Posts on Religion

If you are Rory and Wendy Alec, the founders behind GodTV, how do you follow up your massively successful election special in which a cavalcade of right-wing luminaries mingled with a bunch of borderline luncatics and your guests declared that we were locked in a "spiritual battle" in which "absolutely everything" was on the line, warned that a Barack Obama victory would signal that “we have not chosen God’s best," recounted visions they had in which they saw the forces of evil commiserating at a casino in the sky while they smoked cigars, drank whiskey, and had the faces of dogs, screeched that they needed to fervently pray to let God’s will be done in America as it is in Heaven, and lamented that Pat Robertson was not running for president this cycle?

Admittedly, it is hard to top that, but Rory and Wendy are nothing if not committed and resourceful, which is why they are unveiling their latest GodTV series asking if we are now living in the End Times:

Rory & Wendy Alec will be hosting a new End-Time series on Fridays at 8.30pm and Sundays at 9pm entitled 'Apocalypse and the End Times' which will feature interviews with internationally-acclaimed Bible Prophecy experts, while also giving the GOD TV visionaries an opportunity to encourage viewers worldwide as they share their personal perspectives on the subjects being discussed.

Guests on 'Apocalypse and the End Times' include: Grant Jeffrey, who has written 'The Next World War' and 'Countdown To The Apocalypse'; Dr Mike Evans author of 'Betrayed: The Conspiracy to Divide Jerusalem' and 'The Final Move Beyond Iraq'; Gary Kah, author of 'En Route to Global Occupation' and 'The New World Religion'; Chuck Missler, author of many books, including 'Alien Encounters' who will share on the UFO controversy; and Dr Larry Bates, author of 'The New Economic Disorder' who will teach believers how to protect their assets in a time of crisis.

Other new programs coming up on GOD TV this month include an End-Time series at 7.30pm on Fridays with Mike Bickle, Director of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC), who will teach on how the Bride of Christ must prepare for the Bridegroom. Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries will also present a series of round-table discussions on the End-Times on Mondays at 11am.

Throughout the month, a wide range of topics will be covered on GOD TV - from the Second Coming to the Rapture, the Illuminati, the antichrist, mark of the beast as well as issues such as UFOs and Aliens, bird flue and the current economic meltdown.

"We are certainly living in the most exciting era of world history, as we await the return of our Lord Jesus," said Wendy Alec who is GOD TV's Director of Television. "Although nobody knows exactly when this will be, God has laid a tremendous sobriety on our hearts concerning the End-Times and these programs will allow our viewers to explore many different questions as to the times and seasons we are living in - enabling them to draw key insights from some of the greatest teachers on the subject."

Last week we noted that several high-profile Religious Right leaders were part of an effort to express thanks and support to the Mormon Church for its efforts to help pass Proposition 8 in California. But just because the Right is appreciative of the role that Mormons played in the effort doesn't mean that they are necessarily ready to actually vote for a Mormon for president, as Christianity Today points out:

Evangelicals were content to partner with Mormons on Proposition 8 because the groups agreed on the end goal, said Gerald R. McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College and coauthor of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate.

"The outcome is to have a marriage policy that is completely agreeable to evangelicals. Before, the outcome was someone in office who, to a lot of evangelicals, represented a theology that was completely disagreeable," McDermott said. "They agree on these horizontal issues while they disagree with the vertical issues, which are theological."

While some, like early Mitt Romney supporter Jay Sekulow, are trying to tie the two issues together, saying that the cooperation between evangelicals and Mormons on Prop 8 will only strengthen Romney's chances should he choose to run again, the militantly anti-Mormon activists in the movement want to make it clear that that is not going to be the case at all:

During Romney's candidacy, Robert Jeffress, pastor at the First Baptist Church of Dallas, told his congregants that they should prefer Christian candidates to Mormon candidates, but he is grateful for Mormon involvement in helping pass Proposition 8.

"I think there has been a strain in the relationship with Mormons, but I think Christians need to understand that Mormonism is not Christianity," Jeffress said. "The differences between Mormonism and Christianity aren't just minor theological differences that can be erased just because we agree on moral issues."

Of course, Jeffress was far more radical in his opposition to Romney than were most right-wing leaders, repeatedly declaring that "Mormonism is a cult" and that they "worship a false god," so it is not very surprising that he is still opposed to Romney.  But still, it should serve as a warning to Romney and any of his backers who are hoping that the Right's gratitude for the Mormon's cooperation in furthering their anti-gay agenda will somehow overcome their deep distrust and opposition to his faith.

Since some Catholic priests seem intent on telling Catholic who voted for Barack Obama that they have sinned and must confess before they can accept communion, I guess I’ll just keep posting about it:

Parishioners of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto have been told they should consider going to confession if they voted for Barack Obama, because of the president-elect's position condoning abortion.

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the grav- ity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.

The letter was sent to more than 15,000 members of the St. Joseph's parish. It is one of 34 parishes in the Stockton Diocese, which has more than 200,000 members in Stanislaus, San Joaquin and four other counties.

Illo also delivered this message in a homily.

Seemingly out of nowhere, the notoriously racist Bob Jones University has decided to apologize for its nearly fifty-year record of refusing admission to African Americans and its even longer policy against interracial dating:

Bob Jones University has apologized for racist policies including a one-time ban on interracial dating that wasn't lifted until nine years ago and its unwillingness to admit black students until 1971.

The private fundamentalist Christian school that was founded in 1927 said its rules on race were shaped by culture instead of the Bible, according to a statement posted Thursday on the university's Web site.

As the statement itself makes clear, the university blames its policies on a “segregationist ethos [in] American culture” that failed to “accurately represent” the true teaching of God and the Bible:

Bob Jones University has existed since 1927 as a private Christian institution of higher learning for the purpose of helping young men and women cultivate a biblical worldview, represent Christ and His Gospel to others, and glorify God in every dimension of life.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.

Apparently it was the “segregationist ethos” that was still rampant back in America in 2000 that lead Bob Jones University to forbid interracial dating because it would lead to one world government:

The one-world principle--every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity--plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand years.

Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made gender differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other.

Raw Story highlights the recent CNN piece on a Kansas pastors who has posted a rather provocative sign outside his church:

CNN's Rick Sanchez reported on a church marquee that reads "America we have a Muslim president. This is a sin against the Lord." Mark Holick is pastor of The Spirit One Christian Center in Wichita, Kansas where the sign is being displayed.

Holick told KSNW, "The main point of the marquee is to cause the Christians to understand he is not a Christian, Again, they will call me and they will tell me that he's not a Muslim because he is a Christian. That's not the point. The point is he's not a Christian."

The idea that Obama is not a Christian has become commonplace among many on the Right, as has the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to attack him because of his faith and that a voting for him was a sin. But this is the first time I’ve seen anyone argue that his understanding of his Christian faith actually makes him a Muslim.  

If the point that Holick wanted to make is that Obama is not a Christian, why didn’t he just say that instead of saying that Obama is a Muslim? That doesn’t even make any sense.

According to exit polls, 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama in last Tuesday's election.  And according to South Carolina Roman Catholic priest Jay Scott Newman they will all be denied communion at this church unless they repent for their sinful vote:

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

How long before the Catholic League's Bill Donohue comes rushing to Newman's defense, screaming "anti-Catholic bigotry," once the inevitable backlash starts?

The AP has a good article about how “nonwhite Christians voted overwhelmingly for Obama, [while] most white Christians backed John McCain” and how black clergy believe that right-wing attacks on Barack Obama’s “religious beliefs and support for abortion rights crossed the line, hurting longtime efforts to reconcile their communities.”

Toward the end, Harry Jackson shows up to explain that attacks on Obama’s faith were perfectly justified and in no way vitriolic:

But Bishop Harry Jackson, an African-American pastor of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., and a McCain supporter, said questions about Obama's more liberal reading of Scripture was fair game. Jackson noted that Obama became an observant Christian through the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Videos of Wright's sermons that circulated widely earlier this year showed him cursing the government and accusing it of conspiring against blacks. Obama eventually left the church.

"Many, many people question whether Barack Obama had been under a legitimate Christian leadership figure," Jackson said. "I personally never ascribed any vitriolic character assassination to it."

So having his faith declared “woefully deficient” and the basic tenets of his faith mocked while his “religious commitment” is questioned is not vitriolic?  Being told he is not a “true Christian,” that he doesn’t "meet the requirements” to be a Christian and that his faith “tramples on the historic teachings of Christianity and the Bible” is not vitriolic?  Being told that he is the harbinger of the Anti-Christ who has “no right to claim” to be a Christian because he is "not a Christian by any Biblical or historic measure" is not vitriolic?  

Good to know.  I’ll be sure to keep that in mind the next time the Religious Right starts complaining about people like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin being subjected to reverse religious tests because of their deeply-held beliefs.

It looks like the Religious Right will have a new enemy to fight in their annual “war on Christmas” now that the American Humanist Association has announced its new ad campaign:

"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," proclaims a new holiday ad from the American Humanist Association. Already appearing today in the New York Times and Washington Post, the message will soon be blazoned on the sides, taillights, and interiors of over 200 Washington DC Metro buses.

It's the first ad campaign of its kind in the United States, and the American Humanist Association predicts it will raise public awareness of humanism as well as controversy over humanist ideas.

Needless to say, right-wing leaders and activists have already swung into action to warn unsuspecting Americans of the dangers of this new advertising campaign:

Peter Sprigg, vice president of policy at the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), told CNSNews.com that sustainable morality is grounded in a belief in a higher being.

“I don’t think it’s possible to sustain long-term morality without religion,” Sprigg said. “If there is no higher being obliging humans to act morally and ethically, why should we do it?”

Sprigg emphasized he thinks that atheists can act morally, but he also said that society would shift towards greed and selfishness without a belief in a higher power.

And you just knew that Bill Donohue was going to have something to say about it:

Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy. And that is because there is nothing that cannot be justified if the only moral benchmark is what men and women posit to be right and wrong. Indeed, every monster in history has followed his conscience.

The danger is so great in fact that even the moribund Christian Coalition was obligated to speak out against this effort to “ban Christmas and God from the public square,” saying the AHA “has an elitist contempt for Americans believing in God” and urging their “millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, DC and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign." Even Mat Staver weighed in to call the campaign "insulting" while American Family Association president Tim Wildmon called it "stupid."

We had mentioned a group called In God We Trust once before when they inexplicably demanded that Barack Obama publicly denounce a series of “Imagine No Religion” billboards that the Freedom From Religion Foundation had placed around the country … and so it is no surprise that they would weigh in on this latest affront and do so by attempting to link the AHA to the Right’s most-hated nemesis – the United Nations:

"These ads are a deliberate attack on American traditions, beliefs and customs by a United Nation's affiliated group that espouses a radical anti-American agenda and is funded by an zealot who believes that the U.S. is a backwards nation full of imbeciles," says In God We Trust Chairman Council Nedd.

…

"This ad campaign is yet another attempt by America-hating snobs to mock and attack our nation's traditions and culture" says Nedd. "The AHA is not some harmless little atheist group. These people hate America and they are working with our nation's enemies to attack our heritage."

Last week the Courage Campaign unveiled a new ad highlighting the millions of dollars the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has poured into the California campaign to strip marriage rights from gay and lesbian couples.  As KUTV explained the ad:

A new commercial against proposition 8 in California is expected to fuel the fire of an already heated debate over gay marriage.
 
The commercial depicts two Mormon missionaries invading the home of a same sex couple.

In the commercial they knock on the door, say they are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tell a lesbian couple “we are here to take away your rights.”

They enter the home take the women’s rings, ransack the house looking for their marriage license, find it, and then tear it up. 

At the end, the missionaries was away saying, “that was too easy, yeah, what should we ban next?”

The ad itself is here:

Needless to say, the Yes on 8 folks are none too pleased with the ad and are now screaming “religious bigotry”

"This ad reaches new lows of religious bigotry and intolerance," said Yes on 8 Chairman Ron Prentice. "We hope that the leadership of the No on 8 campaign - including Senator Feinstein, Mayor Newsom and Superintendent O'Connell -- as well as all Californians regardless of their position on Proposition 8, will not only condemn the ad but join us in asking television stations to refuse to air it. After all, the No on 8 campaign has been running their own television commercials saying we must all oppose discrimination and intolerance whenever we see it. The bigotry this ad shows to members of the LDS church demands action now."

The California Catholic Conference is likewise outraged:

Bishop Stephen Blaire, the President of the California Catholic Conference decried the new advertisement from opponents of Proposition 8 as "a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance." He expressed dismay that any public media outlet would give it an airing. "The YES on 8 campaign is not about discrimination and intolerance; it is about restoring the traditional definition of marriage for the good of society and children," said Bishop Blaire. "All individuals and groups, whether religious or not, have both a right and a responsibility to participate in a civil debate about this important issue. From the beginning of this campaign the Catholic Conference has stressed the importance of mutual respect and denounces this type of religious bigotry."

Of course, when footage surfaced last week of Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute telling a rally of Prop 8 supporters that failure to pass the amendment was akin to failing to stop Hitler, they uttered not a peep.

Did you know that Alan Keyes is still running for president?  Well, he is. And I for one am quite pleased about it because it was rather entertaining to read his latest piece in WorldNetDaily blasting Religious Right leaders for being bad Christians because they are backing John McCain rather than him:

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, the 2008 election cycle has been a winnowing season for all Americans who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. Both of the major parties nominated individuals whose views discard the nation's founding principle of respect for the authority of the Creator God. Faced with this circumstance, those in full possession of the facts had to make a choice for or against telling the truth. Many so call Christian leaders chose to act deceitfully. They produced voters' guides and made statements pretending that John McCain is pro-life. His record includes some actions that appear to be pro-life and others that could not be. They emphasized the first and ignored the second. If the pro-life position is just a matter of counting votes, they could claim to be justified. But Christian conscience can never be satisfied with a result that accepts as righteous those who appear to do good, but turn their backs on the principle of all goodness, which is the will and spirit of God. Such were the Scribes and Pharisees whom Christ harshly ridiculed and condemned, even though his uncompromising rejection of them led directly to his unjust arrest, torture and crucifixion ... As a matter of political expediency, some leaders in the pro-life cause have been willing harshly to condemn Obama's conscious choice against God, while consciously hiding McCain's similar choice. They have produced deceptive voters' guides that label McCain as pro-life. These same leaders quietly contradict themselves, however, by arguments that take the view that Christians have no choice but to support the lesser of two evils, thus tacitly acknowledging that McCain, too, stands for evil. Though some ignored the thorough arguments I and others have made against the choice-of-evils position, others recognized their truth. They adjusted their rhetoric, taking the position that Christians had to vote effectively to limit evil – or else they would be guilty of promoting it. Slyly, this argument implies that those who conscientiously seek to hear the word of God and keep it are in fact the evil ones … Now those who say that we are morally obliged to support evil in order to limit it suggest that people who fail to do so are somehow responsible for the evil that results. They contend that people who single-mindedly seek out and support a candidate for president whose views and actions consistently align with the commandments are morally culpable. Anyone, therefore, who does not vote for the evil they prefer (in this case John McCain) is casting a vote for the evil they oppose (in this case Barack Obama.) This comes close to the unforgivable stance of the Pharisees, who ascribed evil to one whose only crime was to follow the will of his father God.

Presumably, leaders like James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins don’t particularly appreciate being called “Pharisees” and having their commitment to God questioned and criticized by right-wing fundamentalist fruitcakes because of their political choices … which is something to which a lot of people on the left side of the political spectrum can undoubtedly relate.

So it look like Rev. Rob Schenck has put together a rather simple and straightforward explanation regarding "God's Word on How to Vote." Based on his reading of Deuteronomy, Chapter 17, verses 14 – 20, Schenck explains how Old Testament rules regarding Israelite kings and his horses and wives should guide Christian voters today.

Here are the verses Schenck sites and explains: 

14 “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. 16 “Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’ 17 “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

18 “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. 19 “It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.

Schenck has released an accompanying podcast in which he goes through and explains what all of these verses mean, such as when the Bible talks about horses, it means power and when it talks about not sending people back to Egypt, it means that the king doesn't seek earthly solutions but rather "points the people Heavenword to God ... [and is] someone who can direct the people toward our ultimate help, which comes from the Lord."

Not being a Biblical scholar, I guess I don't have much to say about Schenck's interpretation of these passages, but I did want to highlight his interpretation of verse 20, which proclaims that the king "may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left."  

Here is Schenck's explanation:

Now somebody made a political joke about this and said that must mean we have to vote for independents. Ha ha, very funny, no. But there is something here about someone who sells out to a political ideology on one extreme or the other, right or left. We’re looking for someone who stands on principle even against political pressure to cave into ideological platforms, parties, and so forth. This is someone who does what is right for the country and resists the temptation to capitulate to political pressures and political pressure groups.

Hmmm ... so Christians shouldn't vote for someone who "sells out" to an extreme idology, someone who caves into ideological platforms, or capitulates to political pressure groups?  Interesting, since that is exactly what John McCain did in order to win the support of the Religious Right. 

Thus, at least according to Schenck, Christians clearly cannot vote for McCain. 

Back in 2006, the University of Minnesota released a poll showing that atheists were the most distrusted minority group in America: 

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

That finding was backed up by a Gallup poll in 2007 that showed that a majority of Americans were unwilling to elect an atheist whereas a majority said they would be willing to elect someone who was gay.  

Apparently Elizabeth Dole’s re-election campaign was aware of this bias, which is why they have decided to play their “scary atheism” card at the last minute.  Having already gone after her opponent, Kay Hagan, on the issue of gays getting married, the Dole campaign has released a new add linking Hagan to the Godless America PAC and accusing her of taking “Godless money,” whatever that is:

The ad claims that the “leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor” which, as the Huffington Post points out, is bogus – it was actually a “fundraiser co-hosted by 40 people, including a representative of the Godless America PAC.”

Hagan, for her part, is understandably upset:

A new television ad by Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s re-election campaign that ties her rival, state Sen. Kay Hagan, to an atheist group has provoked a threat of legal action from the Greensboro Democrat.

“I can’t tell you how upset I am that Elizabeth Dole is attacking my strong Christian faith,” Hagan said late Tuesday.

Hagan, who is an elder at First Presbyterian Church, said she is incensed by the ad because at the end it shows her picture with a female voice saying, “There is no God.”

Her campaign will hold a news conference in Greensboro today to push back against the ad, and Hagan said lawyers for the campaign are preparing to send a cease-and-desist order demanding that Dole stop the ad.

But the Dole camp is unapologetic:

“The ad is 100 percent accurate,” Dole spokesman Dan McLagan said. “If the truth hurts, that’s their problem.”

As I noted in my last post on Dole’s campaign tactics, until recently she had never really been the type to engage in this sort of wedge-issue, right-wing scaremongering, which makes her descent into it all the more pathetic. If she keeps this up, I’m going to have to add her to my regular monitoring rotation since she seems to be turning into a regular fountain of wing-nuttery.

Coral Ridge Ministries unveils a new video featuring Matt Barber, Jordan Lorence, Robert Knight, Tony Perkins, and others warning Christians that if Hate Crimes Laws get enacted, Christianity will be criminalized and churches will be destroyed.

In this excerpt, Knight declares that such laws will result in the “criminalization of Christianity” and that, if passed, American will “have criminalized basic Christian moral doctrine” while Perkins says that hate crimes laws will lead to hate speech laws which will “ultimately silence the churches in the country” and that is no accident because “homosexuals know they must silence the church in this country” in order to enact their agenda.

Sarah Palin sat down the CBN’s David Brody over the weekend and Brody has now posted various excerpts on his blog.

Among other things, Palin tried to explain her infamous “I read all of them” response to Katie Couric’s question regarding which newspapers she reads by saying she was irritated that Couric wasn’t asking her about real issues and that it’s the sort of thing that only “the Washington elite and the media” care about.

She also defended the recent tone at various McCain and Palin events, saying that if she ever heard people in the audience say anything inappropriate, she “would call 'em out on that,” and likewise defended her efforts to link Barack Obama to William Ayers, saying “I would say it again.”

She then explained to Brody why she wasn’t doing press conferences or appearing on news programs to be interviewed – and it’s because they will just mock her:

Brody: Let me ask you a little bit about media scrutiny because some of the media networks...wonder why you don't go on some of the 24/7 cable networks. What is your response to that?

Palin: Well sometimes it just doesn't do any good. I mean you set yourself up just to continually be mocked, you know so sometimes that doesn't do any good, but what I have done in this campaign is in reaching out to the American voters through our rallies, through the one on ones, through the small meetings that we've had trying to get our message out, our plans for this country out there minus the filter of some of the filter of the mainstream media because, because that filter as, as we see every day when we turn on the news too often there is this, this opaqueness, there is this, this spin, this contortion of a person's words and intentions and that does more harm than good, so it's a greater challenge for me and for John McCain to try to get our message out there without that filter of I think some of the world's media.

And speaking of being mocked, it’s not just Palin that is being ridiculed, it’s also God:

Brody: There have been some shots taken at you…regarding your Christian faith…The Pentecostal stuff, the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Do you want to clear up exactly what you believe in and so that the record can be set straight a little bit? Because there have been some editorials and others taking shots at you regarding --

Palin: Yeah, and I think the saddest part of that is that faith, not just my faith, faith and God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and chose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit and my faith has always been pretty personal. I haven't really worn it on my sleeve. I haven't been out there preaching it. I've always been of the mind that you walk the walk. You just don't have to be talking the talk about your beliefs, so just wanting maybe my life to be able to reflect my faith. So it's always been pretty personal and that was kind of a surprise in the last couple of months that people would misconstrue and spin anything that has to do with my faith or anybody else's and turn it into something to be mocked.

Hmmmm … tell that to Barack Obama.

Finally, Palin weighed in on the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment and couched it, as she always does, in her own assertion that she not bigoted or judgmental:

Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?

Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

So she’s not for telling anyone “what they can and can't do” … unless they are gay, in which case Palin is all for telling them they can’t get married.

It is now well-known that Sarah Palin won her first bid for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska due in large part to her willingness to turn a non-partisan election into a battle over abortion, gun, and religion:

But in the first major race of her career — the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla — Palin was a far more conventional politician. In fact, according to some who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.

Now, via Ed Brayton we see that the practice is spreading and has been adopted Tim Tinglestad, who is running for the Minnesota Supreme Court:

I am committed to preserving the people's constitutional right to choose their judges through meaningful, contested, non-partisan judicial elections.

Sounds good ... until you read on:

I believe that justice is served when judges fear God and love the people, and as a Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, I will be impartial to the parties, while partial to the original intent of the Constitution.

And it only gets worse from there: 

“Truth is the only solid foundation upon which to build a life, or a nation. God’s Word is the Foundational Truth upon which our constitutional form of government was built. The Truth of God’s Word is the foundation which holds families together. Yet in our pursuit of personal freedoms, we have lost the Foundational Truth upon which those freedoms were built. Where there is Truth, there is hope.”

“God’s Word is the Light of Truth. As God’s Word has been removed from our public lives, the resulting darkness has led to our present social disorder and political divisions. The correction of these problems will only begin when the Light of Truth is returned to our land’s highest hills, the Supreme Courts. Until our highest courts return to an acknowledgment of the existence of God and His Truth, the people will continue to walk in the confusion of darkness.”

“Our State and Nation are in need of the next Great Awakening! Just as we awaken to the light of each new morning, it will be the Light of Truth, from God’s Word, which will again awaken us to a new day in our communities, our State, and our Nation. In the Light of this new day we will return to the path, which God has destined us to travel. The alarm has sounded, and it is time to wake up!

And then it gets even worse than that:

Justice is served when Judges fear God, and love the people. This is the reason that I have chosen to seek to become a Supreme Court Justice, serving the people of Minnesota. To serve the court with impartial justice, judges must possess great knowledge and wisdom. Judges must be God fearing men and women, because God’s Word tells us, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) and “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom…” (Psalm 111:10)

To fear God means to love Him with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your strength. This is the greatest commandment given to man. This fear requires an awesome, reverential acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man. The second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as our selves. When we fear God, the necessary result is that we love the people. (Matthew 22:37-39)

If justice is to be served in our courts, then we must use the correct standard in choosing our judges. God’s Word gives us this standard in II Chronicles 19:5-7, which tells us, “Jehoshaphat appointed judges throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Be careful what you do, for you judge not for man but for the Lord, and He is with you in the matter of judgment. So now let the reverence and fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God, or partiality or taking of bribes.”

The hearts of our judges are critical because, “A good man brings forth good out of the good stored in his heart. An evil man brings forth evil out of the evil stored in his heart. For it is out of the overflow of the heart that the tongue speaks.” (Luke 6:45) If we want the decisions of our judges to be good, then we must pray that the hearts of our judges are turned toward God.

Tingelstad is challenging incumbent Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson and, judging by the primary returns, doesn't seem to stand much of a chance considering that he only pulled in 22 percent of the statewide vote back in September.  So provided that John McCain doesn't suddenly pick him as his next running mate, this will hopefully be the last time we ever write about him.