-->
Usually my local paper won't print a letter to the editor unless it involves secession, atheists, or some other sort of crazy. But we're getting an earful of Palin support around here, and it really bothers me. I'm not going to stand by this election and silently watch the people around me be duped by the GOP ticket's refusal to retract the bald-faced lies they've been telling, and I'm sick of the tone of their attacks. So I decided to give the letter to the editor a shot:
I am dismayed by the exuberance with which so many good, Christian men and women stand and cheer the venomous and mocking remarks uttered by Governor Sarah Palin in her rallies since the Republican National Convention. Of course in a political race the candidates will point out what they perceive to be one another’s faults. But Christians who agree with the statements Governor Palin is making about her opponents should consider the tone of these attacks before they yell out their support.
The Sermon on the Mount makes clear that Jesus wishes us to grow as Christians by changing from the inside out, beginning with a clean heart that then becomes outwardly apparent in our attitude and actions. In Matthew 5:21-22, Christ aligns anger and mockery with murder in the eyes of God. Matthew 5:43-44 tells us to not only love our neighbors but to love our enemies. Governor Palin has made a talking point of her faith since joining the McCain campaign, but a clean heart is not shining through in her attitude. In fact, the tone of anger, mockery and disrespect that has accompanied her is damaging to the testimony of every Christian. I’m pleased to see that Senator Barack Obama, who has also discussed his faith during the campaign, has generally rebuffed her attacks with a measured and respectful tone.
I cannot and would not question Governor Palin’s faith; I fail in my faith every day. But I would like to see more Christians thinking twice before so loudly and publically cheering a display that shows perhaps her heart isn’t quite where it should be.
10 comments:
Preach, girl. Preach.
I would be careful whose heart I claim to know from an hour-long televised speech. The plank in my eye prevents me from even understanding my own heart or the hearts of my friends.
I don't claim to know her heart at all. I'm just looking at the only evidence I have - it's hard to do anything more when she's not allowed to speak or take questions often. But I want the Christian people who cheer loudly when public figures engage in open disrespect and personal mockery to consider that they don't know her heart as well as they think they do either.
Sorry, I mis-read your closing paragraph and I thought you claimed to know her heart. I apologize.
How did you feel when Senator Obama said, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ?
I took that as disrespectful and personal towards a large swath of the population, including myself.
P.S.- I hope you don't mind a little debate. I have been unable to see much positive with Senator Obama's policies and I'd appreciate having my horizon expanded.
Are you kidding? I love debate! But this is going to be a long comment. Here we go:
I agree with you about that quote from his speech in San Fran. I think it was disrespectful as well. (Note: I didn't cheer for him when I heard the sound byte.) However, 1) that part of his speech was addressing how Obama hoped to improve the lot of working-class people to relieve some of the burdens they're feeling; and 2) while the comment was stereotypical, there are people out there that fit it to a T.
In his next few sentences, Obama says that the bitterness he mentioned isn't across the board, that different folks feel differently, so he knows all people in all small towns don't feel this way.
I contend that some truly do, and I can say that from experience. I wouldn't use the word "cling" or the phrase "to explain their frustrations," but my town is full of people who eat up GOP propaganda and vote only on "hot button issues" that, when it all comes down, really have very little impact on their own lives. This is my interpretation of the meaning of his comments. That said, I still think the statement was inappropriate and wrongheaded.
I could go into more detail (what I consider voting Christian values vs what my neighbors consider voting Christian values) but I think I might have a word limit in this little box ...
I find it interesting that our little debate is about respect and civility in politics and you engage in stereotyping and labeling the opponents' arguments "propaganda."
Why go to such lengths to defend Senator Obama and not even wait for more evidence before publicly decrying Governor Palin? Maybe she has met politicians like him before so she feels she knows him to a T. If Senator Obama's statement was wrongheaded and inappropriate, why not write a letter to the editor about him?
Sorry for the long response time, but the propaganda accusation annoyed me and I didn't want to write with spite, kids don't allow much time for extended thought either. I'd like to shelve debate on "propaganda" or "hot button issues" for now and confine our discussion to civil public discourse. I do hope that we can get to those topics, however.
I'm sorry my comments irritated you. I didn't intend to be uncivil or to shut down discourse. I stand by my comments, though. I don't believe I'm stereotyping, but if you tell me why you think I am I'd like to address it. I believe that propaganda is a baseless claim intended to incite fear and mass reaction, and I believe much of the content of Jerome Corsi's book and Illuminati Pictures' video "Audacity", for instance, as well as the regular use of Obama's middle name, Hussein (for no apparent reason other than to remind listeners of the false rumors of Obama's secret Muslim past), fall into that category. I also believe that the McCain campaign has begun using its new catch phrase "Who is the real Barack Obama?" because it is well aware of these viral attacks and wants to use them to remind listeners of their false claims without overtly coming out and saying so. But this is just my opinion.
The reason I don't write a letter to the editor about Obama is because I haven't seen any other comments like the one you cited coming from him. If I'm mistaken in this, please correct me. Palin, on the other hand, seldom speaks publicly without derisive personal commentary. And regardless of where her derision comes from, I think it's unbecoming on a public stage and shouldn't be applauded.
Sorry for my irritation, I have a thin skin for political discourse and I'm working to toughen it up. Kudos for sticking to your guns otherwise.
As for stereotyping, you appear to agree with Senator Obama's statement just not the way he said it. You admit that his statement is stereotypical therefore you are stereotyping the people of your town.
I agree that Senator Obama has said little in the way of personal attacks on his opponent. However, since you have brought in other media, I would contend that Senator Obama has the majority of media outlets doing his dirty work. The day after Governor Palin was appointed, I heard that her daughter was unmarried and pregnant. Shortly thereafter, I heard her son accused of signing up to serve his country for the wrong reasons and her fitness for the office questioned because she has a Downs baby. As to her interviews, I think that the media asking tough questions of candidates is great, but asking tough questions of only one candidate and re-broadcasting her gaffes over and over is a character attack. I didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was, only heard it once before in my life, but I certainly have thought through the morality of pre-emptive war.
I admit, I can not think of personal attacks by Senator Obama towards either member of the Republican ticket. However, he did refer to a potential future grandchild as a punishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
Could you send me links to Governor Palin's offensive words, so I could read them?
Hey, JimmyV. Sorry it took so very long to reply. Had a computer meltdown and I've been putting all things personal on the back burner. Here's the short version:
I guess we could both say we think the candidates and their teams are using the media to make their nastiest attacks, and neither of us would be able to prove it. We'll probably have to call a draw on that one; sounds like we can agree that too many media outlets have stopped engaging in news and focus instead on sensationalizing.
I think some of the more seasoned journalists have appeared to ask tougher questions of Palin because she's an unknown, and they are trying to feel her out on a lot of issues all at once, whereas Obama and Biden have had plenty of time to make their views known on all the issues Palin's now having to tackle.
Here are some of the comments that show the tone and personal implications I dislike:
"Just once I would love to hear Barack Obama say he wants America to win."
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities."
"What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"
"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers…"
Then, on the choice of Joe Biden as Obama's running mate: "I've never met him before. But I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade."
I assume it's all moot now but I still had a couple responses to your points.
I can not agree to a draw on media bias. See this Post article which demonstrates and admits that they favored Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
I agree that the media (TV, newspapers, radio) sensationalizes things since they have to sell ads to stay in business. However, this merely points to the lack of a "free" press. This is why I favor blogs and NPR as news source since they are member supported, not ad supported. Note bene: The Fairness Doctrine is complete BS.
Post election "balance" on the network news last week, I'm not making this up. "Senator Obama to choose a hypo-allergenic dog for the White House since his daughter is allergic. Sarah Palin may have spent tens of thousands of dollars on clothes for her and her family during the campaign."
I don't find her words very off-putting, I will gladly write a defense of each statement if you wish. Once which I absolutely must defend is the "turning back the waters" one. She is directly referencing Senator Obama's acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination. The sentence he uttered was the most megalomaniacal thing I have ever heard from a politician. He suggested that his nomination meant the nation would heal and the oceans would turn back.
Even King Kanute knew where his power ended. God rules nature, not man.
Post a Comment