Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.
McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Republicans in burkas
Juan Cole:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Absolutely spot on, not just about Palin but all of her ilk. They cannot see that they are just as bad as those they condemn. Of course it goes back to the my God is better than your God argument.
If people worldwide would realize or acknowledge that a lot of the suffering and many of the wars are a result of this maybe the madness would stop.
How to make the intolerant, tolerant is an issue. Frankly I don't think it can be done due to different brain chemistry.
And yes, she is more like Muslim or any fundamentalists than like the Founding Fathers. In fact she doesn't know much about the USA or the Founding Fathers. In 2006, in a statewide survey of office holders in Alaska she answered this question: Do you believe in the pledge of allegiance with 'Under God' in it? with "You bet. If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me."
Hmmm....only problem is the pledge wasn't written until 1892 and 'Under God' wasn't added until the 1950's to show those commie bastards in Russia.
Thanks for your comment, Rhode Island rules. I have to confess I've never gotten my head completely around the addition of 'under God' in response to the godless communists.
Did they really think communist moles would choke on the words and expose themselves as spies? Was it a shield that invoked God's protection from evil? If you didn't believe in God, why on earth would mentioning Him in an oath mean anything?
And I doubt the Founding Fathers saw coming anything of what we are experiencing right now. I wonder how horrified they'd be at how stupid Americans have become....
Post a Comment