Palin...experience matters

...but positions matter more.

So the theme from McCain that Obama is unqualified is obviously out the door.  Sarah Palin does not even cross the (admittedly audacious) threshhold that Obama set for experience.  Palin's actions in office and worldview are, however, deeply troubling.  

First, I'll get a caveat out of the way: most of my friends at church are Palin supporters.  

I depart from orthodoxy here to talk some about Palin.  Generally I don't like to do ad hominem, but the Republicans have made this an election about narrative and personality, not issues.  Thus, the person becomes the issue.  Really, we don't know much about Palin and where she stands on the issues.

Conundrum #1: Palin literally believes the Bible to be true, to the extent that she believes that dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time.  I believe the Bible to be the word of God, but also recognize that God speaks to people according to our understanding (2 Nephi 31:3).  Thus, the scriptures are a way that God teaches us, but the Bible was given to an ancient people so they could understand it.  Whether Palin believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago or 3 billion years ago is not relevant to me.  If Palin believes she should bring on a nuclear war to usher in the rapture is VERY relevant to me.  I disagree with the theology of the Rapture (it's not in the Bible), but I disagree more with the idea that someone would use their religious views to do things that will cause real people to die.

Conundrum #2: Palin has no idea about international relations.  She told Charlie Gibson that Georgia should be part of NATO.  When he questioned her about the implication of a Russian attack on Georgia, she replied that sanctions would be good.  NATO article 5 states that an attack upon any NATO member is an attack upon all NATO members.  Palin's statement can be back-stepped to reason that if Russia attacked the US, she would be for sanctions.  She would never admit to this position, of course, but her statements mean that either she doesn't understand our NATO obligations or she isn't really into defending America.  I surmise the former to be more likely.

Conundrum #3: Palin does not have faith in science.  There is a large swath of America that shares her beliefs in creationism.  There is a large swath who share her belief that climate change is not anthropogenic (I'm not convinced either.  See here.)  Those are fine - she doesn't have to believe the same things I do.  But I do require that my elected officials allow me to believe what I choose to believe (see here and #11 here) and take action according to the best knowledge we have.  Knowledge trumps faith - real faith will find a way to reconcile with knowledge; blind faith denies knowledge a place.  The Catholic church was able to do this with Galileo after a long time (from 1633 to 1992).  We don't have that kind of time any longer, because our decisions have such swift consequences.

Conundrum #4: Palin's beliefs on abortion are rather extreme.  I am personally pro-life.  I also believe that such a difficult and life-altering decision belongs to the mother and people she consults.  Those people may include a religious leader, the father, the mother's parents, and God.  It is not my decision to make for her.  Nor is it Sarah Palin's.  Most people (even most liberals) believe that there are too many abortions in the US.  So we should do what we can do reduce abortions (see page 50). 

Conundrum #5: She's inconsistent.  The Bridge to Nowhere claim has been debunked time and again.  She was not a McCain supporter until he offered her the job as VP.  She said that she was not someone who thought that people had anything to do with climate change, then she claimed the opposite (there are semantics involved).  So where does Palin actually stand on anything?  We really don't know.  And someone I don't know is someone I can not trust with the Presidency.  The stakes are too great.