Palin Versus the Librarian
The McCain campaign is desperate to paint Sarah Palin as a lifelong political reformer. As it turns out, Palin was indeed a proponent of change as the newly elected mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and first-time political office holder. According to Time, Palin inquired into the process for banning books in the public library, shocking the town librarian. Then she threatened to fire the librarian for failing to give the mayor her “full support.”
Apparently Palin really does have a record of reform. When it comes to evangelical Christian issues, she’s an enthusiastic proponent of sweeping change. Like a true reformer, she encourages schools not to be “afraid of information” with respect to teaching creationism (but conveniently changes her tune when it comes to sex ed and books containing “offensive” material).
For the last time, people: religion and public services, especially education, do not mix. Nothing inspires more anger in my rabidly liberal heart than a refusal to keep the two separate, a refusal that ends up manifesting itself in so many insidious ways.
Then again, maybe I have no reason to be worried about Palin’s religious extremism, since the McCain campaign is pulling her strings. They won’t even let her write her own acceptance speech, so maybe her polarizing views won’t make it past the Republican censorial squad. One can only hope.
[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Palin_Versus_the_Librarian]
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
For the last time, people: religion and public services, especially education, do not mix. Nothing inspires more anger in my rabidly liberal heart than a refusal to keep the two separate, a refusal that ends up manifesting itself in so many insidious ways.
Our faith (atheist, Christian, pagan) necessarily colors everything we do. Why should one view (i.e., atheist) be allowed, but not others? Palin is consistent, if nothing else.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Oh good, I was hoping someone would argue with me
Yup, she’s consistent all right. Consistently wrong and bigoted. Of course people of faith have the right to live their lives according to their own spiritual beliefs. But that right stops at the infringement of the rights of others. A woman’s right to control her body. A gay person’s right to marry the one they love. A public school student’s right to an accurate scientific education. I believe that politicians of faith are (or should be) perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between acting according to their own religious doctrine and enforcing that doctrine on those who do not share it.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I think the religious extremist who wishes to codify their beliefs into law are really insecure. If their religion was obviously right and good people would not need draconian laws to restrict their troublesome freedoms. If you really examine the live of Jesus you would see He was a serious believer in freedom and love. The very things the “true believers” wants to restrict and control.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
1) Atheism is not a faith. It is by definition a lack of faith.
2) It is not an issue of one worldview being allowed in government and others not, the principle in government is secularism, not atheism. Secularism says that no point of view on religious issues (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist etc.) should be favoured in government, and it was introduced (in the US) in large part to protect some Christian groups from discrimination by other Christian groups.
If you cannot convince other people in society of some point of view without recourse to articles of faith that those other people may not believe in, then maybe you don’t have such good reasons for advocating that point of view.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Like a true reformer, she encourages schools not to be “afraid of information” with respect to teaching creationism
Palin’s concept of creationism is so limited, though. A true creationist must acknowledge the equal claims of all variations on this theme, including
* Norse creationism: The first man and woman emerged from the armpits of Ymir (a sweating frost giant)
* Babylonian creationism: Freshwater and saltwater oceans merged; the world followed in due course.
* Adamsian creationism: The universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure
* Spaghetti creationism: The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily
I could go on at some length. I always find it so disappointing when creationists confine themselves unncessarily.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
1) Atheism is not a faith. It is by definition a lack of faith.
2) It is not an issue of one worldview being allowed in government and others not, the principle in government is secularism, not atheism. Secularism says that no point of view on religious issues (whether Christian, Muslim, atheist etc.) should be favoured in government
I beg to differ, Henry, but you’re wrong on both counts. Atheism as it’s practiced today has certainly become a religion, and an especially fundamentalist one at that. Look at anything Hitchens and the like have written lately. It’s no different in tone from anything said by Jerry Falwell or Moqtada al Sadr. It’s all bitter anger rather than rational thought. Anyone who disagrees is cast out of the membership of the faithful.
I’ll stand by my earlier point that the Christian faith in particular is subject to an exclusionism in the public forums and in government. When was the last time you saw anyone in the US government seek laws against Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or (gasp!) islam?
September 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Well, if we’re going to get into a definitions fight… from Wikipedia:
“A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.”
Atheism has no tenets or practices. It makes no supernatural and no moral claims about reality, the cosmos or human nature. Strong atheism does make the claim that there are no gods, but most atheists are not strong atheists. The general position of atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is quite different from a belief that they do not exist.
Now it is the case that many atheists do have opinions about moral issues, or the origins of life etc. (maybe you are thinking of humanism, or naturalism), but the position of atheism itself does not presuppose any of them.
It is true that Hitchens makes his case with strong language, but there’s nothing in his writings to compare with Falwell’s worst (feminists and gays to blame for 9/11…). Even so, we should evaluate arguments by their content rather than their tone.
When was the last time any other religion tried to get itself installed in courthouses and science classrooms? You’ll see push back at the religion that is powerful enough to try it, none of the others are. Even then, are these laws you’re saying the government is seeking written to apply *specifically* against Christianity? Or just religion in general?