He's nitpicking from his atheistic worldview. Shame on Palin for once saying creationism should be taught in schools --and now saying both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools. Was this really contradictory on her part? Hardly, but to Hitchens it was. The two statements are absolutely compatible. I bet the Republican base would mostly agree with either statement--considering that most Americans still do not believe that evolution is proven. Science "facts" are supposed to be observeable today, and you can't see any creatures transitioning out of their family today. Besides, no one except the blind atheists can imagine something as complex and beautiful as life and this planet evolving from nothing without a living intelligence behind the process.
Patrick Henry College has the right idea: students should understand both views of origins in order to be "educated." Also, both views have their religious aspects --their presuppositions that cannot be proven by scientific method. Both require the element of faith to believe.
He accuses Sarah of "saying anything for a cheap burst of applause." I couldn't find any evidence of this in his article. He speaks of her "enraged core constituency." Of course, he means the Religious Right --as if we could lay claim to more anger than these atheists!
He said she "hears voices speaking to her of spiritual warfare."
I'll bet, ten to one, she didn't say she "hears voices." But as for spiritual warfare, it's right there in the Bible --and all the Bible believers in the US believe the following from Ephesians 6 is good advice, truth:
11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Spiritual warfare? Yes, in deed. Jesus experienced it too when Satan tried to tempt Him.
People who hate believers in God and Christ and what they believe are on the wrong side of the spiritual warfare.
Then Hitchens rants about her grandson's father and the fact that Sarah put him in the spotlight, "a fit husband for her daughter and an example to errant youth in general."
Well, what was she supposed to do? They were supposedly in love and having a baby --and the media was having a field day with her teen pregnancy. As parents do, Sarah and her husband hoped for the best, that this lemon could turn out to be lemonade. That the high school sweethearts could end up living happily ever after --as Sarah and Todd have, so far. But boyfriend's family was not as stable or ethical as Palins' --involved as his mother was in some drug problem. We don't know what happened, but Sonny Boy has been busy proving that love and respect won't work on a heel. I respect the Palins for trying --for embracing their daughter's choice, though the teen pregnancy was an embarrassment.
One wonders if Hitchens has children and if they never make mistakes --and what they would say about HIS family if his private life became public --as politicians' family life always does --at least some version of their family life! Whether it's a whitewashed snow job --or a smear --depends on who the politician is. If it's a republican, the liberal media will do what they can to discredit --as Hitchens does so lamely in this poorly reasoned report on the so-called GOP Palin Problem.
The example of the teen pregnancy was that it was OK to carry a teen pregnancy to term; a teen couple could marry and parent with family support; a young father COULD stand by his woman and be responsible --and most importantly, the babies deserve to live -whether they have Down's Syndrome or lousy fathers and mothers who made mistakes.
I don't think of Sarah as intellectual or eloquent enough to be president and her voice lacks the mellifluous quality of a politician or a con artist. But do I think she could do the job well enough? Yeah. I think she could draw good people around her and we'd be SAFER than we are with Obama --who lacks depth himself. Did I respect her for quitting the Alaska governorship? Not really. I haven't heard an explanation that really holds water for me.
But Hitchens shows his bigotry for all the people she represents in this little piece of his --people who believe in God, Christ, Bible, spiritual warfare, Satan, etc.
He cites the time Sarah's church had an African speaker who tells that his village improved once they got rid of some witches practicing witchcraft. There are practitioners of dark arts in foreign countries --and some very spooky beliefs and practices. I recommend the book "The Beautiful Side of Evil" to Mr. Hitchens.
Besides, just because your church has a certain speaker doesn't mean everyone who attends that church shares the view of everyone who steps into the pulpit - (Remember Obama's minister of 20 plus years with whom he claimed not to agree???) especially from foreign churches where the culture is different and the spiritual experiences more dramatic --even miraculous. Who are we to tell foreign people that their perspective of what God has done in their midst is erroneous? Who are we to tell a blind man that he really can't see after Jesus heals him?
Who is Christopher Hitchens to bad mouth a good Christian lady like Sarah Palin? Talk about "spiritual wickedness in high places"....
He admitted that his was a "not so humble opinion." Well, he got that right!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible