Fake Sarah Palin Facebook site draws many fans

Over at Politics Daily, Emily Miller reports on the manipulative experiment undertaken by Alex Grossman, when he created a fake Sarah Palin page on Facebook to, according to Politics Daily,

...demonstrate his theory that Sarah Palin is using people who are easily duped for her own political gain. He says "those people" only care about "Jesus, salmon recipes and killing moose."

What continues to strike me is the condescending arrogance that people like Mr. Grossman demonstrate toward conservatives in general and Palin supporters in particular (while at the same time, ironically, complaining that conservatives are so judgmental, and should more open to civil engagement). Here's just a sampling of Mr. Grossman's less-than-generous attitude to toward those who see something in Palin that they resonate with:

Grossman was much more outspoken about his agenda when Politics Daily interviewed him by phone on Friday. He said he made the fake page to show that "Palin is using these Moral Majority, holy rollers who are uneducated and lower-middle class for her own power."

..."She is enflaming hatred like was done in Fascist Germany – go after the uneducated, lower class to gain political power."

He says he is not religious himself and strongly opposes people who vote for religious, social or values reasons because that "violates the separation of church and state."

Grossman says that people who support Palin because she believes in God should "go back to their knitting clubs and pancake breakfasts" and not be involved in politics.

Speaking of "enflaming hatred"...

The bottom line is, we'll never reach resolution on any of the issues facing this country unless all of us (on both sides of the philosophical aisle) attempt less condescending arrogance and more generosity toward one another. This manipulation by Mr. Grossman hardly contributes toward that end (an end, that I assume--perhaps incorrectly--that he too would desire). Ms. Miller rightly points that out in her own summation.

Grossman, though, is not trying to be funny, and he doesn't claim to be. He has a radical, left-wing agenda.

In my view, he preyed on the innocence and honesty of people to further his own gains, and now fame.... 

Comments

[Eric Page]

I always thought that the separation of Church and State was because the founding fathers had just fled from a lack of religious freedom at the hands of their government. So the separation was meant to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around. This is pretty obvious because of how often God is mentioned in things like out National motto (In God We Trust) and the pledge of allegiance (...one Nation, under God). Anyway, I know that wasn't the main point of the story but I've seen many people use that as leverage to get religion out of the places they don't want it.

[andy]

Come now Eric, surely you don't think the founding fathers made the national motto as "In God We Trust", and wrote "under God" in the pledge do you?

[Derek Kirk]

Both of those little extras went mainstream government in the 1950s. They had everything to do with the paranoid Cold War climate and nothing to do with our 'founding fathers'. It was more about being overtly distinct from the 'godless' Communists than anything else.

I think evangelicals get confused about separation of church and state. I remember in the 80s and 90s when everybody was worked up about getting prayer into or out of schools. People were appalled that administrators could no longer lead prayers in school, but can you imagine what it would've been like if they'd led anything but the most conservative, midwestern-style prayer?

What if the principle of the middle school used the PA to chant Buddhist mantras, or if classes were interrupted for daily calls to prayer? Those students who wish to participate unroll their prayer rugs and bow to Mecca; those who don't just keep quiet ... The people getting worked up about this issue only wanted prayer in school if it was a prayer to the god they endorsed.

What I mean is, separating church and state is more about keeping church out of government than keeping government out of churches. Honestly, as long as you pay your taxes and don't broach political topics from the pulpit, the government leaves churches alone. Shouldn't churches do the same and keep their fingers (and rhetoric) out of government?

I know I'm veering pretty far from the topic of John's post, but I think it's worth checking ourselves before we whole-heartedly welcome religious rhetoric from those who govern us. Be skeptical, even critical, of it. I am extremely wary of politicians who talk about Jesus too much.

[Eric Page]

Oops. I never came back to see other comments until now. Maybe it's too late to respond, but I will anyways.

Andy, of course the founding fathers didn't write any of those. But the fact that they are there is evidence of which direction separation of church and state was supposed to run. If it was supposed to be to "keep anything religious out of anything Government", how did they get there?

Although it's true that "In God We Trust" didn't because the official motto until the 1950's, it was being used on money in the 1860's. Even thought this was several decades after the US was founded, I think the sentiment was still close to that of the founding fathers