I didn't know the arson was confirmed. The title of this thread is Palin's church burns, $1M in damage; Arson suspected
The first post isn't the end of the story.
You can take my word for it, but it takes far more time to find a link I read earlier in the day than it does for me to post.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/623876.html
Whoever torched Gov. Sarah Palin's home church
tried to start fires in several places around the building, the federal agency assisting in the investigation said Monday.
Accelerants were found in multiple locations on the outside of Wasilla Bible Church, including around entrances and exits, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The location of the accelerants is particularly disturbing when you also consider the time of night the fire was set and that fact that there were women and children STILL INSIDE.
Any church that has over a million dollars in damages, and is still standing,
The value of the damage is a testament to the severity of the fire.
with over 1,000 people who attend the service every Sunday in my book is really big (my church is much, much smaller)
They have four services. It's a large congregation, but it's hardly huge. When you speak of huge churches, you think of things like Lakewood Church or Saddleback Church with it's 22,000 attending members.
No, being religious is not being controversial - there were earlier threads here regarding the pastor and his beliefs regarding witches and that there was some controversy over some cleansing ceremony he did with Governor Palin.
So, you're speculating that because he might believe in talking in tongues, someone decided they wanted to light the church on fire and possibly burn the people inside to death?
Either way, this would be consistent with the crazy, hateful, leftist theory you were trying to dismiss.
Once again - isn't it better to 'wait and see' if indeed the arsonist is connected with the left?
Certainly. However, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable or inappropriate to speculate as the information concerning this crime is released.
And, you are right - if Obama's church was burnt by arsonists it would get bigger press. Couldn't that be a reflection of a change in circumstance?
No, it points to agenda. If Obama's church were burned, it's be a crime of race, not one of religion.
Most church burnings get a bit of coverage and then the coverage fades away.
That would be consistent with most crimes, however- see my last point. Racial crimes, crimes against minority, and crimes against groups with "special victimhood identifications" get addition press and media coverage. A hate crime against a large white church isn't given much interest.
Do you think if Lloyd Bentsen's church burned it would get any attention whatsoever? Political stars fade fast...
Lloyd Benten ran for Vice President in 1988. It's been 20 years, so the example is really very bad. To make it an even worse example, Bentsen was never associated or vilified in the press on the basis of his religion. So the example is just pitiful.
However, if a law office associated with John Edwards had been firebombed in December of 2000,
YEAH, I think it would have been a big deal in the media. It'd be a showcase for "right wing rage" or the result of "hateful talk radio hosts" or some other nonsense.