Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:30:58 PM
Hey, Evangelicals! Palin is not being “submissive”, so allow Obama/Biden to get elected because things will be so much better then! That’s what the Los Angeles Times wants us believe. Further down, I will discuss the attempt to paint her as a religious whacko. Here’s the article written by staff writer Teresa Watanabe. Fortunately, there is some balance in the article.
And many, like Ennis, see no conflict between Palin's candidacy and biblical teachings on women's roles.
Many say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.
Exactly.
Women do not need to stay at home if they are wives and mothers to be Biblically correct. The important thing is that the parents are raising the kids (not strangers), and how she respects and treats her husband. If that is all fine, there is nothing wrong with her being in public service.
Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics.
Okay, you go vote for the perfect evangelical. Good luck. Meanwhile, you’ll have deal with an Obama/Biden administration.
Palin may have taken center stage at the moment, but the evangelical Christian world has been buffeted for years by growing tensions between those who support egalitarian roles for men and women and those who promote "complementarianism." That's the view that God values men and women equally but granted them distinctly different roles.
It’s entirely possible to believe we have distinctly different roles, especially in marriage, and still have a wife/mother in public service.
A few days ago, the paper had an article by staff writer Stephen Braun talking about Palin’s “fundamentalists beliefs” in relation to her public policy.
First, they ascribe a belief in young-earth creationism to her. I’m not aware of how that would matter one way or another in breaking tie votes in the Senate.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
So he asked her. It wasn’t like she ran up to him and said “And I’m going to see to it that it is mandatory in the law that everyone agrees with me!” But the way – he’s a liberal blogger.
She has harnessed the political muscle of social conservatives and antiabortion groups, yet she did not push hard for a special legislative session on abortion, and she did not challenge a court ruling that allowed health insurance for same-sex partners of state workers.
So clearly she does not “cram her faith down the throats” of anyone else.
Palin has attended a number of prayer sessions with pastors and has quietly sought their guidance, but she is often mum on matters of faith in high-profile public forums.
Aren’t we told that Obama has done the same things? Yet I don’t hear this fear that Obama will mix his faith with his public policy.
We get it. We know there are people out there afraid of people who actually believe in God and that God is not unconcerned with our behavior. Only socialist women who are fine with slaughtering babies are acceptable to them.