Sarah Palin Claims America is Based on the Bible Not the Constitution

The never-ending saga of Sarah Palin’s infringement upon our national discourse took a turn for the worse (as if that were possible) last night. Palin appeared on “The O’Rielly Factor”, during which she doubled down on her theocratic vision of America by claiming that the Founders intended for our laws to be based on the bible and the ten commandments. So, in this chapter of fact-checking Sarah Palin, we debunk Palin’s Secessionist Theocracy (aka: Real America) theory.

Palin's Secessionist Theocracy aka: Real America
Palin's Secessionist Theocracy aka: Real America

A few weeks ago Sarah Palin wrongly claimed America was a Christian Nation. Ostensibly poking at the President of the United States, she said, “For any leader to declare that America isn’t a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it’s mind-boggling for — to see some of our nation’s actions recently.”

Leave it to Palin to not only get the facts wrong about the founding fathers, but also about the current controversy regarding National Prayer Day as well as Obama’s position. The founding fathers did not intend this to be a Christian nation. National Prayer Day controversy was about Franklin Graham’s civilian group working in concert with the Pentagon while making volunteers sign a pledge to Christ, which any reasonable person can interpret as a violation of separation of church and state further compounded by Graham’s beliefs that Muslims are “evil”.

Palin doubled down on American as a theocracy last night on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”. Click here to watch the interview courtesy of Fox News:

Fox Transcript:

O’REILLY: All right. The governor joins us now. So why do you think America is a Christian nation?

As you may have guessed, this story involves fact-checking, since both Fox and Palin are involved. Fox, who sued for the right to lie on air and call it news and Palin, PolitiFact’s Liar of the Year winner, are a lethal combination of misinformation and white rage.

So, let the fact-checking continue: Palin is no longer the governor of Alaska and although she claimed in her quitting speech to not care about titles, Palin’s speaking contracts demand that she be addressed as “Governor Palin”. Palin quit as governor midway through her first term with no explanation other than a vague reference to opposition researchers trying to destroy her; aka, constituents who filed ethics complaints against her. Many of these complaints were found to be valid (even by the counsel who served at the pleasure of the Governor). One of them resulted in Palin’s Alaska Fund Trust being frozen.

SARAH PALIN: I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me though. You can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our lives. And our Constitution, of course, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man; they come from God. So this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our rights to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely.

And on we go with our fact-checking mission through the tangled webs of Palinese. It turns out Palin was wrong about the Declaration of Independence (I can hear the collective gasp of shock around the nation from my kitchen window):

One Nation explains:

“There are no specific reference to Christianity or Jesus in the Declaration of independence. There are a few references to a ‘Nature’s God’ who is the creator of life, giver of rights and ‘supreme Judge of the world’ but that is rather vague.” Phrases used include:

“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” — This does describes God as a creator of life and giver of rights but goes no further.

and

…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” — Here God is the ‘Supreme Judge’.

“There was plenty of doubt about Christianity among the framers. In order to justify their defiance of the King they had to invoke a higher authority and make the case that they were endowed with the higher power’s blessing. This higher power was not necessarily a Christian power.”

Oh, boy. I don’t understand what documents Palin is reading. Any and all of them that are put in front of her? We must remember that Palin could not name a single paper she read and she also thought the song “America the Beautiful” was part of the Constitution, so it would have been fair for O’Reilly to question Palin about her sources, but of course, his job doesn’t involve confronting Republican leaders. He left that job to us. So we take a brief gander at the document within which the Right cloaks their recent racism, bigotry and hate:

“The 1787 constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calendar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.

Article VI, Section 3, US Constitution: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Article. VII, US Constitution: “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”

It certainly can be argued that this sentence sets up The United States under ‘our Lord’ Jesus Christ, but when viewed in context it takes on a much lesser importance. The sentence is in the last section of the fourth and final page of the Constitution and was a common way of referencing the Christian calendar. ‘In the year of our Lord’ translated to Latin is ‘Anno Domini’ which is commonly abbreviated ‘A.D.’ and is still used to this day by most of the western world when stating the year. It is merely a tradition and holds no religious significance.”

So, the use of the calendar term “In the Year of Our Lord” is proof that the framers wanted Judeo-Christian beliefs to be the foundation of our lives? And as for her last mention of the Constitution, it seems as if Palin confused the Declaration of Independence’s use of “inalienable rights” with the Constitution. Ah, well. What can you expect from the Republican front runner for 2012?

The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”Clearly the founders did not intended for our laws to be based on the bible.

Furthermore, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed by President John Adams: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…”

All of this hooplah about National Prayer Day demonstrates that the persecution complex of the Right is in good order, folks. No one told Christians they could not worship on National Prayer Day. “U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote, “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

Furthermore, Palin’s failure to acknowledge Graham’s assault of other citizen’s rights to worship whatever religion they chose is not only disingenuous but deeply, profoundly troubling. The founders understood the perils of mixing religion with government, which is why they went to such great pains to separate the two. It should be noted that Fox News holds Palin up as a leader of the Republican party and patriot extraordinaire, and yet she has a close affiliation with the Alaska Secessionist Movement, which has close ties to both southern secessionist movements and white nationalists/KKK groups. Somehow, I don’t see Jefferson applauding Palin’s arrival on our political scene.

We’ll close the saga of fact-checking Sarah Palin by quoting Jefferson, whom Palin tried to co-opt at the Times Gala earlier this week:

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson 3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment

Updated: to clarify Article 11 came from Treaty of Tripoli.

44 Replies to “Sarah Palin Claims America is Based on the Bible Not the Constitution”

  1. She seriously needs to get a clue. MOST of the founding fathers were agnostics and athiests. Also? “In God We Trust” was only put in just over 50 years ago during the Red Scare.

  2. @Sarah, Actually, the founding fathers were Deists that is a belief in a creator god but that there is no Supreme Being watch over and directing actions of humans. Among most that is there is one founding father, that was a WASP but for the life of me, I cannot remember his name.

  3. Your quote from “Article 11” is not Article 11 of the Constitution. It’s Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a very different document. As it’s written, it sounds like you’re trying to claim the Constitution specifically states the US isn’t a Christian nation, which it doesn’t. I dig your article, but as it’s written it seems a bit disingenuous.
    .

  4. Chris Rodda is the hero of debunking the right wing Christian nonsense being peddled by people like Sarah Palin.

    The truth is the basis of American laws was set up to be “private morality.”

    This is inconvenient both for the right-wing Christian historical revisionists and left wing libertines.

  5. @Hambone,
    Thanks for catching that- it wasn’t deliberate. Things get cut out by accident when copying and pasting from word to the site. It’s been corrected and noted.

  6. “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.”
    ~ James Madison a.k.a. ‘The Father of the Constitution of the United States of America

    “The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”
    ~ George Washington

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
    ~ George Washington

  7. I think, between Rush, palin and beck all blatantly lying constantly, this is a concerted effort on their part to spread as much disinformation as possible

    If someone isnt writing this down for election time, thats to bad. because this is good fodder

    Remember, all you have to do is throw it out, it doesnt have to stick to the wall.

    This is a wrong time in America kids. Seriously

  8. Another excellent post this week, SJ. And it includes my favorite bit:
    “Fox, who sued for the right to lie on air and call it news and Palin, PolitiFact’s Liar of the Year winner, are a lethal combination of misinformation and white rage.”
    Truer words…

  9. We have to keep her popularity up so she can run for the president.

    She is guaranteed the republican nomination if she runs.

    Obama against Palin will guarantee the US another four years of competent presidency and will destroy her chances for the presidency once and for all.

    The future of the world is at stake.

  10. like most people with a political agenda, you cite selectively. and historicize selectively. some of the founding fathers were fairly orthodox christians–which is well known. some were deists which is essentially a watered down non-specific understanding of the christian god. others were probably what we might call an agnostic or atheist. the problem is, all of them came from a christian background. if, like jefferson, they had issues with established religion, it was almost across the board issues with the anglican christianity of the day which prosecuted dissenters and catholics. the provisions about the establish of religion was, though the language doesn’t reflect it, specifically about established christianity. it is unlikely that any of the founders fathers took any religion other than some form of christianity seriously (jefferson owned the only copy of the koran in america, i have heard, but he was a version of christian, though not orthodox nonetheless; he edited out of the bible everything he thought was wrong–which, granted, takes out most of what most christians appreciate about it, but to suggest he dismissed christianity because he had issues with what some christians practice is wrong-headed and misleading. besides, jefferson changed his mind over the course of his life and said not only some of the most inspiring things from the period, but some of the most insipid. it’s a sure sign that someone is one-sided when they quote jefferson since he can be used selectively to support almost any position one might want)…

    so is palin right? in the way you imply she meant it, no. she is not. but in the broader context of were the men who founded this country immersed in christian morality? absolutely and undeniably so. they had no intent to create a theocracy and i don’t see palin suggesting that–that’s your reading of her comment. the founders of this country had direct experience with a country–england–that used established religion for political gain. they wanted none of that. they understood that religion is a personal and private matter, a matter of the individual conscience and designed a government to reflect that position. of course, that position is a protestant christian notion, based in part on the thought of john locke–a protestant-inflected philosopher.

    so, for those who might wish to rewrite the above as support for palin, you should not do so. i am in no way supporting her. however, she should be given justice and her ideas should be treated seriously, not ridiculed by people with their own political agenda to support. those who disagree with her should at least be honest enough to own their own agenda rather than pretending to objectivity. this country was founded by wealthy white heterosexual christian men; it is a remarkable achievement that they created a nation and legacy of democratic thought that does not require the country they founded to be any of those things. whoever and whatever they were matters less than who and what we are; we come from a legacy of government by the consent of the governed. we are the governed and we should not look to what someone else wants our country to be even if that person is the guy who wrote the document, but instead we should look at the government we want. so who are we and what do we want? are americans even capable of thinking of all americans in the same word—we–anymore? this country still contains wealthy, white heterosexual christian men, but also, women; gays, lesbians, the poor, muslims, blacks, hispanics…the list goes on. this is who we are and our government, if it is to be a good government, must reflect that.

    to you who read this, it is not a question of making this country agree with your agenda, but thinking outside of whatever your agenda might be to find a government that can represent you and your political opponent equally and fairly. can you think outside of your point of view to see what government is needed for that? do you trust your opponent to do the same? this is the challenge that is democracy and our country is best and our leaders are best when they can do so. ridiculing palin because you disagree with her is easy and sometimes fun, but it is not what this country was founded on. be better, america. be better, you americans!

  11. If America is based on the Bible, why are there tax cuts? Why do so many Americans love money? Why is there any difference at all between “rich” and “poor”? If America is based on the Bible, what about Matthew 6:24-34, Matthew 19:16-26, Matthew 22:15-22, and Matthew 25:31-46? America doesn’t look very biblical to me. More like the “good, old fashioned” satanic values of the business community.

    No Christian is conservative.
    No conservative is Christian.

  12. @Shiva, I am not as certain that they are “blatantly lying” so much as being simply astonishingly ignorant. Beck, in particular, is simply an effective and glib mouthpiece for the propaganda machine of faceless handlers, and he himself would not know the difference between a framer and a farmer – but he could smoothly trumpet the difference if given a script.

  13. @capmotion, I think I must humbly disagree with you at least about Hannity and and Rush Limbaugh. I don’t think that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are ignorant of anything.

    Well maybe Beck and palin are ignorant.but I kind of agree what someone else here said about Sarah Palin. She is told what to say and when she reaches for power they will slap her down.

    There is just far too much of this happening for it to be simple ignorance. Easily disproven stories put out by Hannity and Limbaugh as well as Sarah Palen have been becoming all too common in my opinion.

    but I think I could go along with you 100% on beck and Palin

  14. @no one important,

    I like your style! And content!

    One of my favorite books is “The Godless Constitution”. It chronicles the beliefs of various fouding fathers, and the arguments that went into approving our Constitution. In various state constitutions, there were religious tests, and those of one state were often very contradictory. There were movements of groups, like the Quakers, from Massachussetts to Pennsylvania, to escape religious persecution. That, plus the outrageous whip-saw back and forth between England’s protestant and catholic rulers made the founders want to free their new country from the ill effects of official religions.

    There was debate about how much religion to have in the national public square. Jefferson wanted none, and he refused to answer questions about his beliefs. Others enjoyed playing up their beliefs.

    The most interesting bit of history from then is the level of religiosity of the people at the time of the Constitution. Per this book, church attendance was quite low at that time. It picked up dramatically in the early 1800’s, with various revivals, etc.

    Today, here and now, we have a growing atheist portion of the population, myself included. We have a strong sense of ethics, much of it about human rights, the environment, honest government, etc. It has nothing at all to do with the first of the ten commandments, “Thou shalt love the lord your god, …”. I assert that the Constitution was not based on this commandment in any way, shape, or form, that this is not relevant then or now to any of our nation’s laws.

    I want this country to be a safe place for my athiest son to grow up, to not be persecuted for his non-religious understanding of the world. I want our politians not to lie about the basis of our country.

    Thanks

  15. @Shiva, I have heard Hannity and Rush say things off the cuff about the Framing, the Constitution, and the Republic that are so fundamentally erroneous that it convinces me that they are not generally speaking of their own studied and learned insights about those and other topics so much as mouthing words written/researched by others. Hannity especially gets into his neurotic, repetitive, rote-rant about things that makes me think he must be a “Manchurian Polemicist,” clearly programmed by facelss others.

  16. @capmotion, I heartily agree they both say things that are so inane as to utterly ridiculous. And I very much lean towards the view that the things they say are not their own words but the words of an all out effort to bash Obama at every chance, truthful or not. Might sound paranoid but i think beck, Hannity, Rush are all part of a group effort where it is decided what they will say by others. Case in Point, the series V starting up got a reply from all 3 on the same day. Thats not coincidence to me. I think all three know what they are saying, why they are saying it and who toid them to say it.

    palin is another story. She is just dumber than a box of igneous rocks.

    So we agree in principle.

  17. To have survived as a people throughout time, all people follow a set of mores that are neither xtian or non xtian.

    They are common methods of surviving as the human race. Dont kill, dont steal, help each other when necessary are basic ones that had to have been in place as far back as even before Neanderthal hundreds of thousands of years ago when “mankind” first started banding together for survival. I think the christians just borrowed from what was all ready instilled in peoples consciousness.

    @Robert. There was a super article on Huffington yesterday that brings up the same points you do. It was entitled “10 Ways We Tend To Fail As Christians”. The first point was greed.

  18. @Steve in SS MD, This is not the place to expansively discuss the point, but the Establishment Clause is grossly misunderstood by people today because the Supreme Court screwed up the doctrine when it sought to “incorporate” that constitutional doctrine and make it applicable to the states. The Framers did not want the Congress to have anything to say about the subject of establishing religion because there were several states that had official entanglements between religion and those states and the aim of the Framers was to protect establishment/entanglement where it existed, not to outlaw it; it was to be a state question whether there should be that entanglment and the states’ choice to do so was to be protected, not prohibited. Having a supreme court that is not especially concerned about originalism has allowed extravagant maraudings across intended boundarylines, largely because the public is incredibly, and increasingly, ignorant of the founding premises of this Republic.

  19. I would have liked to see you address her statement about our “national motto”. The words “In God We Trust” were placed on our currency in 1957 during the Red Scare. “Under God” replaced “indivisible” in the pledge during that same time. So for the majority of our nation’s history this “national motto” did not even exist.

  20. @Shiva, I agree there is clearly some behind-the-scenes group sponsorship/effort there, and that is not paranoia but insight.

    And, you know, I don’t think Palin is totally ignorant, but I think she was tossed into an arena which is not part of her upbringing, background, nor education and has then been pressed to opine about things for which she has no personal equipment. Were I tossed into the Moose-hunting milieu of Alaska and forced to take authoritative-sounding positions, I would sound as idiotic as she does about the Constitution, but that would not make me dumb as a box of rocks; it would just mean that there are certain rocks about which I know not – and the same for her. I have to confess that, in some ways, I find her, and the hubbub about her, rather fascinating.

  21. @no one important,
    So she should be taken seriously because she is an American or because she has a political platform? In any case your argument is a bit ridiculous and generalized. Only someone with a political agenda would have any reason to say that Sarah Palin is inept or undereducated? The only political party that would benefit from ragging on Sarah Palin is the republican party. I don’t have a political agenda, I have the gift of rational thought. I see Sarah Palin, I hear what she has to say (tries to say), and I recognize that she has no idea what she is talking about. Why should we take someone like this seriously? Or are you saying we should take all people seriously, even the idiots? If you weren’t supporting her, you wouldn’t be ignoring the fact that she has no right to a political platform.

  22. @capmotion,

    I’m replying to you here because I couldn’t reply to you below (your last comment).

    I agree- she’s fascinating. I’ve studied her, read her vetting documents, read the news papers from when she was mayor and governor, met with and talked with some of the folks working in the legislature in AK during her reign, so trust me when I say that she’s an interesting person.

    One of the funny things is that they myth of Palin out hunting and fishing is actually….mostly a myth. Part of the false narrative, much like W and his non-working ranch. Palin worked for a weekend filling in for a sports anchor in Wasilla, which got spun into her being a journalist. You know how these things are.

    Palin is both a rabid, nasty, destructive person who has consistently demonstrated a Nixon-level paranoia and has been consistently called a “sociopath” by Republicans and supporters — AND also, a person who on the surface, governed in a bi-partisan way in some manners.

    It’s interesting that she socialized the oil companies in AK to the point where they no longer wanted to drill there due to the excessive taxes — she felt that land belonged to the Alaskans. Some of these ideas which don’t make sense on the surface are consistent with the AIP (secessionist) party that her husband was a member of (and that the group claims Palin was a member of, but this has not been proven — Palin did tape messages of support for them, however and they had an “open door” to her office as mayor and governor).

    Furthermore, she worked more with Democrats in Alaska than Republicans and was called a socialist by the Republicans. She stabbed these Dems in the back during the campaign and came back a partisan who used her power to attack citizens — so things got very ugly after the campaign.

    On the one hand, it looks like the Republicans used her….but on the other hand, if you look at Palin’s record, you’ll see someone who has always managed to use the other person, and bring them down to their knees no matter how powerful they are — so this should be interesting. Palin has always been able to use the press to play herself as the independent plain person just doing the right thing — Mrs Smith goes to Washington sort of thing.

    The problem with this is that she’s highly unethical and looking to rule as a dictator (as she did as Mayor). She brought divisiveness with her even as mayor.

    She really is a fascinating person – just not for the reasons the press spins.

  23. OK since this chat room won’t post links go to youtube and type in “if I only had a brain” and choose the 1.03 long version if you need a good laugh to start the week!

  24. @Nicole,

    I did address this in an earlier post because at one time, Palin quoted the Pledge as part of the Constitution. She did not understand the difference, and in addition, also was not aware that the “Under God” part was added later.

    While it’s alright for people to not know every little detail off the top of their head, if they are running for VP or President, it is essential that they understand the spirit of the documents and don’t try to use God Bless America and the Pledge of Allegiance to defend their misguided ideas about the Constitution.

    I wish I could remember what post that was but it was a while ago. If I think of it, I’ll let you know:-)

  25. @Sarah Jones,
    Ahhh and there it is. Thanks for the link, I’m happy to know you did indeed put those facts up. The number of people that don’t know that information frightens me. Then again the number of people that believe Sarah Palin is a quality leader frightens me. Then again I met a seemingly intelligent, 20something person last night who spoke up during a conversation where black holes were referenced to say “where is the black hole?”, to which I replied “which one?” and he continued with “THE black hole. The only one.”
    Maybe it’s hopeless.

  26. @Shiva,

    Obauma is the worst president this country has ever had. Probably worse than Jimmy Carter. I not a republican or a democrat, but I do believe in a free society withour big government.

    Obauma is a socialist who believes in big government, high taxes, etc. He has appologized to other countries about the United States- how dare the president appologize. He has ideology that is the opposite of what this country stands for and what the majority of Americans what.

    Illegal immigration is against the Law!
    I teach school and I see what it is doing to our classrooms and neighborhoods. School districts having to spend money for ESL teachers, more bi lingual teachers, lunch programs etc. I am telling you as it is. The hispanics in school have a higher incidence of absentism, behavior problems, changing addresses, etc.

    This country was democracy, but no more it is becoming a socialist 3rd world country because so many are coming here – not wanting to be part of our country., but to use and take.

    The President of Mexico talks about how bad Arizona is for passing the illegal immagration law and his country is going to hell in hand basket. And the liberal cheered him. Liberism is a disease!

  27. @capmotion I find iot fascinating too since I just read she has had fake boobs put in. (Huffington Post today)

    @Jim Higham
    I giuess everyone can have their own opinion. Obama is not a socialist, thats just common banter with no facts behind it. Nor do I think he believes in big government and high taxes. Especially when taxes under him are at their lowest since 1950. I will say this about that though, no president in our modern history has made government smaller, and you will never find one that will in the future. As this country continues to add people, government will keep growing.

    If I had a world stage, I would apologize for the President Cheney and Bush administration to. In 8 years our value to this world went deeply south. They were completely useless to this country.

    As far as illegal immigration I am inclined to go along with you up to a point. I am totally agasint it. El presdiente Busho went right along with the Mexican president Fox in his time, the next president dem or repub will go along with Calderon and that will go on forever. You will not see an answer to illegal immigration except for a new round of amnesty’s around every 15-20 years. My solution would be much quicker but I wont go into it else Sarah chops my head off.

    I also agree with the country is being taken down a peg, but not by socialism. Our wages in the future will be lowered until we can compete in the world and illegal immigration is just the way to do that.

    I think you need to get off the cliches and look a little bit closer on how the “free market” is in ownership of this country. BP is showing you that every day.

    I often think about the loons whining about big government. Get rid of the Feds and what do you have? 50 some odd states all with fed powers. All at odds and all going no wheres.

  28. I have it on good authority–a producer at Fox News who wishes to remain anonymous–that the GOP in Alaska didn’t care much for Sarah Palin because she was a complete loose cannon on deck. (Yeah, yeah, I know it smacks of disingenuousness to be citing a Fox News producer as an authority, but hear me out.)

    When this producer was working on her story shortly after she grundled on to the national scene in 2008, the producer (who is ardently Republican and who thinks Fox News is a force for good, which is why I find her/his comments believable) found that she had a reputation in Alaska for never having failed to bite a hand that fed her. She didn’t get to be Governor in a vacuum; she had a lot of help from the established GOP up there and she seems to have had such a completely “me-first” attitude that she managed to shaft pretty much everyone who’d helped her up the ladder.

    I’m not in a position to cite specifics on this, but FWIW, I find the producer’s allegations completely believable. Palin’s behavior has always been that of trailer trash who’s come into money, but she’s still ignorant trailer trash in a fancy wardrobe when it comes down to it.

  29. Shiva,
    Why would you forget to add these fine quotes in your article?

    John Adams
    1798 — Address to the Military
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    George Washington
    1796 — Farewell Address

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.

    What OTHER religions were there at that time other than Christianity?

  30. Palin’s ideas are a century out of date, and she’s out of touch with the reality of the 21st Century. Time for her to pack it up and go moosehunting or something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.