bonkers and now the nation pays for your socon ways bought by a democrat strategy. How ya feelin today knowing that the whole nation is watching the Show Me state and seeing how played you guys were at not picking up the democrat strategy?

Sarah Palin is right but trying to convince you to quit Akin is like Brokeback Mountain at this point. Which will cost the country another 4 more years of Obama. Who do you think is laughing now? Yeah, Mr. Hope&Change.

Now you will excuse me as I get out my blue shirt and start dusting off my rendition to Viva La Revolution.

athenadelphi on August 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

bluefox on August 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You know, despite Portia46′s misspelling Ervin’s name, she is paying a compliment to Palin. You are so defensive that you take anything not posted by devout Palinistas as a knock.

bayview on August 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Most commenters would indicate that. Anytime there is a mention of Palin’s name, a lot of critics are on the thread. I’m sure you know this. The only way you can tell the difference is if the commenter is well known or they indicate it. I had no way of telling.

bluefox on August 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Hey Amjean, As I understand it there is Another woman available who could be fit into Akin’s spot, with minimal time lost, if Akin bows out. She’s well known, and was being discussed yesterday by the GOP. Forget the name.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

nathor, what is more important for you?

a) for everyone else to do what you want so that you feel loved?
b) for you to prevent others some from doing what they want so that youall can feel special?

blink on August 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM

cannot be a) because forcing people to do what I want does not bring me love.
I choose b with a correction that makes sense.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Nathor – you are right there is no higher power than yourself. Please remember that as you stare at your reflection on the surface of a deep pool of water. Maybe the O will do the same.

Fuquay Steve on August 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM

athenadelphi on August 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Thanks for sharing Debbie.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Dems have ADDED 9 more women speakers to their convention speakers roster. up in headlines.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Todd Akin deserves your support. You owe it to him and to the rest of America.

It’s also time to fight back and reveal the junk science that the Left passes off as fact.

TXJenny on August 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

No, he doesn’t. Someone this stupid that would say something so inflammatory just before an election is too stupid to have us “owe” him a thing.

A smart person would have kept his mouth shut or at least been careful about what he said and coasted to the win. And then after that he can say whatever floats his boat.

Nope. The last thing we need is a dumb pol who can’t control himself and cannot think on his feet.

kim roy on August 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Thanks for sharing Debbie.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM

**snort**

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM

That’s silly. All will not feel special. It’s not even possible.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Rusty Allen on August 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

No moron, she’s loyal, unlike you mittbot azzes that have attacked he since she was named VP candidate 4 years ago!

Rusty I still see you haven’t changed your first name- corrosion = Rusty

Danielvito on August 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Palin should do something about her hair before trying to tell someone what to do. She is becoming very tiring and irrelevant!

lhuffman34 on August 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I am a great admirer of Mrs Palin…and of Senator Sam.

Portia46 on August 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

My reply: bluefox on August 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

bluefox on August 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I don’t feel excluded. I haven’t a problem with religion as long as it is not forced down my throat and I am not expected to abide by its tenets. In fact, I think that religion plays an important role in society. As for Judeo-Christianity, I am loathe to see it marginalised. As a native Brit, I watched as the CofE became more and more liberal until it became irrelevant. Just like in Europe, a secular society — despite what many have been led to believe — does not actually result in a society without religion. Instead, what we have seen is the most radical form of Islam step into the vacuum and begin to impose their demands.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

so you favor more christian rituals to avoid being islamified. why don’t you demand more secularism instead? such as, no religious schools(or at least heavily regulated ones so that hate cannot be teached in them), no certain types of religious attire(burkas), no hiding of hate speech behind religious freedom.
my opinion is, western secularism is tuned for christianity and is balanced to supress the worse christian extremism without limiting freedom of religion. but Islam is a very political religion and needs stronger secularism to be contained.

fighting religious extremism with more religion seems an horrible idea to me!

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

That’s silly. All will not feel special. It’s not even possible.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I wanted to correct to included… but it was not my sentence.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Neither his questions nor his answers make any sense. The sad part is that it probably all seems logical in his mind.

blink on August 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

i know the questions did not make much sense. but I gave it an effort…

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM

So you all understood her? I didn’t. Her wording has become more jumbled and she all over the place.

Redford on August 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM

but Islam is a very political religion and needs stronger secularism to be contained.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Where has this ever worked?

cptacek on August 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Shucks, you didn’t say that the questions had to make sense. Your questions certainly didn’t.

blink on August 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

yes they do! but please be free to point out where my question does not make sense!

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Where has this ever worked?

cptacek on August 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

turkey. I worked there for some time and they are quite tolerant.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Hey nathor, More secularism is more government. Western CULTURE is what allowed 6 billion extra people onto the planet. Allowed technological advancement to grow to today.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM

nathor, Haven’t you heard, Turkey is having it’s OWN spring. They dismissed a bunch of the senior military there, which was keeping the Fundies at bay, for so long. The military was the stability inducing part of the government.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Where has this ever worked?

cptacek on August 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

also, soviet communism which is not exactly secular, also worked well on central asian muslims, but i don’t recommend those draconian measures on anyone.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:25 PM

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM

.
the pragmatic result is the same! we can still be whatever we want in this supposedly christian nation! why you care? so that you can make the political statement to people of other religions or no religion that not being a christians is not being a good american as the founding fathers intended or something, thus, ostracizing them?

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

.
The belief by the Founding Fathers, that our government formally acknowledging the God of the Bible would cause the blessings of God to work on our behalf, trumps your lack of belief in His existence.
The practice of these Christian rituals as a part of government ceremonial events is not a:

“political statement to citizens of other religions or no religion that not being a christian is not being a good American as the Founding Fathers intended . . .

I’d say it’s your own intolerance of Christian rituals that’s making you feel ostracized.

The practice of Christian rituals in American government (includes state and local) has been the “original” standard since the founding of the country. It’s the intolerance of it by militant atheists that is the “Johnny come lately”.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Yeah, but Darlin, you can’t make all people feel included either. It’s just not possible. I think we need to get back to some individual responsibility for our own comfort levels. As a person of faith, I am not the least bit uncomfortable with you being a non-believer and would never be offended that you did not participate in any rituals. We have so many bigger things to fix than the individual happy quotient. You don’t promote inclusiveness by demanding people stop doing those things that might (guaranteed will) make others uncomfortable. You are responsible for your feelings and must stop looking at your discomfort as personal attacks by others rather than them doing what makes them happy. Now I will have to be completely honest and admit that I yell “HATS” when they announce that the anthem will be played. But I don’t get angry at those who don’t take them off. Obviously raised in a barn.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

so you favor more christian rituals to avoid being islamified.

No. What I am saying is that nature abhors a vacuum. Society will never be completely secular. That can only happen in countries where religion is outlawed like it was in the Soviet Union or is like in North Korea.

I don’t have a problem with the free exercise of religion or for the acknowledgement of the role that it has played in the building of society.

why don’t you demand more secularism instead?

Because I don’t want more secularism. My atheism is a personal thing. My demand that the government enforce secularism would be no better than the religious demanding that their beliefs be enforced.

There is no guaranteed right of freedom FROM religion. It is part of the overwhelming majority of people’s lives in America and we are in the minority. The fact that “In God We Trust” is on the currency is of no consequence to me. Only those looking for a fight and an opportunity to impose their beliefs or lack thereof are bothered by them.

such as, no religious schools(or at least heavily regulated ones so that hate cannot be teached in them), no certain types of religious attire(burkas), no hiding of hate speech behind religious freedom.

So, I should support the destruction of the First Amendment? I don’t think so.

Religious schools do not bother me…in the least.

No one should be forced to wear any kind of religious attire. The operative word being “forced.” I have no desire and, in fact, find it quite troubling that you would suggest that we ban religious attire. That totalitarian temptation is strong within you.

Who gets to define “hate”? The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which has labeled Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party a “right-wing extremist” along with the FRC?

my opinion is, western secularism is tuned for christianity and is balanced to supress the worse christian extremism without limiting freedom of religion. but Islam is a very political religion and needs stronger secularism to be contained.

Stronger secularism? In Europe? LOL! It was precisely the death of Christianity and the rise of secularism in Europe that prepared the way for Islamism. The Islamism isn’t really being imported, as the most fervent adherents are first and second generation immigrants. Further, because of a lack of any spiritualism, Islamism has found tapped into a reservoir of Europeans of Anglo-Saxon descent looking for – to be trite – “meaning in their lives.” The Home Office has estimated that approximately 200,000 native Brits are converting to Islam every year.

fighting religious extremism with more religion seems an horrible idea to me!

It is not about fighting religious extremism with more religion. My point is that you will never have a secular society. Christians and Jews may willingly abandon their faiths in droves, but Islam is not on the downswing and is converting more and more and, as such, its followers are setting the table of appropriate items for discussion.

Christians and Jews have been rendered nearly irrelevant in European society, especially by the Left, which is not pro-Islamist. The Left is slowly waking up to the fact that, while they share Islamists’ hatred of Israel, the US, Jews/Christians, etc., they don’t exactly like being associated with homophobes and misogynists. It’s not Christians and Jews beating gays in Amsterdam. It’s not Christians and Jews demanding laws that call for the imprisonment of anyone, who says anything about Islam, including the TRUTH. Yes, you can now go to jail in Europe for speaking out against FGM.

The many in Europe, especially the Left, that pushed for a secular society have lost the moral high ground.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

nathor, Haven’t you heard, Turkey is having it’s OWN spring. They dismissed a bunch of the senior military there, which was keeping the Fundies at bay, for so long. The military was the stability inducing part of the government.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 3:19 PM

the military there were also a bit fascist, but the point is, turkey is still extremely secular. I cannot recall any other country that gives more importance to secularism. it part of their culture now, and even the AK party leaders tour the middle east trying to push their secular way of governance.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Where has this ever worked?

cptacek on August 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

.
turkey. I worked there for some time and they are quite tolerant.

nathor
on August 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM

.
Tolerant of what ?

To be fair, I have not be to Turkey. But I have acquaintances who have been there specifically for the purpose of Christian evangelism, and I was told on no uncertain terms that it’s against the law in Turkey.
They had to be very “clandestine” about it.

They were over there late ’70s early ’80s. Yeah, during the Iran hostage crisis.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Noted party boss? She’s like that mad old uncle to them and they won’t even invite her to the wedding.

The GOP fears her more than Obama. Nothing changes for them if he stays in power, but if she were to become President, their good old country club days are over with, and they know that.

Don L on August 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

You got it!!! Kudos to you!

Amjean on August 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Hey Amjean, As I understand it there is Another woman available who could be fit into Akin’s spot, with minimal time lost, if Akin bows out. She’s well known, and was being discussed yesterday by the GOP. Forget the name.

bigmike on August 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Wouldn’t it be awesome!! Atkin bows out. The repubs put in a strong, conservative female against
Obama’s buddy, McCaskill (not sure if whom you mentioned is
conservative, but I can dream).

If Palin, DeMint, Rush, Levin, Hannity, Romney, Ryan, etc. get
behind her and give her tons of money and help. Then its up
to the Missouri voters. And if they screw it up, it is on them.

Pound on them 24/7 relentless in our pursuit of McCaskill’s defeat.

That is how it is done. None of this wienie whiney crapola.

Amjean on August 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM

the military there were also a bit fascist, but the point is, turkey is still extremely secular. I cannot recall any other country that gives more importance to secularism. it part of their culture now, and even the AK party leaders tour the middle east trying to push their secular way of governance.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Read Claire Berlinski’s article, Ban the Burq’a, to get an idea of how much Turkey is changing on the ground. She has lived there for years.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Noted party boss? She’s like that mad old uncle to them and they won’t even invite her to the wedding.

The GOP fears her more than Obama. Nothing changes for them if he stays in power, but if she were to become President, their good old country club days are over with, and they know that.

Don L on August 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

.
You got it!!! Kudos to you!

Amjean on August 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

.
Don’, that has to be the best short-description I’ve read about the tension between Sarah and the Blue-blood Republicans.

Well stated, sir.
.
And thank you Amjean, for reposting his comment. : )

I definitely missed it, earlier.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Danielvito on August 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You make a pretty weak case when you claim that republicans like me supporting our nominee makes us RINOs, but when Palin does it, she’s loyal.

I love Sarah Palin; she’s like my favorite person.

Rusty Allen on August 22, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Yeah, but Darlin, you can’t make all people feel included either. It’s just not possible.

I agree, but at least you should give broad enough conditions so that a large majority can feel included.

I think we need to get back to some individual responsibility for our own comfort levels. As a person of faith, I am not the least bit uncomfortable with you being a non-believer and would never be offended that you did not participate in any rituals. We have so many bigger things to fix than the individual happy quotient. You don’t promote inclusiveness by demanding people stop doing those things that might (guaranteed will) make others uncomfortable.

we have to find a balance, and actually I think we have balance and much accommodation was given before. maybe more will be given if the sensitives of the population change. we will see.

You are responsible for your feelings and must stop looking at your discomfort as personal attacks by others rather than them doing what makes them happy.

will do, but, are you sure all christians also take that advice?

Now I will have to be completely honest and admit that I yell “HATS” when they announce that the anthem will be played. But I don’t get angry at those who don’t take them off. Obviously raised in a barn.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

eh! :)

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Most commenters would indicate that. Anytime there is a mention of Palin’s name, a lot of critics are on the thread. I’m sure you know this. The only way you can tell the difference is if the commenter is well known or they indicate it. I had no way of telling.

bluefox on August 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I’m not claiming to be the best writer out there, but when I’d just explained that Palin had effectively spiked the possibility of Obama ditching Biden, and when I compared her to one of the Senate’s best debaters and Constitutional authorities, I’m at a loss to understand how I could have made it more clear.

I admire Gov Palin and have defended her vigorously. I’ve also defended Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. I just can’t defend the snivling little Todd I’m More Important Than Anything Akin.

Portia46 on August 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Another moronic statement…:)

Palin never endorsed O’Donnell in the primary.

idesign on August 22, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Thank you idesign. Don’t know what we would do without you :-)

American Dream 246 on August 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Read Claire Berlinski’s article, Ban the Burq’a, to get an idea of how much Turkey is changing on the ground. She has lived there for years.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

your article has little about turkey. but I fully agree with the secular measure of banning the burqa.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

American Dream 246 on August 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Are you being serious?

Rusty Allen on August 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Tolerant of what ?

To be fair, I have not be to Turkey. But I have acquaintances who have been there specifically for the purpose of Christian evangelism, and I was told on no uncertain terms that it’s against the law in Turkey.
They had to be very “clandestine” about it.

They were over there late ’70s early ’80s. Yeah, during the Iran hostage crisis.

listens2glenn on August 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM

but they are also equally repressive of muslim extremists sects.it seems draconian measure for americans used to absolute freedom of religion, but that is the price to pay to control islam in a muslim country.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Hmmmm, I hope Christians wouldn’t have rituals purely for the effect of annoying others. I guess it is possible but the only ones that come to mind is the Westboro “Baptist” Church. While I will never say who is or isn’t a Christian, I have some serious doubts about their Biblical interpretation and can without hesitation condemn their brand of evangelizing.

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Cindy Munford on August 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Last time I checked, “The Great Commission”, Matthew 28: 16-20, did not include the words, “Now, go out and annoy others”….

I just don’t think “our friend” is very happy with the fact that u78% of Americans are Christians, and 92% of Americans believe in God, per Gallup.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I agree, but at least you should give broad enough conditions so that a large majority can feel included.
nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Does large majority = 92%?

cptacek on August 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

your article has little about turkey. but I fully agree with the secular measure of banning the burqa.

nathor on August 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I guess you missed the parts where she related how women can’t walk in some areas of Istanbul uncovered without being called a wh0re or how a male friend asked her to dress more modestly in his apartment lest his neighbours call the police to report that he was cavorting with a prostitute? The point is that Berlinski first moved to Turkey because it was a secular country. She has watched it first hand become much less tolerant.

Turkey is quickly moving away from Anaturk’s secularism and towards Islamism and has been for several years. Anyone, who has done the slightest research on the subject, is aware of this fact.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Anyone, who has done the slightest research on the subject, is aware of this fact.

Resist We Much on August 22, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You just hit the nail on the head, m’dear.

kingsjester on August 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6