I found an interesting article today at the website Common Dreams. It was written by Juan Cole, whose website is entitled Informed Comment. The article is entitled, "What's the Difference Between Palin and Muslim Fundamentalists? Lipstick," and the subtitle was, "A theocrat is a theocrat, whether Muslim or Christian." It was originally published by Dr. Cole at Salon.com. I enjoyed reading it because Dr. Cole compares the faith of Sarah Palin to the faith of Muslim fundamentalists, and finds little difference. Dr. Cole is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern affairs.
Just to give an idea of what Dr. Cole said, these are a few of what I thought were the most important paragraphs,
"The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia, which allows abortion in the first trimester for a wide range of reasons. Classical Muslim jurisprudents differed among one another on the issue of abortion, but many permitted it before the "quickening" of the fetus, i.e. until the end of the fourth month. Contemporary Muslim fundamentalists, however, generally oppose abortion.
Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women, and the rationale in both cases is the same, a literalist religious impulse that resists any compromise with the realities of biology and of women's lives. Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.
Palin has a right to her religious beliefs, as do fundamentalist Muslims who agree with her on so many issues of social policy. None of them has a right, however, to impose their beliefs on others by capturing and deploying the executive power of the state. The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so. That is the point of her pledge to shape the judiciary. Such a theocratic impulse is incompatible with the Founding Fathers' commitment to tolerance and democracy, which is why they forbade the government to "establish" or officially support any particular religion or denomination.
There is much more to his essay that I'm sure you would enjoy, and I suggest you read the full article. The most striking line in his essay, to me, was this,
The most noxious belief that Palin shares with Muslim fundamentalists is her conviction that faith is not a private affair of individuals but rather a moral imperative that believers should import into statecraft wherever they have the opportunity to do so.
That concept, that a religion might try to impose its will on me, and those around me, is what drove me from the church originally, and does so again today. I am a person of faith, but I don't want that faith to be defined or required by the church, or especially the state. Echoing others, Sarah Palin frightens me, and so does John McCain. Work and vote for Barack Obama if you value your faith, whatever it might be, or your freedom to choose.