Sarah Palin - Guilty as Charged!

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Life just keeps better as the truth leaks through the protective walls.

AP Associated Press

WASILLA, Alaska - The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God’s will from the governor’s office.
What she didn’t tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.

An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate’s record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.

Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.

Palin was baptized Roman Catholic as a newborn and baptized again in a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church when she was a teenager. She has worshipped at a nondenominational Bible church since 2002, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and supports classroom discussions about creationism.
[/quote]

So she’s religious. For Americans that usually means the person is a lot less likely to be crooked or evil. I know its not guaranteed but it does improve the odds.

Now if she were religious and had attended Trinity United with Obama, then we’d have a problem. But he never listened anyway. And you can believe him. You really can.

It seems her style of managing human resource issues is of the same vein as that of Bush… except that she’s possibly more personal. I have to wonder, would her appointments make Harriett Miers and Alberto Gonzalez look downright brilliant?

Being religious in America “improves the odds” that someone is a lot less likely to be crooked or evil?

You’ve GOT to be kidding me, HH…

What it improves is the likelihood of being a judgemental hypocrite.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Being religious in America “improves the odds” that someone is a lot less likely to be crooked or evil?

You’ve GOT to be kidding me, HH…

What it improves is the likelihood of being a judgemental hypocrite.

Mufasa[/quote]

Ouch.

I better clarify…

There are a LOT of good, noble, honest people out there, who consider themselves religious, (and many who don’t).

They go about their lives, doing good things, and don’t wear their religion (or lack thereof) on their chest for all to see.

Nor do they use their beliefs as a sledgehammer to smash other people with.

I will ALWAYS be wary of the person who feels the need to “broadcast” who and what they are, and to judge others harshly if they don’t believe exactly as they do.

Mufasa

HH, you are missing the point of the article. She is subsidizing her personal life at taxpayer expense. Because it is religous does not make it legal. If she took her family on vacation and charged the taxpayers for it, it would still be illegal.

This is in addition to charging for per diem while she is staying at her own house. I have traveled for work for over 25 years and there is no way anyone else can charge per diem and stay at home. In addition to Cheney, she probably looks at Charles Keating as another role model.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I better clarify…

There are a LOT of good, noble, honest people out there, who consider themselves religious, (and many who don’t).

They go about their lives, doing good things, and don’t wear their religion (or lack thereof) on their chest for all to see.

Nor do they use their beliefs as a sledgehammer to smash other people with.

I will ALWAYS be wary of the person who feels the need to “broadcast” who and what they are, and to judge others harshly if they don’t believe exactly as they do.

Mufasa [/quote]

Well said.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I will ALWAYS be wary of the person who feels the need to “broadcast” who and what they are, and to judge others harshly if they don’t believe exactly as they do.
[/quote]

Don’t go near a gay pride parade then. Zing!

My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).[/quote]

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?
[/quote]

Exactly. HH I still don’t understand why you insist on saying this; IMO you’re way off base on that one.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I better clarify…

There are a LOT of good, noble, honest people out there, who consider themselves religious, (and many who don’t).

They go about their lives, doing good things, and don’t wear their religion (or lack thereof) on their chest for all to see.

Nor do they use their beliefs as a sledgehammer to smash other people with.

I will ALWAYS be wary of the person who feels the need to “broadcast” who and what they are, and to judge others harshly if they don’t believe exactly as they do.

Mufasa [/quote]

Agreed. In practice, it certainly seems these people have been the most corrupt with the biggest skeletons in their closet.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?
[/quote]

It’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s one thing to say we shouldn’t be coerced to give up hard-earned money to support poorly organized programs that don’t effectively get people up on their feet anyway.

It’s quite another to say people who have worked hard and are fortunate enough to have prospered should abandon all kindness and human decency and avoid any voluntary aid to help his felon man.

And if you think that’s what Ayn Rand was saying, you need to go reread her work, HH.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?
[/quote]

Perhaps this will explain it: Suppose that I sell you a bicycle for $100. You value the bike more than the $100 or you wouldn’t buy it. I value the $100 more than the bike, or I wouldn’t sell it.

We both gained and no one lost. We both acted in our self-interest with a happy result for all. This is an example of rational egoism.

According to altruism (the doctrine of unselfishness), this action carried no moral import or may have been evil. Neither acted for the benefit of the other.

They each acted for their own welfare and happiness. It is only if I gave the $100 away with no hope of a personal gain that I have acted morally (similar for the bike).

Therefore, to engage in trade was regarded historically as amoral at best and immoral at worst, because each person acts for him or herself.

But trade is the heart and soul of capitalism: You trade your efforts at work for money. You value the money more than you value your time. You trade your money for food and so forth, each party benefitting. To freely engage in trade is the mark of a society of freedom, where your life, your property, your work belong to you.

“And no one came to say that your life belongs to YOU, and that the ‘Good’ is to live it.”
— John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I will ALWAYS be wary of the person who feels the need to “broadcast” who and what they are, and to judge others harshly if they don’t believe exactly as they do.

Mufasa [/quote]

AMEN !!! HA !!!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

[/quote]

I thought parents had the monopoly on morality teaching ?

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
HH, you are missing the point of the article. She is subsidizing her personal life at taxpayer expense. Because it is religous does not make it legal. If she took her family on vacation and charged the taxpayers for it, it would still be illegal.

This is in addition to charging for per diem while she is staying at her own house. I have traveled for work for over 25 years and there is no way anyone else can charge per diem and stay at home. In addition to Cheney, she probably looks at Charles Keating as another role model.[/quote]

Actually it is common practice. Her home is the govenor’s mansion. She drastically cut expenditures. I don’t know why (actually I do) you pick out where she spent money without comparing it to what was spent before her and what she cut. She wouldn’t have had to charge airfare if she would have kept the private jet.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?

Perhaps this will explain it: Suppose that I sell you a bicycle for $100. You value the bike more than the $100 or you wouldn’t buy it. I value the $100 more than the bike, or I wouldn’t sell it.

We both gained and no one lost. We both acted in our self-interest with a happy result for all. This is an example of rational egoism.

According to altruism (the doctrine of unselfishness), this action carried no moral import or may have been evil. Neither acted for the benefit of the other.

They each acted for their own welfare and happiness. It is only if I gave the $100 away with no hope of a personal gain that I have acted morally (similar for the bike).

Therefore, to engage in trade was regarded historically as amoral at best and immoral at worst, because each person acts for him or herself.

But trade is the heart and soul of capitalism: You trade your efforts at work for money. You value the money more than you value your time. You trade your money for food and so forth, each party benefitting. To freely engage in trade is the mark of a society of freedom, where your life, your property, your work belong to you.

“And no one came to say that your life belongs to YOU, and that the ‘Good’ is to live it.”
— John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

[/quote]

Charity has nothing to do with giving away your neighbors things…And if my property, my work, and my life belongs to me, why would you worry about how much more profit I could’ve made selling MY bike.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My point, which I stated in an obscure manner admittedly, is that morality and the teaching of morality has been reserved for the churches and not allowed in the schools. The churches have a monopoly on morality teaching.

So it follows that most people have no exposure to an understanding of what makes a moral argument, other than some sort of social metaphysics. Morality becomes a question of majority opinion. Further, those who grow up in a religious atmosphere are more likely to have been exposed to moral arguments.

That of course is trouble because the churches preach unselfishness as a virtue, which conflicts with the ethics of capitalism (rational egoism).

How does unselfishness conflict with capitalism? What do you care if some individual gives up his OWN time and wealth to minister to lepers, orphans, and the mentally handicapped?

Perhaps this will explain it: Suppose that I sell you a bicycle for $100. You value the bike more than the $100 or you wouldn’t buy it. I value the $100 more than the bike, or I wouldn’t sell it.

We both gained and no one lost. We both acted in our self-interest with a happy result for all. This is an example of rational egoism.

According to altruism (the doctrine of unselfishness), this action carried no moral import or may have been evil. Neither acted for the benefit of the other.

They each acted for their own welfare and happiness. It is only if I gave the $100 away with no hope of a personal gain that I have acted morally (similar for the bike).

Therefore, to engage in trade was regarded historically as amoral at best and immoral at worst, because each person acts for him or herself.

But trade is the heart and soul of capitalism: You trade your efforts at work for money. You value the money more than you value your time. You trade your money for food and so forth, each party benefitting. To freely engage in trade is the mark of a society of freedom, where your life, your property, your work belong to you.

“And no one came to say that your life belongs to YOU, and that the ‘Good’ is to live it.”
— John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

Charity has nothing to do with giving away your neighbors things…And if my property, my work, and my life belongs to me, why would you worry about how much more profit I could’ve made selling MY bike.[/quote]

Sorry. Your response makes no sense to me. Clarify, please.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Charity has nothing to do with giving away your neighbors things…And if my property, my work, and my life belongs to me, why would you worry about how much more profit I could’ve made selling MY bike.

Sorry. Your response makes no sense to me. Clarify, please.
[/quote]

Well, it is the same thing really we try to bring up everytime you confuse unselfishness with serfdom.

If it makes me happy to help other people, if I in fact experience the greatest satisfaction by helping someone else it is entirely selfish and reasonable to be “unselfish”.

If I make someone else work for “my” good deeds, that is not unselfishness, in fact it is extremely selfish, and serfdom on top of it.