Wow, their treatment of the English language is almost as bad as their treatment of women and gays. Someone should let Palin and her buddies know that, despite America's efforts to the contrary, "impact" is still not a verb, and the word "impacted" only exists in the context of fucked-up wisdom teeth.

a. Desmond Tutu is a wonderful man.

b. If we want them to shut up about Reverend Wright, it might make sense to shut up about what their churches do.

Thanks for posting this Charles.

I feel like barfing up some holy wine, and leaving a Holy Image on the floor, that I can then sell on E-bay, for a profit.

@1 Agreed. Also note that "impacted" can mean being too full of shit (really).....

you cannot petition the lord with prayer
-jim morrison

MKM & Hartiepie,

Yes so "Pastor Larry Kroons of the Wasilla Bible Church died of an impacted bowel" would be an example of proper usage of the word "impacted".

Desmond Tutu is a wonderful, enlightened man possessed of a beautiful soul. I had the privilege of hearing him speak back in the 80s during the campaign to divest from South Africa.

If this country elects McCain/Palin, or if the Republicans steal this election too, then the U.S. truly deserves all the disasters that will surely befall it -- and us.

Republican presidents and presidential candidates have always done well pandering to religious fanatics and the generally ignorant.

But with Sarah Palin, we actually could have the first Republican president who is herself a religious fanatic and a certified ignoramus. The pandered-to becomes the one in power, so really with Sarah Palin it's not even pandering.

I think this is just part of the natural evolution of the Republican Party at the presidential level:

1. Republican presidents have long been tools for certain elites (corporate, financial elites).
2. They've long hung on to power by pandering to religious fanatics, xenophobes, and people who resent other alleged elites or just anyone who's perceived as different.
3. With Sarah Palin, the Republicans get their populist message straight from the horse's mouth, no pandering middle-man necessary.

eh, its still prattling about the desires of a make believe sky daddy. Stupid is stupid.

Sarah Palin: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? One wears lipstick.

Me: What's the difference between George W. Bush and Sarah Palin? One wears lipstick.

Forgive me for prattling on about Sarah Palin in this thread, but I have to give McCain and the Republicans credit. In Sarah Palin, they have found the one politician who is even scarier than Mitt Romney.

Bishop Tutu is right not only about the Anglican church but American religious groups of all denominations. The African-American church led by Dr King was a powerful force in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Toward the end they were joined by progressive white churches who realized they could not ignore the problem of racism any longer. Later they spoke out against the Vietnam war, poverty, the degradation of the environment and other issues. By the mid 70s the church was on the brink of becoming a powerful force on the side of progressives. White evangelicals solidly backed, for example, Jimmy Carter in his campaign for the presidency.

Unfortunately the church got hijacked. The secular right discovered evangelicals as a significant voting block and whipped them into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over abortion and homosexuality. And it has been that way ever since. Some Christians, of course, have stayed with progressive causes, speaking out on the issues mentioned above and more. On homosexuality, their churches welcome gay members and proudly perform marriage ceremonies for all couples who wish to have one, same sex or opposite sex. Unfortunately the voices of religious progressives are rarely if ever heard, drowned out in the MSM by the right wing whack jobs. The latter, of course, have been promoted to high places under the Bush administration where they openly profess their goals of making America a "Christian nation".

The end result has been vitriolic hostility by the nonreligious toward the church in general. Some, in fact, not only fail to make a distinction between the right and the progressives, but direct more anger toward the latter--I remember several Slog threads a few months back where this happened. Religious progressives therefore have been isolated: silenced by the media, vilified by the religious right, and not wanted by the secular left. It's a tragic situation for a lot of good, well meaning people.

The election of McCain/Palin will do nothing to change this and will merely extend it for another four or eight years. I see Obama as much more able to break this deadlock. As a progressive with a religious background he will perhaps be able to unite the religious and nonreligious left. By focusing on ending poverty and reconciliation with our neighbors around the world who have been alienated from this country for the last eight years, he may even win over enough evangelicals to the progressive side. Then it will be those obsessed with regulating sexual behavior who will be pushed into irrelevancy. One can only hope.

The end result has been vitriolic hostility by the nonreligious toward the church in general.

I don't think its so much hostility as much as hoping they grow up and ditch the fairy tales. Or at least stop insisting that people pay their fantasies any public respect.

I've just sat through the Sunday morning talk shows and witnessed the rah-rah-sis-boom-bah for Sarah Palin. Also, I read the Seattle Times piece about her time as mayor of Wasilla.
From all this, I've come to the conclusion that the GOP wants to replace a Dick with a cunt.
Yeah, I said it.

It makes one wonder about Mr. Obama's own religion when so many people who obviously despise religion are comfortable supporting him.

What seems to trigger the Two Minutes' Hate toward believers is not whether they have any belief, but rather how sincere and deeply-held their beliefs are. You can have a church ... just watch how you pray.

Reminds one of Ice-T's album title: "Freedom Of Speech--Just Watch What You Say."

What seems to trigger the Two Minutes' Hate toward believers is not whether they have any belief, but rather how sincere and deeply-held their beliefs are. You can have a church ... just watch how you pray.
Yes, it couldn't have anything to do with the hateful bigotry of the religious right as opposed to those who believe in equality and justice for all.

I love Bishop Tutu. I don't believe in god and think religion is crazy, but he is one of those that actually embodies morality through faith.

If only he were as influential in the US as Jerkoff Dobson & Fuckwad Robertson.

@16,

You obviously weren't paying attention to the primaries. Many liberals were freaked out by Obama's religiosity.

@13: Well said. All the "fairy tale" comments serve to illustrate the secular left's stance towards progressive believers -- I'm sympathetic to the healthy skepticism embodied by those comments, but it does point to yet another sad example of people on the left cutting themselves off from political allies because they prefer sounding smart to getting things done. I grew up around many religious people who, in spite of believing a number of weird things regarding invisible spirits who guide their destinies and whatnot, were nevertheless highly ethical people, and more willing than most to put their ethics into action even when doing so involved personal risk. People like that are good to have on your side.

This has been an enlightening, rather than infuriating, post, Mr. Mudede. Thank you especially to RainMan,and flamingbanjo, for weighing in. As someone who has been involved in several flame wars on the slog, it is refreshing to hear.

A good friend (and Christian, even!)wrote to me this: "I'm still voting for Obama. I'm not sure the government has ever been effective in forcing personal morality. There's something about our sinfulness that can only be changed by the supernatural."

I don't think there is any way to legislate morality and not be called out as a hypocrite in some way shape or form. Across the board- from abortion to civil same-sex marriages. It's very treacherous dialogue- oh but if only more people could discuss it without the immediate freak-outs. I mean, people are willing to kill themselves, or kill others, over these issues- how much further off the deep end can you go?!?!

Thus #17: "Yes, it couldn't have anything to do with the hateful bigotry of the religious right as opposed to those who believe in equality and justice for all."

So people on the left who call Mrs Palin a "c--t" as in #15 aren't hateful and bigoted? Then you'll have to explain the word "hateful" to me again. And if the word "c--t" doesn't express bigotry toward women, then you'll also have to explain what 'bigot' means again. Check ## 4 and 18, who seems to exemplify those on your side who claim to oppose 'hate.' Have any conservatives used words like #18 to describe Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, I'd appreciate you pointing them out.

@19, I will take your word as a liberal for it, that that there were liberals freaked out by Mr Obama's 'religiosity' (an uncannily apt word btw). If there were, however, they seem to have recovered; I don't know if Mr Obama's public repudiation of his pastor helped the recovery or not, but it would be interesting to know.