Imaginary Playmate

The mind of Sarah Palin is just too bizarre to figure out.  After trying to make sense of her autobiography, even the brilliant Andrew Sullivan has thrown up his hands:

I thought there might be some new facts in here that would illuminate my confusion and dispel the whole thing.

There is, rather, more barely-credible myth-making and descriptions of actions taken that really make no sense even on their own terms. But since we now know that Palin tells odd lies all the time even when she doesn't have to, we cannot hold her to common sense readings. The story she tells is largely incredible if you assume a rational actor at the center of it. But we do not have a rational actor in the center of it; we have an unbalanced, delusional, ambitious fanatic whose relationship to reality is entirely instrumental and can change from minute to minute. And so we cannot even say: that doesn't make sense so it probably isn't true. With Palin, anything is possible her world is so imaginary and magical. Much that makes sense with others may not make sense with her. And without external evidence, how can we tell which is which?

Clever women from Cleopatra on down have known that boobs and bravado will take you a long, long way:  as Mae West used to say, "Five will get you ten if you know how to work it."  She wasn't talking about the stock market. 

Which is, IMO, why Sullivan calls Palin "one of the most dangerous demagogues this country has seen in a long time."  Those straight boys would follow her anywhere.

But a new thought just occurred to me - isn't Palin the closest thing to a comic book/video game character you've ever seen in the flesh?  Trailing starbursts all the way . . . .

This Week in Religion

God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform - so the old hymn goes.  Trouble is, with all that mystery jazzing up the works, He doesn't seem to be getting the message across to everybody these days . . . maybe it's just a bad connection?  Hello, this is God, can you hear me now?

A couple of examples to show you what I mean about mixed messages.  The Church of Sweden, which was the state church in that country until 2000, has decided to allow gays and lesbians to marry, beginning November 1.  This follows the Swedish parliament's vote to allow same sex marriages in that country earlier this year. 

The Archbishop of Sweden, Anders Wejryd, says, "For my part, the right decision was taken, but I can empathise with the many who believe this has gone too fast."

But now conservative Lutherans in other parts of the world are upset. And the Church of England is upset with its sister church too - both maintain the Apostolic Succession, an important point to some folks.   And even though Sweden is a very liberal country by U.S. standards, some Swedes are foaming at the mouth:  in the comments section of the Swedish news site The Local, one guy wrote, "Come on guys, buy your tickets, we're moving away and never coming back to this damned atheist-ridden elk pen!"

Sigh.  You can't please everybody, not even in Sweden.

And on the other side of the world, a totally opposite response - still in the name of God.  Here is what the Most Reverend Anthony Sablan Apuron, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Agana, had to say in response to Bill 185, a proposal by the Legislature of Guam - a United States territory - to authorize domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Pastoral letter:  Marriage is holy because it puts sexual love at the service of life; homosexual acts are incapable of doing that. . . .  Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. . . . There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. . . . For lawmakers to vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

And lest anyone think the Archbishop is just mouthing off, he is careful to note that he is stating the official teaching of his worldwide outfit:

The Pastoral Letter is a faithful reflection of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church.  It is taken almost verbatim from the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding proposals to give legal status to homosexual unions.

But wait, it gets worse.  Domestic partnerships will, of course, destroy Western Civilization.  (God knows I am working night and day on that in my neighborhood . . . are you doing your part?)  But the Archbishop actually praises Islamic fundamentalists, not only for killing gays, but also for fighting against the immoral United States!  You don't believe an American prelate would say something like that?  Well here it is in black and white from the official Archdiocesan statement, "On the high stakes of Bill 185" (emphasis mine; click to enlarge):

Mmmm, so.  The Archbishop of Sweden says, Y'all come on in, you're as good as anybody, glad to have you in our church.

While the Archbishop of Agana says, Y'all get the hell away from here, you filthy pigs, how dare you think you're as good as the rest of us . . . I wish you were dead.

Now friends - which one is really upholding the deepest values of Western Civilization?

More importantly from a religious viewpoint - which one is closer to the spirit of the Prince of Peace?