Sunday, December 14, 2008

Arson Destroys the Church Sarah Palin Attends

Image of Wasilla Bible Church in Alaska from the story here.
Could the Wasilla Bible Church have been targeted for arson because of the politics of one of its members? So far this is the only motive that has been advanced for the attack.

If that checks out, this is a very disturbing event. Never mind that there is no rational justification for such domestic terrorism, there is no rational goal for the attack. What could they hope to achieve? It will not intimidate Palin from further political action, and may even rally more support to her. Of course, that will only be a function of media coverage of the attack, which has been on the light side.

So why do it? Unfortunately I think we are dealing with a post-modern mind. To such a mind, there is no such thing as "objective reality", all they know for sure is what they feel. Because of that, there does not need to be a rational connection between their act of violence and a desired outcome. When you reject objective reality, you reject reason, hence "rational outcomes" are pointless. Under this scenario, they burned the church down because they were mad at Sarah Palin and they wanted to lash out.

To some on the left, Palin may appear to be a far-right religious zealot. To me and a whole lot of people I know, Palin is a nice lady who lacks a coherent world-view (Christian or otherwise) and is thus too statist and leftist. If post-modern God-haters want to burn her church down because she is unacceptably "Christian Right", just imagine what they want to do to the likes of me and my friends. Not to change my mind, not to win the debate, not to advance their cause, but simply to indulge their rage at people who believe in absolutes. Scary times indeed.


Anonymous Chuck said...

This is but one example of the so-called "tolerance" of the left. It's not enough that she & McCain were defeated in the election; they (and their kind - i.e. conservatives) must be destroyed personally. This is a despicable act of cowardice and I hope the perpetrator(s) is/are caught and given the maximum fine & sentence of incarceration the law allows.

9:37 AM, December 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am amazed at the strong feelings that Palin has ca8sed both pro and con. Still, we have to keep talking and making our case using facts and reason to avoid becoming a big Iraq. These people are like the terrorists in Iraq.

5:57 PM, December 15, 2008  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Amazed at the strong feelings Palin has caused both pro & con? Why? She is a strong, independent attractive woman who has been successful at family & politics, something the left cannot handle. To leftist feminists, having and raising a family is treason; having a career and "being all you can be" without the burden of a baby (as Obama put it) requires sacrificing (aborting) your young. On the other hand, success at family and politics is something conservatives welcome & celebrate. It's not difficult to see why she energized both sides. Meanwhile, leftist attack(s) on conservatives & Christians, along with the struggle for our culture and who controls the agenda will continue. I hope Sarah Palin is on the Presidential ticket in 2012, as either P or VP, and I look forward to supporting her.

10:04 PM, December 15, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Then you are more in her corner than John McCain, who refused to endorse here for 2012 and started talking about "a lot of good young governors out there". Then why didn't the guy pick one of them as his running mate?

The whole of the GOP establishment- including their sock-puppets at FOX news, are lining up to block her. They will be fighting day and night for the next four years to stop her and build up some stooge as the next big thing. If you want to stop them you better get to work.

8:04 AM, December 16, 2008  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Perhaps McCain drank/is drinking the MSM Kool-Aid and believes the lies they told about her. McCain has betrayed Palin by not saying he would support her in 2012. After all, had they been elected and something had happened to him, she would've taken over as POTUS. By virtue of the fact that he chose her as his VP running mate, he should have had enough confidence in her & guts to say he would support her in 2012. I find it appalling that I have to think that a former 5-yr POW war hero doesn't have guts, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
It may also be an indication of why they lost - perhaps people sensed his faith in her was not 100%. It may also be an indication that his reasons for choosing her were less than honorable: 1. to energize the base, 2. to attract women voters, particularly disgruntled Hillary-ites, and 3. to offset Obama's huge young voter base. Not exactly the reason he should have chosen her: that he has/had 100% faith in her that she is sufficiently able and competent to do the job.

I take absolutely no pleasure in expressing these sentiments, but after McCain talking about "a lot of good young governors out there", as you mention, and not saying he would support her, what other conclusion(s) can one draw? I do agree with McCain that there are a lot of good young governors out there (Jindal, Pawlenty, et al), but after putting Palin (& her family) through the MSM wringer, McCain has taken the next step of hanging her out to dry. Disgusting indeed.
Repubs had better get their act together, and stand united behind one message if they hope to recapture Congress & the WH. Blagojevich's troubles may help Republicans some, but the fact that it erupted after election day is too little, too late. Voters have relatively short memories and Blagojevich will be a forgotten coif in 2010. Funny how the MSM has learned to pronounce his name, but still forgets his party affiliation.

9:17 PM, December 16, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home