Palin Criticized for Praying to God, Obama Given a Pass for Playing God
When Sarah Palin recently cited the legendary C.S. Lewis and the phrase “divine inspiration” in the same sentence during a Barbara Walters interview, liberal talking heads went apoplectic. MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe thought there were a lot of things Palin could have read besides C.S. Lewis if “divine inspiration” was the goal, and The View’s Joy Behar mocked her for reading books that were (supposedly) written for children.Such desperate and unprofessional commentary from Wolffe and Behar is undone by the fact that millions upon millions of people have read Lewis for divine inspiration throughout the years. Moreover, those reading him for such inspiration are adults, not children. (Sure, children do enjoy Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” but his eye-opening works like “Mere Christianity,” “The Great Divorce,” and “The Abolition of Man,” to name but a few, are so in depth that an adult must read them time and again to grasp everything that Lewis is saying.)
Of course, this really isn’t about whether Lewis wrote children’s books or not, nor is it about whether Palin reads such books. Rather, it is just one more attempt to prove how dumb Palin is, and thereby show the public how unfit she is for office.
The liberal talking heads want us to know that only a megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler or, even worse, an idiot like George W. Bush, would talk so openly about divinity or divine inspiration in this secular world. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews revealed as much just days after the 2008 Presidential Elections when he examined Palin’s claim that she was “putting [her] life in [her] creator’s hands” and would make a decision on a possible run in 2012 based on whether God opened the door for her or not.
Said Matthews: “We’ve been through [this] with President Bush… I mean, seriously, I mean God is telling her to run? And she’s saying it openly on a secular television show?…Talking about God in a political setting is troubling to a lot of people.”
Matthews also (falsely) raised the specter that Palin wanted a “theocracy” instead of a democracy in this country, all in an effort to scare the bejesus out of those whom he couldn’t offend by reciting Palin’s words.
For all the hullabaloo over Palin’s pursuit of divine inspiration and her prayerful consideration of a run in 2012, I still can’t find Matthews’ criticism of Obama’s willingness to speak of himself in messianic terms during the 2008 election cycle, nor can I find Behar and Wolffe’s for that matter. (Remember how Obama basked in Louis Farrakhan’s 2008 assertion that “the Messiah is speaking” when Obama talks? Yet commentators like Matthews, Behar, and Wolffe were all quiet as little mice.)
It’s clear that Bush’s reliance upon God, as well as Reagan’s reliance upon the same, bothered liberals because it allowed Bush and Reagan to base their actions and decisions upon a higher standard than governmental dictates and bureaucratic mish-mash. Palin now scares them because she not only takes her cues from that same higher standard, but actually admits to doing so.
Why can’t she just put up her children’s books and accept accolades that paint her in messianic terms, like a good Obama?
