Deference? To Palin? To Religion? Hah!

Andrew Sullivan writes:
David Skeel considers Palin's faith. I think Biblical literalists do make the issue harder. If a candidate publicly says that the earth was made 6,000 years ago, for example, and asserts that that is literally true, I do think it makes that candidate's public statements about science and research subject to discussion.

I assume that Palin is a literalist. But I don't know for sure, and since we are not allowed to ask her any questions about her faith or her record, it's very hard to know what to say. I'd like to know, for example, if she favors the Federal Marriage Amendment. I know McCain doesn't. But I have no idea what Palin's position is. More to the point: I am not allowed to find out. None of us is allowed to find out. We are required to show "deference". But how can deference tell us what we need to know to make an informed decision?
Gee, ya think she might be a literalist? Of course she is. Wasilla Assembly of God believes the end is coming, and Alaska is the refuge!

And what's with your deference, Sully? Come on Palin (I'll ask) do you think the earth is 6,000 years old? Do you believe the bible is the literal truth? If you do believe that nonsense then you are unfit for office, unfit to teach, unfit to parent, unfit to be believed. I have ZERO deference for religion or religious beliefs. I only mention it though when our country might be run by one of the wacko's.

Palin is a right-wing religious wing-nut. Fuck her religion. I'm voting for presidents and shit. Religion has nothing to do with it! What does she think is true? And if it goes against science and secularism, fuck her unconstitutional outlook! Our leaders should not fear god (because there ain't no god)!

Deference. Overrated.

Total Pageviews