Sarah Palin

I had no clue who John McCain would pick for his VP. With Obama, I at least had speculations, but not McCain. I had never even heard of Sarah Palin before last Friday. On the way to school, Mike mentioned her and said it was possible she would get picked. I thought it may be a good balance if a young woman was picked as his running mate seeing as how it may woo feminist voters. After school, he seemed incredibly excited about her and said that many conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh were absolutely elated. My Government class teacher said that Palin had some libertarian tendencies so I was glad to hear Mike say the same thing. However, after I found out more about her, I learned that she was far more socially conservative than I originally thought. I still like her though and I think she is the perfect running mate for Senator McCain. She brings a populist image and a record for cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to the McCain ticket.

She was a first-term Republican governor of Alaska. She is the youngest person to hold this honor as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. She earned her Journalism degree from the University of Idaho and worked in media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago. As of the summer of 2007, after cutting 13% of Alaska's budget, she was the most popular governor in America. That's a big plus on her part. She is also strongly pro-life which, like I have said before, does not matter to be much. I just hope she doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Married for 20 years, Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the U.S. Army, scheduled to go to Iraq. I loved her August 30th acceptance speech so much that I finally decided I was in support of McCain rather than simply against Obama.

And no matter what the biased media says, Palin does have more experience than Obama. She was a whistleblower on corrupt politicians and unethical oil company practices, she has been the governor of a state, she has commanded the Alaskan National Guard, she has more community experience. She will bring real change. Good change. She has done more good in Alaska than any other governor can say about their state. Her strong anti-corruption stance really impresses me. Obama can't say any of that. He is all talk. That's it.

Let's take a look at her political positions, shall we?

Abortion & Sex Education - Palin is officially pro-life and a member of Feminists for Life. She is opposed to abortion, except when the mother's life is in danger. Palin described herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." While running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". She and her husband stated that they had "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." Palin supported abstinence-only education in Alaskan schools which raises my eyebrow. She wrote, "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," on a questionnaire while running for governor in 2006.

Abortion is one of my lowest priorities a far as issues go, but I do have particular views concerning sex education. Unlike what many deluded social conservatives think, the sex ed curriculum in public schools does not in any way, shape, for form encourage or promote sex among teenagers or even safe sex. But they also don't teach abstinence either. The methods they use is fear. The show you videos and talk about sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies and all the hardships that go with it. That is the correct position to take and the most effective way to teach sex ed. I will elaborate more on my position on sex education when I post my official political positions.

Gay Marriage - Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 1998—so much for the frontier values of freedom and the right to privacy. Whilst campaigning for Governor of Alaska, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment, although she said she has good friends who are gay and does not wish to judge gay people. A very hypocritical move on her part. In December 2006, following long-running litigation and a 2005 ruling, the Supreme Court of Alaska ordered the state to begin paying health and retiree benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees. Declaring that there were "no more judicial options to pursue" to avoid paying the benefits, Palin agreed to comply with the ruling. At the same time, in her first legislative act, Palin signed a bill ordering a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits. Palin subsequently vetoed a bill that would have denied the benefits, declaring that "signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office" due to the state Supreme Court ruling. Wow, women can never make up their minds, can they? Although the referendum passed in April 2007 with 53% of voters supporting a constitutional amendment, a bill to place such an amendment on the ballot in November 2008 fortunately stalled in the state legislature.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the government (neither federal, nor state, nor local) has NO right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. If two people of the same gender want to get married, so what? Let them. If you believe marriage is sacred (which I do) and should be between a man and a woman, then that's your personal belief. But different people have different views and you should not push your personal views onto other people.

Energy, the Environment, and Endangered Species - As Governor, Palin has strongly promoted tapping our oil and natural gas resources in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling—several points for her in my book. She has also helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits, something I would not support for reasons I shall list at a later date. Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisers to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. Well, now that she is running for Vice President of the United States, I think she should broaden her horizons a little bit. Palin stated in an August 29 interview: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." I could not agree more. In January 2008, Palin wrote an opinion column for the New York Times in which she opposed the listing of polar bears as an endangered species, claiming that she had based her position on a comprehensive review of expert scientific opinion. State biologists have disagreed that such support exists. In May 2008, she threatened to sue the federal government over their decision to list the bears. She again questioned the scientific basis for the listing, and warned that it would "adversely affect energy development in Alaska". Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, who was the main author of the petition behind the listing, said Palin was "either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading" on the subject. Palin likewise opposes listing the beluga whale as endangered. In regards to predator control, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. The program was criticized by Defenders of Wildlife and predator control opponents, and prompted California State Representative George Miller to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) seeking to make the practice illegal. In March 2008, a federal judge in Alaska upheld the practice of hunting wolves from the air, though limited its extent. On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program.

Now I have nothing but full support for oil drilling of the coasts and in ANWR. It's just common sense when you look at our gas prices. I do think global warming a real phenomenon, but I don't think it's man-made and I don't think it is as big of a threat as Al Gore and the radical environmentalists make it out to be. I'm not an expert in biodiversity and ecological matters so I will not comment on the polar bear issue at this time. And I support Palin's predator control program. Hell, we use that method on deer. They're multiplying like crazy.

Gun rights - Palin is lifetime member of the NRA and supports the right to keep and bear arms, much to her credit. Apparently, she is an experienced hunter. The contrast is funny—you got Barack Obama who wants to ban AR-15 assault rifles and then you got Sarah Palin who shoots AR-15s (and quite well, in fact).

As a hard-line advocate of gun rights, I wholeheartedly support her position on our Second Amendment rights (although Ron Paul was better).

Capital Punishment - Palin has declared herself in favor of capital punishment. She has stated that: "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Ladies and gentlemen, a politician with a brain!

War on Drugs - Though she admits to having smoked marijuana when possession was legal under Alaska state law (but illegal under federal law), Palin opposes legalized marijuana in fear of the message it might send to her family, which is understandable. She regards methamphetamine as a greater social threat than marijuana. Another point for Palin!

A lot of people make such a big deal out of marijuana. It's ridiculous...

Evolution/Creationism in schools - This is an issue for me not just as an atheist, but as a person with common sense and a mind of his own. As governor, Palin supported full funding for K-12 education, as well as "early funding of education", a program that would give school districts more predictability. While running for governor, she was asked about the teaching of creationism along with evolution in public school science classes, Palin answered: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both"; she stated the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum.

As a high school senior myself, I have been through this firsthand. They do not prohibit creationist ideas from being openly expressed in the classroom (in fact, they encourage it sometimes). It is simply not part of the curriculum, nor should it be. School is for learning, learning what we know, not what we want to believe. Teaching evolution is not indoctrination, it's just science. It is on par with the theory of gravity—and yes, it is technically the theory of gravity. Allow diverse ideas to be expressed, but teach the facts.

Foreign Policy - Other than negotiating with Canada for an oil pipeline, she has almost no foreign policy experience and has said very little about it. What she has talked about though is "working to expand and deepen the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Israel."

In an interview with Alaska Business Monthly "shortly after she took office" as governor, Palin favored an "exit plan" for the war in Iraq:

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies, saying, "We are a nation at war and in many ways, the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go." However, she also stipulated that a clear plan for Iraq should not include concerns with oil or energy dependence, saying, "I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy."

I agree with her on this. We have all the resources we need and this war should have nothing to do with energy resources.

So, concluding this post, there are many things I agree with her on and some things I do not. But I just want to say that she is one of the most impressive politicians I have ever seen. She is basically your average person. The regular, all-American family woman. She is so down-to-earth and has a record of cleaning up the former cesspool of Alaskan politics.

I will be proud to vote for this ticket in November—my first presidential election vote.

More conservatives coming to their senses?

I wasn't planning on posting news article responses for a while but this unexpected turn of events caught my eye and I decided to post it.

Conservatives grow wary of mixing church, politics

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Thu Aug 21, 5:48 PM ET

Social conservatives are growing more wary of church involvement in politics, joining moderates and liberals in their unease about blurring the lines between pulpit and ballot box, a new study found.

Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters, up from 30 percent four years ago, according to a survey released Thursday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

That significant shift in conservative thought has brought the country to a tipping point on the question: a slim majority of Americans — 52 percent — now think churches should keep out of politics.

That's an eight percentage point increase over 2004 and the first time a majority of Americans has held that opinion since Pew officials started asking the question 12 years ago.

On this question, the gap between conservatives and liberals is narrowing: just four years ago, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to say churches should stay out of politics. Now, 50 percent of conservatives and 57 percent of liberals think that. Four years ago, 62 percent of liberals opposed church involvement in politics. Democrats and Republicans are about even on the question, as well.

The survey also found largely unchanged attitudes along religious lines on the presidential choices compared with 2004, despite Democrat Barack Obama's strong play for religious voters and Republican John McCain's hesitancy to talk about his own faith and problems connecting with his party's evangelical base.

McCain leads Obama 68 percent to 24 percent among white evangelical Protestants, comparable to what President Bush was polling four years ago. But the support is tepid: just 28 percent of white evangelicals call themselves "strong" supporters of McCain, well short of Bush's 57 percent in 2004.

Changing attitudes about mixing church and politics could emerge as a factor in the fall campaign — particularly for McCain. Both campaigns are plotting get-out-the-vote efforts in faith communities, but past Republican successes came when attitudes were more welcoming.

The attitude shift cut across conservative constituencies: 46 percent of Republican Protestants want churches out of politics, up from 28 percent in 2004. Thirty-six percent of white evangelical Republicans hold that view, up from 20 percent four years ago.

The question asked specifically about places of worship, which by law cannot take stands for or against candidates or political parties but may speak out on issues. So the public might hold different views about political stances taken by religious leaders speaking as individuals or religious advocacy groups.

The findings come after midterm elections in 2006 that saw Democrats seize control of Congress, a landmark court ruling this year legalizing gay marriage in California, and also amid an identity crisis among conservative evangelicals about which issues should take priority and who speaks for the movement.

Among the groups that shifted strongly away from wanting to see churches involved in politics: Americans who are less educated, those who believe gay marriage is a very important issue and those who think the two major parties are unfriendly to religion.

"To my mind, that spells frustration," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "But by the same token, we know these very same people are not interested in less religiosity in the political discourse. They almost universally want a religious person as president.

"It's not that they want to take religion out of politics, it's that their frustrations with the way things seem to be going are leading them to say, 'Well, maybe churches should back off on this.'"

The survey confirmed that white non-Hispanic Catholics, who make up about 18 percent of the electorate, are shaping up to be a big swing vote this fall: 45 percent support McCain, while 44 percent back Obama. Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic, was doing better at this juncture in 2004, winning 50 percent of those Catholics.

Asked which candidate "shares my values," 47 percent of all respondents replied Obama and 39 percent said McCain. White evangelicals favor McCain on that question, the religiously nonaffiliated leaned Obama, while white non-Hispanic Catholics and mainline Protestants were split.

Democrats have made inroads in closing the so-called God gap, at least by one measure: 38 percent of respondents said the party is "friendly toward religion," up from 26 percent two years ago. Even so, considerably more people — 52 percent — viewed the Republican Party as religion-friendly.

So there's some good news, some bad news, and the same stuff I've heard before. Statistically speaking, the number of Americans—particularly Republicans—who want religious influence out of politics is increasing while at the same time, the Democratic Party is becoming more friendly to organized religion. Who would of thought?

It is unsurprising that the majority of white evangelicals and/or protestants are polling for McCain while the majority of non-white and/or non-religious groups are leaning toward Barack Obama. Unlike previous Democratic candidates, Obama is desperately trying to cater to the faithful, such as wanting to increase President Bush's faith-based government programs in size and scope.

You know, I'm quite interested in seeing what atheist organizations (such as American Atheists) have to say about it, seeing as how they are generally politically left-leaning due to the traditional leftist stance supporting a strong separation of church and state. I need to do a little more searching, but as far as I know, they haven't made a statement on the issue.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that a lot of right-wingers are reacquiring their sanity in this day and age. This gives me hope for the Secular Right.

Introduction

Hi, everyone, and welcome to ATHEOLIBCON. I'm no stranger to Blogger, but I had to cancel my previous blog due to complications. Now I'm back, new and improved. If you would like to know about me personally, feel free to check out my profile, but right now, I am going to cut to the chase. I'm 18-years-old and I'm from Seattle, Washington (though I don't currently live there). I love studying subjects such as politics, economics, science, religion, philosophy, history, etc. and though I will post on said subjects, the big topics will pertain to politics and religion.

My interest in politics long preceded my interest in theology. I was raised by my mother and my step-father, both of them conservative Republicans. I have been into politics and social studies since I was a little kid. I remember carefully monitoring the 2000 presidential election when I was eleven-years-old. I was raised me Republican and for a long time, that's what I was and what I still am to varying degrees. In the 2004 election year, through political research I found out about the political philosophy of Libertarianism. As I read the descriptions, I was surprised at how accurately it described my own beliefs. My folks were present at that time and I remember proudly declaring that I was a libertarian--someone who believed in the equal and maximum importance of both economic liberty as well as social/personal liberty--and I was hooked.

The Democrats believed in more social liberty but less economic freedom, the Republicans believed in more economic freedom but less social liberty. Both of those ideologies are morally wrong. However, I am not entirely libertarian. I am what one would refer to as a right-leaning libertarian or a libertarian-conservative.

Although I am more of a libertarian than anything else, I am still right-wing in that I support the death penalty (purely from a moral perspective; some people simply deserve to die), tighter border security (in this age of terrorism and illegal immigration, that's a no-brainer), and the war against Al-Qaeda (they attacked us and payback's a bitch). Also, though I support gay marriage rights, I oppose adoption by gay couples and that's an issue I will touch on at a later date. I plan on posting my political positions in detail sometime next week.

As for my history regarding religion, my step-father was raised with the Living Church of God while my mother is non-denominational Christian. Currently, they could both be classified as non-practicing Christians. They only pray on special occasions and attend church even less. Not that there is a problem with that. They have better things to do than waste their time on superstitious rituals. To their credit, they did not give my two sisters and I a religious upbringing.

They took me to church occasionally when I was younger and though I believed in God, I never was religious. In fact, I never really considered myself a Christian. I was a-religious, which means I was not religious primarily due to apathy. When I was younger I was just like any other boy at that age. Instead of pondering cosmic, metaphysical questions and possibilities about life, I was far more interested in instigating armed conflict with my plastic army men and simulating disastrous pile-ups with my Matchbox cars.

My theological interests were first aroused when my mother bought me the first five novels of the Left Behind: The Kids series. I think she thought I'd be interested because it had an end-of-the-world theme, but neither she nor I realized at the time just how much that simple gift of entertainment literature would change me... from a period of Bible-reading and increasing fascination, to a phase of near-zealous religiosity, to the point of unequivocal, secular skepticism that was only reinforced through perpetual learning and research.

Over the late winter and spring of 2005, I was feeling severely depressed and had low self-esteem. I sought a crutch, a figurative shoulder to lean on. In a state of mental chaos and confusion, I turned to drugs. Willful submission to an incorporeal pestilence is something that, to this day, I consider one of my greatest moral failures.

I became a religious fanatic.

I wanted to be a "servant of God" and a "warrior for Christ." I believed in miracles; I believed that an unproven god would help me through hardship. I sacrificed individual responsibility to the will of a nonexistent deity. I am ashamed of what I did. Religious belief did not help me one bit and I soon started studying things other than the Bible. To make a long story short, I grew more and more skeptical and doubtful of my irrational, superstitious faith. My quest eventually led me to reject religion in favor of atheism.

Now, there are fundamental types of atheism. There is "strong" or "positive" or "explicit" atheism in which one would say, "There is no god, period. No ifs, ands, or buts." Then there is "weak" or "implicit" atheism, which instead of declaring outright that no deities exist, implicit atheists would say that there is no reason to believe deities exist.

I am an "implicit" atheist.

I believe that one doesn't need religion or supernatural belief to lead a truly happy, fulfilled, and moral life. In fact, devout religion can inhibit such goals.

As I have showed, I am a much different person than I was several years ago. Over those years I have had debates both online and in real life. Multiple times my views have caused conflict between my parents and I and although we may not always agree, they are good people and they raised me to be a moral human being with good values (despite some of their stubborn, big-government, socially conservative tendencies). As I grew up and matured and expanded my intellect, I came to embrace moral objectivism, which I know will come in handy when figuring out how to give my future children a strong moral foundation. Moral objectivism is basically about seeing what works and doing what works, what truly works... not just taking the easy way out in many instances. Therefore, many of the values my parents taught me I have kept while others I have discarded.

So here I am today, my friends. I am quite opinionated when it comes to theology, politics, and many other subjects and I wish to share my views with humanity. I love discussions and debates. I am also a writer and I am currently working on many different kinds of literature, both fiction and nonfiction. I'll occasionally post bits and pieces on this blog for your viewing pleasure. So to those who may, in the future, come to love me or hate me and everyone in between: What up, all! It's me!

Friends call me Adam, but you will know me as the Atheolibcon.

I am here... and I have something to say.