This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sarah Palin Wants the U.S. To Be a Theocracy

Sarah Palin Wants the U.S. To Be a Theocracy - Comments

TehSpamMan's Avatar Comment 1 by TehSpamMan

What an idiotic woman Sarah Palin is.

Fri, 21 May 2010 13:47:58 UTC | #472056

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 2 by PrimeNumbers

Democracy might not always work as well as we'd like, but it is plain that theocracy is always worse.

Fri, 21 May 2010 13:51:49 UTC | #472057

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 3 by crookedshoes

Sarah Palin is not alone. She is the face of a palpable evil presence. None of my educated colleagues even think of this as threatening. It is insipid and pernicious. They fly under the radar of so many people and so many others enable them by being apologists. This is scary shit.

Fri, 21 May 2010 13:52:53 UTC | #472058

Frenger's Avatar Comment 4 by Frenger

Somebody stop this mad bitch!

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:03:03 UTC | #472059

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 5 by Jonathan Dore

... U.S. laws should be based on the Bible because, she claims, that's what our forefathers planned and wanted. Putting aside the ludicrousness of that statement--history shows us our forefathers were careful to keep religion out of the Constitution ...

Clearly Palin is simply talking about different forefathers than the author, i.e. she means the folks on the Mayflower (1620), not the guys who wrote the Constitution (1787). Whenever people talk about what the forefathers wanted, whatever they then go on to say will indicate whether they're thinking of 1620 or 1787. Basically, the religious right look back to the pilgrims, secularists cling on to the founding fathers. Most of the binary oppositions in the US today -- republican v. democrat, red v. blue, coasts v. centre, religious v. secular -- can be reduced to an opposition between the 1620ers and the 1787ers.

Updated: Fri, 21 May 2010 14:08:03 UTC | #472061

besleybean's Avatar Comment 6 by besleybean

Fight this tooth and claw, U.S. You do not want to go backwards and end up living with an established church.

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:21:26 UTC | #472069

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 7 by Alternative Carpark

So immediate death by stoning for her promiscuous daughter then?

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:27:28 UTC | #472070

Vadim Gorelik's Avatar Comment 8 by Vadim Gorelik

Most of the binary oppositions in the US today -- republican v. democrat, red v. blue, coasts v. centre, religious v. secular -- can be reduced to an opposition between the 1620ers and the 1787ers.

Very valid point, Jonathan, except it is not the issue - the issue is if she wants for things like slavery, degradation of women to be legalized.

I think she'll quickly denounce that preferring to base our laws on the New Testament, which then begs the question how does what bible calls sinful beings incapable of goodness are supposed to live in a society that actually has those standards for laws.

Irrespective of whether you are a 1620er or 1787er, you have to be smart enough to see past the bullcrap you're spewing and this particular specimen (Palin) is not.

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:41:40 UTC | #472076

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 9 by NewEnglandBob

Send Sarah Palin where she belongs - with the Taliban.

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:46:53 UTC | #472081

at3p's Avatar Comment 10 by at3p

Maybe the tea-baggers have turned into whiskey-slammers. If Palin and her company win the 2012 presidency, it's going to be reallllly bad... a third of the world would probably die from chronic irony since the white christian immigrants who got to America were running away from religious (as in Bible-ruled) persecution. I myself could not handle such irony and would probably die laughing. As for the rest of the world outside USA, I guess the species will have to evolve to live under irradiated environment.

Anyone who wants to see theocracy in action + oil + money + guns... look up Saudi Arabia. Iran is a cosmopolitan oasis compared to the Saudis...

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:51:43 UTC | #472083

mucca's Avatar Comment 11 by mucca

Religion only goes back so far, and that is a convenient tool for Americans to use. Why not go back even further and have Americans register by their tribe? I bet she would completely balk on that one.

Or even better, why doesn't the world just not listen to this woman at all?

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:56:54 UTC | #472085

Frode_74's Avatar Comment 12 by Frode_74

Very few things frighten me more than Sarah Palin. She'd gladly stop all scientific progress, and that means she's directly interfering with my future health, not to mention the health of the planet.

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:04:48 UTC | #472088

Merco's Avatar Comment 13 by Merco

Something tells me that we're going to need a lot more stones.

So immediate death by stoning for her promiscuous daughter then?

Her daughter also lives in the same town as a few a people that don't worship the same god as her. That's also a crime deserving of the death penalty (also, we have to burn the city down to the ground so that nothing can live there again). Now that I think about it, this one law would probably eliminate 99.9+% of the US population.

Which would suck, because we wouldn't be able to implement any other of Yahweh's brilliant laws. No forcing rape victims to marry their attackers. No stoning to death rape victims if they didn't scream loud enough. No beating our slaves to the brink of death without any punishment because the slaves are our property.

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:05:09 UTC | #472089

mixmastergaz's Avatar Comment 14 by mixmastergaz

You can laugh about it all you want, but I happen to think we here in the UK should base our laws on Beowulf. Or failing that, Airwolf. And I'd like us to arrange for a written constitution based on Homer's Iliad. Maybe we could base our laws on the Robin Hood myths and devise a new compulsory religion based on the Arthurian legends...All of which would be preferrable to the absurd and dunderheaded wrong-speak of Sarah ('Hypocrisy ought to be my middle name') Palin.

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:21:16 UTC | #472092

Freeman's Avatar Comment 15 by Freeman

Judging by the obesity epidemic, a number of Americans think that the constitution of the USA should be based on "The Very Hungry Caterpillar"...

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:33:16 UTC | #472094

markg's Avatar Comment 16 by markg

The half-baked Alaskan governor strikes again, in her never-ending massive misinformation campaign across the U.S.

After the last presidential election a poll showed over 60% of voters thought she was not qualified for office. Let's hope that doesn't change.

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:56:27 UTC | #472102

friendlypig's Avatar Comment 17 by friendlypig

What a waste of skin.

Fri, 21 May 2010 16:10:12 UTC | #472106

zengardener's Avatar Comment 18 by zengardener

She will not be allowed to run for president as a Republican. Republicans aren't stupid. She will stir up the crazies on the fringe and the real Republicans will seem rational and cool headed by comparison. yet, even she will end up voting for a Republican rather than a Democrat.

One thing to consider. Fear of her brand of crazy may bring out a lot of lazy undecideds who otherwise would not even vote.

Fri, 21 May 2010 16:22:18 UTC | #472109

The Plc's Avatar Comment 19 by The Plc

Still would though.

Fri, 21 May 2010 16:46:00 UTC | #472115

KirkOlson's Avatar Comment 20 by KirkOlson

She is just appealing to her fan base. It makes sense to encourage her continued rhetoric and let her further define her positions. "Mrs. Palin, how should the US Constitution be rewritten to support your policy? What crimes against the teachings of the Bible will be considered eligible for capital punishment? Who will be the final arbiter in situations where the King James Version of the Bible contradicts itself or is unclear, Congress, the Supreme Court, the President or the Pope?"

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:07:28 UTC | #472122

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 21 by Rich Wiltshir

I don't believe that even she is so thick as to think this idea was the legs to get anywhere; it's just a case of keeping herself in the public eye.

The girl who put 'alas' into Alaska wants fame and fortune, it seems.

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:24:30 UTC | #472125

tll's Avatar Comment 22 by tll

Jesus H Christ!

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:27:34 UTC | #472127

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 23 by crookedshoes

Proof that something beautiful can be rancid in it's core. Like getting a visually perfect cannolli that is full of rotten pudding. Damn scary woman. Dumber than the day is long. I will say this: for years I have asserted that a chimp could run the whitehouse (we got pretty close with the last president)... it may just be that my assertion will be tested.

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:30:44 UTC | #472129

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 24 by TIKI AL

Note to history challenged Sarah: When Joseph Smith, Mormon founder and mayor of Carthage, Ill wanted to start a theocracy, he and his brother were arrested, dragged from the jail, and executed by a mob.

The "good 'ol days" still sound good to 'ya?

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:33:19 UTC | #472132

SteveN's Avatar Comment 25 by SteveN

If eight years of Dubya were not enough, the prospect of Sarah Palin attaining a position of real power convinces me that democracy, despite being the best that we presently have, is fatally flawed as a system of governance.

If you aspire to become a doctor, a scientist, an electrician or a hairdresser, you have to gain the respective qualifications by hard work and study. In contrast, to become the most powerful individual in the world, with your finger on the nuclear button, you simply have to persuade a largely uninformed electorate to cast their vote in your favour. Why aren't politicians required to have a Ph.D or equivalent in politics, history, economics etc before before being eligible to run for office?

I, for one, look forward to having a benign and impartial megacomputer in charge of the Earth ;-)

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:53:31 UTC | #472140

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 26 by Ivan The Not So Bad

I imagine this is the O'Reilly/Palin interview they are referring to.

Brace yourselves:


Fri, 21 May 2010 19:05:39 UTC | #472180

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 27 by glenister_m

What amazes me is that she commands in the area of $100 000 for speaking engagements!!!??? John McCain definitely deserves a major cut of that, since without him, she would be unemployed.

I'm in the wrong line of least I can coherently answer questions.

I also wonder why the U.S. media is rarely "balanced" and also have someone on who will call b.s. on Reilly and Palin to their faces...

Fri, 21 May 2010 19:08:11 UTC | #472181

ewaldrep's Avatar Comment 28 by ewaldrep

thank you for the clip Ivan the not so bad, but even better was one of the follow up videos from an english comedy show making the argument that god will not forgive richard dawkins. If you have the time it was worth a moment of humor!

Fri, 21 May 2010 20:38:29 UTC | #472209

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 29 by Crazycharlie

Is Sarah Palin a world-champion moron?

Oh, you betcha!

Updated: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:42:24 UTC | #472210

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 30 by cheesedoff17

Lovely to the eye but loony to the ear.

Fri, 21 May 2010 22:26:20 UTC | #472243