home
RSS
Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent
March 4th, 2013
04:06 PM ET

Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – An atheist group that misquoted former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a billboard in Texas is apologizing to the Republican and correcting the mistake. But it continues to defend the “intent and context” of the effort.

CNN first reported on Sunday that American Atheists, a group known for its in-your-face tactics, was sponsoring a billboard calling out Palin for something she said while on Fox News.

“We should create law based on the God of the Bible,” the billboard reads.

The only problem: That isn’t what Palin said.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly, Palin addressed the growth in American secularism by saying of America's founding fathers “we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments,” not “should.”

Dave Muscato, the group’s public relations director, said in a release that because American Atheists holds itself “to the highest standards of accuracy,” it will “move the quotation marks at our expense, so they do not include the word ‘should.’”

Both Muscato and David Silverman, the group’s president, however, stand by the “intent and context” of the billboard.

“While I admit that the word 'should' should technically not be inside the quote, the meaning was correct,” Silverman said in a statement to CNN.

Silverman initially defended the misquotation, tweeting that “Sarah Palin was NOT Misquoted” and directing readers to a headline from a Huffington Post story. The story headline, however, was also incorrect and did not put quotes around should.

Silverman was critiqued for that double down. Hemant Mehta, an influential atheist blogger at Patheos, wrote that a mistake like this “sheds doubt on the whole idea that atheists are the ones who are being honest with you.”

Although Silverman said in an e-mail to CNN that he believes “Ms. Palin would stand by what we have quoted her as saying,” he said “all future quotes will be exactly as spoken.”

A spokeswoman for Palin failed to respond to CNN’s request for a comment and has not contacted American Atheists about the mistake.

Although Palin’s billboard is getting the most attention, it was one of seven ads going up around the Dallas and Austin, Texas, area. Also featured were: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, and Benedict XVI, now the pope emeritus.

Santorum is condemned for when he told an Iowa crowd last November that, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law,” while Gingrich is criticized for a remark he made at a CNN debate on October 18, 2011, in Las Vegas. “How can I trust you with power if you don't pray,” Gingrich posited.

Virginia Davis, spokeswoman for Santorum, thanked American Atheists for the publicity.

“At a time when many are trying to remove God from the public square, the senator is appreciative of someone helping him very publicly express his strong belief that we are one nation under God,” Davis wrote in an e-mail to CNN.

The billboards cost the group $25,000 and will be up for the rest of the month.

American Atheists is used to controversy around their billboards.

Last March, the group targeted Muslims and Jews with billboards that called God a "myth" in both Arabic and Hebrew and the same group posted a billboard around the holiday season in 2010 that read, “You KNOW it's a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON.”

Both these billboard campaigns generated resistance and praise from the communities around them.

Silverman, who has been criticized for this brand of atheism, has long defended the tactic, saying confrontation is meant to “grow the cause and benefit the country.”

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Politics • Sarah Palin

soundoff (2,069 Responses)
  1. o

    Most important is that Sara Palin loves God

    March 4, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • sam

      Yes, by all means. This totally excuses every idiot thing that comes out of her mouth.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
  2. calin

    The concept of "should" and "would" makes no sense to us.

    March 4, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
  3. Atheist

    I donate 10% of my wages to this group... and they can't even get one stupid quote correct?

    Jimminy!

    March 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
  4. Atheists

    We soooo sowwwwy.

    March 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
  5. ME II

    Glad to see Silverman owning up to the error, finally... well almost, " the meaning was correct"

    March 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
  6. freedom

    Why don't atheists just live their lives on their belief system, and not infringe on others? They can't change the basis of the origin of our country. And if they really feel the need to advertise their beliefs, they shouldn't have to rely on haters of Palin to get the message across. That shows that they are mean-spirited – and have a message that can't stand on its own. It also shows that they are threatened by Palin.

    March 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • freedom

      Why don't the religious just live their lives on their belief system, and not infringe on others? They can't change the basis of the origin of our country, which was founded by deists. And if they really feel the need to advertise their beliefs, they shouldn't have to rely on Palin to get the message across. That shows that they are mean-spirited – and have a message that can't stand on its own. It also shows that they are enthralled with Palin.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • freedom

      Can't have a user name of our own? The country was not founded on atheism. Those who believe in God do not rely on Palin or anyone else to live by their beliefs. It is a faith. So, your proclamations do not apply.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "Why don't atheists just live their lives on their belief system, and not infringe on others?"
      They do, every single day – unlike the religious right.

      "They can't change the basis of the origin of our country."
      Why would they want to? Where is God in the Const.tution again? (ps. It's not there and we're not a Xtian country.)

      "And if they really feel the need to advertise their beliefs"
      1st amendment – freedom of speech

      "they shouldn't have to rely on haters of Palin to get the message across. That shows that they are mean-spirited"
      Perhaps David Sliverman is just that.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • freedom

      It wasn't founded on Christianity, either.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • freedom

      The point is, your idiot post is easily refuted, and it was turned back on you. Christians didn't found this nation; deists did, fool. And no one is threatened by Palin. Pity her, find her comical, yes. Peddle your delusions elsewhere.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "The country was not founded on atheism"

      That is certainly true. It wasn't founded on Christianity either.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Doobs

      Why don't atheists just live their lives on their belief system, and not infringe on others?

      Tell me what rights under the law that you've lost because of atheism. On the other hand, women face a constant battle to have the right to decide what's best for them, because of religious groups that want to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. Same sex couples don't have the same rights under civil law. Christians want to infringe on others based on their beliefs.

      Christians don't get that they have no more right for their beliefs to be encoded into civil law or public education than any other religion's beliefs.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • freedom

      Using haters of Palin to get a message across is mean-spirited, immature, and not intellectual – is that the audience they're going for? Why incite hate and ridicule? Stand behind your message without these lowly tactics.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • freedom

      It's gotten your attention. That's what it was designed to do. It worked.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • freedom

      @doobs
      Look up Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the answer to your question. She's just one example.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • freedom

      As far as getting attention – it does it in all the wrong ways – lowly, like I said.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • freedom

      O'Hair didn't take away any of your rights.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • freedom

      Doesn't matter whether you approve of the tone of the billboard. It got people to look at the rhetoric Palin, Santorum, and others use and to think about it. There's no bad publicity.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • freedom

      That's exactly my point – they shouldn't need to talk about Palin or anyone in their message – they are clearly threatened by her message. Why not just stand behind their own message without ridiculing others that disagree with them? It makes them look worse than anyone they're ridiculing. That's the point.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • sam

      I think it never hurts to remind people what kind of inane rhetoric is out there...and honestly, were these things said, or not? Who are we allowing into office, these days?

      Whether the point was to ridicule – well, if you get behind any of those quotes, then feel sensitive about it, I suppose it's time to ask yourself a few questions.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • sam

      PS – pointing out things that are ridiculous does not equal "wow, they must be threatened". Ugh, logic.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • freedom

      They see it differently. You're not on the board so you don't get to tell them how to run their ad campaign.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • Akira

      Politicians invite ridicule, and Palin isn't exempt. It's the nature of politics, for goodness sake.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      " they shouldn't need to talk about Palin or anyone in their message – they are clearly threatened by her message."

      Threatened by Sarah Palin – that's a laugh!

      Threatened by gullible acceptance of Christian right revisionism that we are a Xtian nation – certainly.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • freedom

      Why shouldn't they ridicule her? She's a joke.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • sam stone

      freedom: when christians stop trying to deny others their civil rights, get back to me.

      and, since you are talking about the origin of this nation, are you talking about owning other people, or about women or white men without property being able to vote? is that what you are talking about, sparky?

      March 4, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • Doobs

      Look up Madalyn Murray O'Hair for the answer to your question. She's just one example.

      I didn't ask you for the name of an atheist, I asked you what rights you have had taken away by atheism. You can still read your religion's holy book in school, you can still pray, no matter what religion you believe. It just can't be led by school administration.

      Instead of deflecting and dodging, just give me an example of a single right you've had taken away by atheism.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:06 am |
  7. sam

    Yeah, that's so much better/different. She often even misquotes herself.

    IDK, ask her about Paul Revere again. See if she gets it straight.

    March 4, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
  8. Rahul G.

    Ah, the God of the Inquisitions too?

    March 4, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
  9. 12ax7

    I knew i would have found Tom Tom and his baboon team over here lol

    March 4, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • sam

      F off, troll.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • 12ax7

      Hey Sam, on how many other comment boards are you on you parasite?

      March 4, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • sam

      Run home, sanctimonious little bitch.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • 12ax7

      Boo lol

      March 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Pete

      Your business must really suck for you to be spending so much time on this blog. You are probably not an employer but an employee stealing from your company.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • 12ax7

      @Pete

      Pete, it's not because i came here today that makes my business bad, that's the most lame comment you Atheists can come with? Try again and Good Luck Next Time.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • 12ax7

      By the way Pete it is very childish of you for using other people names to post your filthy comments. What's wrong? You're not man enough to post under your own nickname?

      March 4, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
    • Austin

      So why is business bad?

      March 4, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • Akira

      12ax7, do you typically just start making things up about people? Where did Pete post anything under a stolen handle?

      March 4, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • sam

      12ax7 – Random capitalization must make it seem more real to you. Plus, what's with all the delusional stolen name nonsense? Are you off your meds?

      March 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
  10. Moby Schtick

    What Palin did say "Go back" is a command. Much, much stronger than "should."

    March 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
  11. John the Historian

    The former Catholic now Pentecostal is just a quiitter. Her family values are well know. Hope she runs in 2016 with family values Newt. It will mean the end of the Republican party.

    March 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
  12. Rebecca

    What is left out here is that the Republican Primary clearly showed that all these candidates and their talk of God and Godliness amounted to nothing more than a scam of the religious crowd. All were known by their fruits... rotten to the core. Why are we arguing religion with pure con artists?

    March 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
  13. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Broadcast yesterday on Bill Moyer's program, (the whole show was excellent by the way)
    http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-fighting-creeping-creationism/

    I particularly like this observation (after 22 minutes in)

    "SUSAN JACOBY: The fact that the Const.tution didn't mention God still stands as - religious fundamentalists are constantly trying to explain this away, saying it was an accident. Like men like Adams and Washington and Madison did things with words by accident. As Ingersoll pointed out and is true today, the fact that there was no God in the Const.tution was debated at every state ratifying convention.

    It was said that, "Under this const.tution, an atheist, a Jew, or God help us even a universalist could become president," which was true in theory, but has actually not turned out to be true in practice. One thing that was true is you did not have to belong to a church throughout the 19th century to become president, as Ingersoll often spoke of Lincoln. And it very much shows what the att.tudes were during the Civil War, which was thought by many to be God's judgment. And Lincoln certainly could not have been an atheist, but he wasn't religious in any conventional sense.

    And anyway, this Protestant ministers came to Lincoln and they wanted to amend the Const.tution to replace "We the people" not with God, but with Jesus Christ. And Lincoln said, "Well, I will do what my conscience and my sense of my duty to my country command." And what his choice to do was absolutely nothing. And Ingersoll talked about this, about these secular traditions.

    March 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Well, I will do what my conscience and my sense of my duty to my country command."

      Where did Lincoln ever say that? I couldn't find it anywhere.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I looked for a second reference as well but haven't found one yet.

      It was an interesting observation. I'm not enough of a Lincoln scholar to know if it is apocryphal.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Here is one – The "Christian" amendment of 1863

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment

      March 4, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Google "Christian amendment" for more.

      The group pushing this agenda morphed into the National Reform Association. They are responsible for getting "In God We Trust" onto coinage.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Lycidas

      But where you able to find a source to say Lincoln actually said that line?

      March 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The anecdote is essentially factual. This was an interview and the quote by Ms. Jacoby (from memory) may not be verbatim. It may be paraphrased.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      More here – though not a Lincoln quote:
      http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/290/transcript

      Isaac Kramnick And then perhaps the most dramatic example occurs during the Civil War, when, as unbelievable as it seems, many Protestant ministers convened conventions to plead to amend the Constitution to put Jesus Christ and Christian government into the preamble to the Constitution.

      Ira Glass And their argument, you write, is basically, the reason why we got into this mess and now we're at war is because when we wrote the Constitution, God wasn't in the Constitution, and now God is basically punishing us for that.

      Isaac Kramnick Absolutely. And therefore, they proposed the Christian amendment which would change the preamble of the Constitution to, "We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor among the nations, and his revealed will as a supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      Ira Glass Now, how'd they do with that? You write that they did meet with President Lincoln.

      Isaac Kramnick They met with President Lincoln, who would have nothing to do with it. There was criticism from a large number of religious groups in the country. And it never got out of committee.

      Now just to put the final footnote to that story, five more times there would be a Christian amendment put before Congress, and every one of them failed. 1874, 1894, 1910, 1947, and 1954. And there was a kind of booby prize given in 1863 when this failed. And that booby prize was, of course, that "In God We Trust" was put on our money. A somewhat less sacred part of our tradition than the Constitution.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
  14. Lycidas

    Go Godless??

    Why? How about they focus on their next billboard by answering that question. Though it's always easier to tear down people than to build up on their own position.

    March 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • sam

      Turns out it's even healthier for you than going meatless.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Lol...bet that was an interesting study.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Akira

      I agree with the billboard's content; I disagree with that particular slogan. "Go Godless Instead" is every bit as divisive as religion tend to be.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
  15. eholl

    Given a chance Palin and the Conservative Republicans "would" force their version of christianity upon all of us. They also believe that they "should" do this. So, not so sure why the big deal is being made of this.

    March 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Given a chance Palin and the Conservative Republicans "would" force their version of christianity upon all of us."

      I disagree. Mostly because I have faith in our system of govt. No one is going to force any belief on you or anyone else. Sure, people may vote by how they believe but that is their right to. But for atheists or even non-Christians to fear over being made to abide by religious doctrine, they are just paranoid.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • eholl

      Then please explain to me why the conservatives main arguments against abortion and gay marriage are based on religion. Also, please explain to me why they believe that the ten commandments should be placed in schools and why they are passing laws in places like texas that make religious church leaders heroes in history textbooks. Don't tell me that we shouldn't be worried about it. Their entire social agenda is based upon their skewed version of the bible.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Then please explain to me why the conservatives main arguments against abortion and gay marriage are based on religion."

      I can't because not all conservatives based their arguments from religion.

      "Also, please explain to me why they believe that the ten commandments should be placed in schools and why they are passing laws in places like texas that make religious church leaders heroes in history textbooks."

      Some say that the commandments ( and the judeo-christian culture) are a part of our collective history and should be recognized. Some do think they should be there for religious reasons and those reasons don't work within the law.
      If the ppl you are referencing are heroes..what is the point again?

      "Don't tell me that we shouldn't be worried about it. Their entire social agenda is based upon their skewed version of the bible."

      I'm not saying don't be aware of them or their possible agendas. I just don't put them high on the list of govt worries.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • eholl

      Anyone that runs a megachurch should not be considered a hero. The Texas legislature intentionally picked a church leader as a hero to get their point across to the textbook companies that Christian leaders are heroic in the face of liberal godlessness in our modern society. Can't see how some of those commandments have anything to do with modern culture. If I could pick three of value to any society they would be – don't lie – don't steal -don't kill. The rest are strictly religious in nature. If it was three commandments I would be fine with that. However, I wouldn't want them posted on a rock tablet in front of the school or the courthouse. That perpetuates the myth of Moses delivering the message of god as written by god. No offense, but that seems like nonsense to me. I suppose there is common ground, but the radical religious christian right doesn't want to stand on the common ground. It is all or nothing and that is the problem.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Anyone that runs a megachurch should not be considered a hero."

      Well, if that is the only reason to be called a hero..I agree, they shouldn't be. But you are neglecting to name who this theoretical person is.

      "Can't see how some of those commandments have anything to do with modern culture."

      Well...I did say it may had to do with our collective historical culture.

      "No offense, but that seems like nonsense to me."

      Not offended at all. You are enti tled to your opinion as is everyone else.

      "but the radical religious christian right doesn't want to stand on the common ground."

      Most "radical" people rarely due. No matter the religion or lack thereof.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Believer

      eholl... Why can't I lie, steal, kill? Just because you don't want me too? 'No dear that dress doesn't make your butt look big.' If we can't kill plants or animals we're all going to get kinda hungry. So do you just decide what everybody owns or nobody owns. Ummm, it doesn't appear like you've worked through the details on this. Becides which the lieing stealing killing are all part of a Judeo Christian belief but good luck with that. I think your reasoning skills are letting you down.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Yep

      Because people have rights and stealing, killing, and so on infringe on those rights.

      Plants don't have rights. Go ahead and eat that broccoli.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
  16. Lycidas

    Well..at least they apologized.

    March 4, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
  17. Bob

    Our Civil laws have to comport with a higher law. God's law
    –Rick Santorum

    We would create law based on the God of the Bible
    –Sarah Palin

    How can I trust you with power if you don't pray?
    –Newt Gingrich

    Atheist translation
    -My godless laws will comport with my godlessness.

    -We should create law based on my godlessness.

    -I have godless wisdom to handle any situation. For positive influences of godlessness please look to the Soviet Union/N.Korea.

    Not offended by this billboard, on the contrary, sounds just frivolous
    Proof atheists are simpletons!

    March 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then how come only 1% of those in prison are atheists, Boob? And why do you and Doogie lie?

      How come the majority of abortions are had by women and girls who self-identify with a religious faith?

      March 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • eholl

      Seems to me that the simpleton is the one that doesn't question belief in something that can't be proven. Ahh the beauty of a flawless argument. Now that is true ignorance.

      March 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • sam stone

      hi bob: still on your knees, begging for salvation?

      March 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • bobk52

      Do not use the lord Bob name in vain!

      March 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Yepper

      1% in prison could do with willingness to lie to get a better chance for parole by the Christian right decision makers.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Agnostic

      1%? were did you get that number from? It is around 11% , get your facts checked. Who knows how many atheist prisoners are lying claiming to be Christian.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • vbscript2

      Or it could have to do with the fact that the "1%" thing is an internet myth. As for a majority of people seeking abortion identifying a religion, not everyone who identifies with a religion actually follows it. It's not hard for people identifying with a religion in the U.S. to outnumber atheists on just about any matter, as they outnumber atheists as a percentage of the population by about 9-to-1.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
  18. { ! }

    Go Godless Instead? We've been doing this for a long time. It was a secular decision to incinerate the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Genocide of Native Americans was a process set into motion by secular interests of government and business interests. Any secular laws that would affirm humanity are going to look a lot like the Ten Commandments (minus the first three, of course).

    March 4, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • sam stone

      harry truman was a man of strong faith, and he gave the go ahead for the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki

      March 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • eholl

      Seems to me that any Native American tribe that was in South American, Latin American, Mexico, and the Cariibean was subject to religious persecution by the Spanish. Become Catholic or die was the mantra of the Spaniards. Also, how about the wonderful Christian values on display in Africa. Come to church and we will build you a well for water. Don't come to church and you don't get a well. Gotta love the selective nature of your history arguments.

      March 4, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • sam

      {!}, would you like to be pwned a little more, or have you had enough today?

      March 4, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • TheRationale

      So what? Do you even know what secular means? Secular just means that something is without a religious basis. I mean the decision to get a haircut is secular. And notice how the worthwhile Commandments are entirely not unique to Christianity or Judaism. As if any society could have gotten to any appreciable point if it didn't already know that killing, stealing, and lying were bad?

      March 4, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
  19. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Why oh why are we still talking about Sarah Palin?

    David Silverman needs to go sit in the timeout corner for even mentioning her name – let alone misquoting her.

    March 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
  20. Akira

    To me, "should" is less damning than "would"; "would" shows that she would absolutely have tried to legislate religious belief into secular laws. But I am glad that a) the group apologized, and b) Ms. Palin will never get her wish.

    March 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      From the Huff Post:

      "According to Palin, the recent backlash against the National Day of Prayer is proof that some people are trying to enact a "fundamental transformation of America" and to "revisit and rewrite history" in order to shift the Christian nation away from its spiritual roots.

      Palins's advice: "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant - they're quite clear - that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

      "What in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to."

      The only people trying to rewrite and revisit history are the Christian apologists (like David Barton) who want to try to retroactively insert "God" into the Const.tution – where it was deliberately excluded by the founders.

      We may be a nation of (mostly) Christians but we are not a 'Christian nation'.

      March 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Given the absence of "God" in the Const.tution, this is a remarkably stupid comment:

      "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant – they're quite clear – that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments."

      Ms. Pailn, please go back to Wasilla and turn off the microphone.

      March 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • ME II

      A lousy quote to use in the first place.
      Does it mean that the founders would create laws based on the Bible or that if we followed the founders the we would?

      As usual, Palin makes very little sense and AA would have used a better quote. (sic)

      March 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      your second option I presume.

      Yes, AA would have been well served with a better quote – or better yet letting Ms. Palin fade into obscurity.

      March 4, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.