What Do You Believe?
An interesting post from Carnal Reason about the difference in perception between Barack Obama's and Sarah Palin's religious beliefs: (h/t David Thompson)
The theory that the earth is only 6000 years old appears to be pre-scientific nonsense. It contradicts known facts about the rates at which radioactive materials decay. By the same token, a corpse coming back to life violates the laws of thermodynamics, and walking on water violates the laws of gravity.
So far as I know Palin is not a Young Earther. But if she were, her belief would be no more at odds with science than is Obama’s stated belief that Christ is Lord. I suspect those who mock Palin’s belief without mocking Obama’s do so because in their hearts they imagine that Obama does not actually believe. He just says what he has to say to attain power. And they’re ok with that. They mock Palin because they imagine she means what she says.
As always, read the whole thing.
posted by VermontGuy @ 8:44 AM
6 Comments:
The blogger has a poor understanding of pentecostal christian thought. The idea is not that Alaska would be a good spot to be for the rapture, but rather a good spot to ride out the very chaotic end of days BEFORE the rapture, when all sorts of stuff will break down, it will seem like evil is ascendant, etc. And it wasn't Palin herself who said Alaska would be one of the good spots to survive it, but rather one of the preachers who had appeared at her church. I can find the YouTube if it's of any interest. (Please, for the love of jebus, save the Jeremiah Wright responses -- I'm really not trying to argue the merits of their beliefs here).
Also, in many folks' minds, there's a major substantive difference between "personal" christian miracles such as the resurrection and "global" ones (so to speak) such as young earth creationism, in that the latter makes the whole universe into a soundstage, complete with dinosaur fossil props and pre-decayed radio isotopes. It's not that any christian doubts that god COULD play such a game, but rather they strongly doubt that he WOULD.
This is just obfuscation. As someone who was raised Catholic, I was once lectured by a "Christian" who said I wasn't a "true" Christian because Catholics worshiped the Virgin Mary. There will always be divisions of thought within religions and to apply a reasonableness test to the fantastic proves nothing.
The point of the post is that, as with many things in this election, there is a distinct difference in the way people respond to her religious beliefs as opposed to Obama's when, if they are both Christians, there is fundamentally little difference in their belief in things which cannot be objectively proved.
In short, their faith.
In Obama's case, for a number of reasons, there may be some doubt as to what, exactly, he does believe. So, Christians who support him find comfort in his belief and those supporters who find Christianity - or perhaps any religion - disturbing, tell themselves it's just an act. In this case, it's win/win.
In Palin's case, there is no doubt that she is a woman who has a deep faith in God. For people who share that belief, that's a big plus for her. For people who don't, it's a big negative. In her case, it becomes win/lose.
It's also another example of the double standard being applied in the election. Palin's religious views are fair game while Obama's "That's not the Reverend Wright I knew" gets him a pass.
No, I don't think it's the fact of their faith that is treated differently, it's the practice and the details. E.g. snake-handling cults are viewed as weird by devout Catholics not because of their faith, but because the way they practice it is unusual and unfamiliar. Palin attends a speaking-in-tongues church, which is viewed as weird by most americans. It has nothing to do with political party -- if Obama attended a speaking-in-tongues church, most people would think it weird too.
But him attending a church where the preacher thunders "God Damn Amerikka!" is okay?
If that's the case, put me down with the Pentecostals.
Sigh. Didn't I ask nicely enough?
You're no fun. Seriously, though, it's okay if the church teaches Black Liberation Theology - which is right up there with phrenology, as far as I'm concerned - but not if they talk in tongues?
Post a Comment
<< Home