http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html?iref=newssearch
Sarah Palin attended a Pentecostal church when she was growing up called the Wasilla Assembly of God. Some of the beliefs from this church according to the pastor of the church, Tim McGraw, include “speaking in tongues,” “faith healing,” and “end times (belief of the second coming of Christ).” However, Palin left this church six years ago and joined a church called Wasilla Bible Church, which is non-denominational.
Palin recently spoke at her former church talking to graduates of the youth ministry. On the video she is quoted saying, “Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."
Palin’s former pastor Ed Kalnin recently came under scrutiny for comments he made about John Kerry. He was quoted in 2004 saying, “I question your salvation.” This was in regards to people voting for John Kerry for President. The pastor later issued a statement saying that he was only “joking.”
Palin’s beliefs have been in the public eye since she got into public office. In 2006 she was interviewed by the Associated Press and her religious beliefs were brought up. Palin was quoted saying, “I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told AP. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."
This article raises several issues. First, the article tries to examine the religious background of Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, which is something that the voters haven’t heard a lot of yet for the 2008 Presidential Campaign. As voters, we know that she was brought up in the Pentecostal church, but that really doesn’t tell us much at all. This article tries to show, in my opinion, Palin’s former church in a negative way. It does this by talking about “speaking in tongues, faith healing, and end times.” It tries to make the former church seem “ultra conservative.” Just because some people at that church practice that or believe that, doesn’t mean that Palin does. However, since she is now in the public spotlight, it only makes sense that her former church would come under a magnifying glass. Come on people, if you want to know about Palin’s beliefs look at where she goes to church now. The fact that she left the other church does mean something.
The article also tries to present the former pastor himself as being “radical” because of a joke he said in church one day regarding John Kerry. At this point, I just kind of giggled because once again were talking about Palin’s former church. What about her church now?! This is part of the politics of the media in my opinion, and the fact that they try to make Palin look bad because of a former church is truly ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I agree with Erin's comments on this article. So many have tried to cast Palin in a negative light, which is understandable. She is a threat because she seems spotless. However, we know that all politicians have some "dirt" on them. What is important to note in this article is the connection being made between the pentecostal church she formely belonged to and Rev. J. Wright. I believe this cannot be fully made. First, she is a former member, as Erin shows many times and as the article mentions. Second, she left that church as she became an adult and was able to choose her own church. These two points allow for a disarticulation between this church and rev. wright. Moreover, the fact that she claims to not mix politics and religion in her job and the fact that she asks people to pray for certain initiatives I think is legitimate. Who wouldn't want God on our side, if he's such a good guy? All in all, Erin's points are right on.
Erin’s critique of this article was right on target, as Randy Kaye, the author of the CNN article, completely misinterprets the comments he uses as evidence of Palin’s “radical” beliefs. Kaye states “In 2004, he [Palin’s former pastor] told church members if they voted for John Kerry for president, they wouldn't get into heaven. He told them, "I question your salvation." To question the state of someone’s salvation is NOT the same as saying they will not go to heaven, but is rather saying that you doubt the sincerity and legitimacy of their faith. Kaye betrays an unfortunate ignorance of the fact that in Protestant churches, no one can deny another’s salvation, as salvation comes only from an individual’s acceptance of Christ as Savior. He then uses his misinterpretation to present Palin as someone of questionable religious beliefs because she formerly attended this pastor’s church, an argument which is not only ridiculous but also clearly unfounded.
I certainly see where the author is coming from, however I take issue with some of her statements. Although we are indeed talking about Sarah Palin’s former church, the article also includes comments she made in that church very recently. She said to graduates of the youth ministry, “Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." Again, these are recent comments, not comments she made while she was a member of the church. One commenter asserts that this should not be an issue at all considering she has said she “does not mix politics and religion in her job.” However, I think this quote makes it quite clear that she does. Not to go overboard with this, but if I was told this quote came from the Crusades, it would not surprise me at all. She specifically states that the government’s plan should be God’s plan, and therefore we can only assume she would govern with God’s plan in mind.
While I appreciate and agree with Erin’s comments on the ridiculousness of the media, I would like to point out several things. Yes, it might seem far stretched and absurd to judge a person on their past parishioner status at a given church, but that has become the norm and necessary in a 24/7 media environment.
The fact of the matter is, in today’s post Watergate age, voters deeply care about the moral makings of a candidate. I will give you an example to show how this has really accelerated in the latter half of the 20th century. Some of the nation’s most beloved presidents, FDR & JFK, had well known extramarital affairs. The apathy met by the media and general population of this immoral character behavior juxtaposed with Clinton’s impeachment over crimes of the same nature display the cause and affect of both a 24/7 media, a moral conservative movement, and a demand from the population for complete candidate accountability. Before Watergate, the media would have never covered personal affairs, such as actual affairs. But now, everything is now fair game. While Palin’s church from 6 years ago really has no influence on her policy-making ability, and it is ridiculous to imply so, it is still information the general population yearns for in order to make judgments about her character. The American people now unarguably hold a presidential candidate liable for everything they’ve ever said, done, participated in, whatever. Whether to blame the media or the attention and demand from the American people I think is a: what came first- the chicken or the egg, kind of question. I do believe the integrity of the media has plundered, but I also do not think it is entirely their fault.
Marion's comment suggests that obsessive coverage of candidates has become both "norm and necessary." It has certainly become the norm, but I wonder why it's necessary. Marion writes that viewers crave the 24/7 coverage of our political celebrities, and I suspect that is true, to an extent. And I certainly think there's no going back to the days where reporters winked at presidential affairs and the public got only 30 minutes of politics on the evening news. Blogs, websites, youtube, and the like are here to stay. But in what sense are they necessary? As Erin, Josh, and Johanna argue, do we really need to know about the views of Palin's former pastor?
Answering this question requires figuring out how a politicians' religious views (or one's religious communities) influences their public actions. And that is no easy thing to do. Those of us who are believers of some faith probably do things for a variety of motivations, only some of them religious in any meaningful sense. So ascribing religious motivations to any particular politician is problematic. However, if a politician makes explicit connections between her beliefs and her policy, as Palin did in her remarks to the high school graduates last May, it becomes easier to see how a person understands their religious belief interacting with their public agenda. (Palin, to be sure, has made other statements that suggest her faith plays a smaller role in her politics than the graduation remarks suggest.)
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying: I don't think we can meaningfully infer too much about a politicians' motivations unless they say something explicitly. I think studying the theology of Tim McGraw or Jeremiah Wright offers some context for Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, but I'd much rather judge the candidates on their own comments than on those of their pastors.
I agree with Seth that it would be nice to hear Palin's views from her, rather than a church official. However, it seems that more information regarding a person's character and motivation eek out in unexpected places. Palin claims that she doesn’t allow her personal beliefs to influence policy choices. First off, no one can separate themselves from their belief system. Second, her decisions, especially regarding a woman’s right to choose, would definitely force her views American citizens.
Randi Kaye, the author of this article, does put a strong emphasis on Palin's Pentecostal background. Perhaps it is too much. Pentecostals are known as extremists, categorized by speaking in tongues. While Palin did leave the church, she remained a member of it for many years into adulthood. It also seems convenient that her departure coincided with her candidacy into statewide politics. There might be an overemphasis of this past event in the media, but it is only fair that all candidates face the same attacks. Obama had to face scrutiny from Rev. Wright’s comments; Tim McGraw should be given the same media attention.
I agree with this post, that once agree the media is trying to manipulate views, and making mountains out of mole hills. Sarah Palin’s former pastor is being interviewed and brings up aspects of her former church. While her history naturally contributes to who she is, isn’t there some meaning in the fact she left this church. It has been implied that she left for political reasons during a former campaign. Maybe she really does feel more comfortable with her current church and this is the reason behind the switch. However this is not controversial enough for newspapers who are just interested in selling a story.
Post a Comment