?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-05-09 08:33
Subject: [poll] What sort of Christian Nation should Sarah Palin's America be?
Security: Public
Tags:funny, politics, poll, polls, religion
Poll #1562135 Sarah Palin's Christian Nation

Sarah Palin says "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it's pretty simple." Terrific, sounds simple to me. What kind of Christian nation would you like America to be?

Totally old school. Multiple wives, executing our children, selling our neighbors into the slavery, the whole Dr. Laura riff on following Old Testament law. After all, God hates shrimp and so should we.
24(32.0%)
Maronites, because nothing says "America" like Eastern Rite Christianity.
1(1.3%)
Mormons. The 19th Century kind with plural marriages and fake Indian massacres, because they were true patriots.
3(4.0%)
Deists. Many of the Founders were Deists, and Original Intent is so important to conservatives. Plus we'd get slavery back, because that was totally Christian back then.
15(20.0%)
Amish, so we can party like it's 1499.
11(14.7%)
Catholic, becuase their version of the Ten Commandments is so much better than the Protestant version.
4(5.3%)
Church of Christ, so we can take Bible literally as God intended it, except for the parts we don't like such as Jesus turning water into wine at Wedding at Cana because drinking wine is sinful even if it was Christ's first miracle.
5(6.7%)
Something else I'll explain in comments, like how the 30 Years War was such an awesome example of how simple Christian government can be.
12(16.0%)


Pretty darned simple, ain't it? You betcha! :: wink ::

Post A Comment | 53 Comments | | Flag | Link






Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
shelly_rae: Grumpies
User: shelly_rae
Date: 2010-05-09 15:39 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Grumpies
Yep and the founding Father's were pretty clear that only white, land holding males over the 35 could vote or run for office. Maybe Pallin really wants an excuse to get back to the kitchen.
But hey, my Dad, Brother and ex-husband would take care of me, right?
Anon
Reply | Thread | Link



Joy
User: cithra
Date: 2010-05-09 15:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
In my feeble Utopian dreams, if we have to be a Christian nation I'd prefer we loved each other, as or better than ourselves. Love is the Law. ::cough::
Reply | Thread | Link



User: deborahjross
Date: 2010-05-09 16:03 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:crone with wreath
I rather like the idea of a nation of old-style Quakers. Gosh, all these people running around speaking truth to power, following their own inner Light, making decisions by unity not coercion, practicing the testimonies of simplicity, peace, integrity, community and equality.

I say old-style because modern unprogammed Quakerism tends to be universalist and inclusive rather than "Christian." In our meeting, some identify as followers of Jesus, but we also have Jews (like me), wiccans, and even a handful of non-theists/atheists. Makes for a wonderfully rich experience to sit in silence together.
Reply | Thread | Link



karistan: altar
User: karistan
Date: 2010-05-09 16:11 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:altar
I was actually going to ask where the Quakers were on the list. Thank you for posting, which is far more eloquent than I could have managed.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Autopope: trainwreck
User: autopope
Date: 2010-05-09 16:12 (UTC)
Subject: Clocks must be BANNED!!! For they are an ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD!!!!
Keyword:trainwreck
No speed limits, calendars, or timepieces allowed! Especially no GPS, for it is an abomination (on a par with homosexuality or wearing polyester-cotton mixed fibre shirts) to Observe Times (thank you, King James edition).

No tramp stamps either (see also: Leviticus).

Edited at 2010-05-09 04:13 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link



fledgist
User: fledgist
Date: 2010-05-09 16:35 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Clocks must be BANNED!!! For they are an ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD!!!!
Also, no shaving.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
bemused_leftist
User: bemused_leftist
Date: 2010-05-09 17:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Heh. See C. S. Lewis's MERE CHRISTIANITY for what he says a 'Christian Britain' would be like. Socialistic economically, patriarchal socially.

Hm, sounds like something Wm James would say under anesthetic.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



John
User: djonn
Date: 2010-05-09 16:21 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I am not familiar with an organized denomination called "Church of Christ" (which isn't to say one doesn't exist), but it ought to be noted that if there is such a creature, it's definitely not the United Church of Christ, which is among the larger organized denominations way over on the liberal end of mainstream Christian churches (and which is descended from the Congregationalists on one side).
Reply | Thread | Link



Vylar Kaftan
User: vylar_kaftan
Date: 2010-05-09 16:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Okay, I said "totally old school," but if we truly had to be a Christian nation, UCC is a great choice. I was raised UCC. Totally liberal. There's a reason some people call it "Unitarians Considering Christ."
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Angel
User: valarltd
Date: 2010-05-09 16:33 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I favor Amishness. Simple, sustainable living.
Reply | Thread | Link



Renfield
User: cuddlycthulhu
Date: 2010-05-09 16:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Oh, come on, Jay, it might not be that bad.

I mean, you left of the Unitarians and the Univeralists and those guys became the most hippy of all Christian sects.
Reply | Thread | Link



bemused_leftist
User: bemused_leftist
Date: 2010-05-09 17:23 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
"Yay, welcome to America, where we are tolerant and you have a freedom to express whatever faith. You can participate peacefully in whatever religion that you choose. That's what America is all about."

That's what Palin said immediately after the "10 commandments" quote at the top of this thread. Unless O'Reilly or someone cut something from the transcript at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592422,00.html
Reply | Thread | Link



Autopope: Kitten!
User: autopope
Date: 2010-05-09 17:33 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Kitten!
Ah, so I have to choose a superstition, do I?

Not being superstitious isn't an option. Hmm.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand



Kari Sperring
User: la_marquise_de_
Date: 2010-05-09 17:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I cite the 16th century French Wars of Religion and stand well back.
Reply | Thread | Link



Renfield
User: cuddlycthulhu
Date: 2010-05-09 19:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
What, you mean slaughter Huguenots is a bad thing?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



shaolingrrl
User: shaolingrrl
Date: 2010-05-09 18:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You didn't have "emigrate" as a choice, either. :-/
Reply | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2010-05-09 18:25 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The "big name" Founders were mostly anti-slavery. Unfortunately, the political demography of the late 18th / early 19th century was very much pro-slavery, which is what led to slavery being accepted in the original Constitution of 1787.
Reply | Thread | Link



Renfield
User: cuddlycthulhu
Date: 2010-05-09 19:26 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Well, kind of. I mean, Washington said it was a bad thing but kept his slaves only for so long as they were useful to him (he freed them at his death), Jefferson was against slavery of white people but really into (giggity) his slaves, Franklin had slaves.

Adams didn't have any.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand



martianmooncrab
User: martianmooncrab
Date: 2010-05-09 18:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You would have to gut some of the EPA rules for those mass burnings of witches, heretics and Everyone Who Ain't Us.

But then, the OSHA rules for cruxifiction would be kinda interesting too.
Reply | Thread | Link



AmmitBeast, The Dweller in Amenta
User: ammitbeast
Date: 2010-05-09 19:52 (UTC)
Subject: Uhmmm...
How about "none of the above"?

I'd make a pretty poor Xian. Think I'll stick with being a Boheathian.

Addendum: Yeah, I'm a buzz-kill. Lately I'm finding it difficult to joke about Christianity given that my poor, dear nephews were raised to believe that apocalyptic rivers of blood will be here Any Day Now. They also worry that they'll never see their uncle again since he'll be burning in hell.


Edited at 2010-05-09 08:43 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link



celestialgldfsh
User: celestialgldfsh
Date: 2010-05-09 21:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I was raised in the Church of Christ, and I don't think I've seen anyone speak negatively of them before. Kind of an odd feeling. My grandpa was considered rather progressive as a preacher. Back in the '50s, he let divorced women attend services, and when people confronted him about it he said anyone was welcome and didn't back down. (Imagine if someone tried to ban divorced women now. Ha!)

Also, no one ever said wine was bad. We did drink Welch's grape juice at communion, though.

The way I heard the church's philosophy explained, it was that we were encouraged to think. Follow the scriptures, but question them, too. My grandpa preached once that it was the worst thing to be called a fool because that meant you had a closed mind.

Maybe my church was different than most?
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-05-09 23:02 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I don't think ill of the Church of Christ, any more or less than my generally somewhat jaundiced view of religion in America. The bit about the wine was direct quote from a friend of mine who was a CoC Youth Minister. He kept trying to explain to me that the Bible was the literally inspired words of God, except the parts that weren't culturally appropriate. I kept trying to point out that he couldn't have it both ways. If it was literal, you didn't get to pick-and-choose, and it you got to pick-and-choose it couldn't be literal. We had a lot of fun with this, mostly.

Also, his congregation split over piano accompaniment, which resulted in a lot of 'you will burn in hell' rhetoric on both sides. To which my response was, "Shouldn't you be out ministering to the poor or something instead of condemning one another to eternal damnation over a musical instrument?"
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances